Does every MOS/Rate need the same level of fitness? What about an MOS/Rate specific PT test or events?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 03:32:10 -0500

I really hope this happens. Not all MOS require the same level of Fitness. I wouldn't use it for an promotion packet against all MOSs as it wouldn't be the same for everyone but I would like to see additional events that address some of the specific tasks that are measures of fitness for some MOSs. For infantry I would add pull ups or even a ruck. If you were a mechanics you might have to be able to hand carry a certain weight over a short distance. I would let senior NCOs in that MOS decide what they would require. The Army should not make every MOS have a different tst. This would impossible. But an example of how this would look is that any one in combat arms or in a combat arms unit would be required to perform pulls and a ruck. If you were in a field medical or medical support unit you may have to do a body drag.

*****************************EDITED*************************************
Be advised. The standard should not be LOWERED. The base APFT with 180 should not be lowered. I think it should be higher. I think it should be especially higher for some areas, such as the combat arms. What this would look like is using the standard test for everyone but adding an additional event. So if you are a soldier that doesn't much physical labor you wouldn't be effected by this. If you were a combat engineer in the 82ND you would be required to a bit more.

Army Looking at New MOS-Specific PT Tests

The Army wants to create physical fitness tests aimed at ensuring soldiers can meet the challenges of their jobs in wartime.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 3:42 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 03:42:51 -0500

Adjutant General (42 series) PT Test:

Endurance event - Type 3,000 words as fast as you can without stopping
Strength - Unload an LMTV full of office equipment to a building 500m away because the driver was considerate enough to park next to the building
Agility - Adjutant Bugle requiring speed walk without running from back of a BDE size element to the front.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 4:27 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 04:27:32 -0500

i think not. look, in battle, you are all green. between the years 2002 and 2008, parachute rigger companies were used as CLP escorts all over Iraq. during 2008, an NBC platoon was depoyed for that same mission. they had a few admin and mechanics in their trucks. physical standards need to be met. it is hard hearing myself say that, since these days, im not as good as i once was. but as a Soldier, i must be willing to get in that truck and fight. and if the truck goes down, move out on foot. i dont ever see myself kicking in doors and rucking 20KM to get to an enemy location with 50 lbs of crap in my backpack. but since one day i may need to move out just a little, why not do this annual requirement. i dont think you should be able to do less and get the same pay, because you push paper for a living, or pack parachutes, or fix trucks, or shoot people.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 6:22 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 06:22:35 -0500

I don't fully agree with that notion. Some MOSs have low lifting demands while other MOSs have higher lifting demands and strenuous activities, leaving the door open for argument if one MOS would have to support another in a garrison, field, and/or deployment environment. They may run into a mantra of "I don't have to do that, that's not covered in my MOS." I think a set standard should be enforced, then the "PT studs" are pushed harder, and those not as physically fit are pushed a little harder to excel. I'm not saying everyone push themselves to Ranger or Green Beret, you know "break yourself off" type standards, simply push to excel in any exercise regimen put forward.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jan 8 at 2015 9:01 AM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 09:01:31 -0500

But, but, but everyone is just like infantry right?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 9:43 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 09:43:24 -0500

Combat Camera soldier ruck 12 miles with full combat load and documentation gear. Wait, COMCAM does this already.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 9:45 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 09:45:15 -0500

On a serious note, all soldiers should be able to do 8 pull ups and ruck 12 miles under
4 hours.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 9:46 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 09:46:24 -0500

I love the concept of MOS + unit based PT standards and have lobbied big Army about it for years, even before I joined the military. I was in Bosnia as a civilian when they lost an Arabic crypto linguist because he couldn't pass the run (he made height/weight with no tape). Do not picture an interpreter who rides on convoys. He sits at a desk all day, but more relevant, his AIT plus language school was the better part of two years and he was going to be put out short the obligation he incurred for his schooling. I wrote as a taxpayer that I paid for this guy to have a skill set that did not include running, and now my money was being wasted. The Army didn't care and followed regs. That was 2004/5 when we needed this guy.

I have written many times here about the tired argument that at any moment anyone could end up in combat. I beg you to look at the stats. For every non-combat arms person who found themselves in combat, there were 1,000 who did not (rounding) to include many who enter and leave the military never even deploying. If you back out the number who did not belong to combat arms based units, now you are entirely grasping at straws.

I envision several levels of PT requirements:
-Special Forces
-Ranger/Special Purpose Units
-Combat Arms
-Non-Combat Arms, but assigned to Combat Arms Unit
-Non-Combat Arms
(and maybe even a sixth category for JAG, dental, psychologists, etc)

Soldiers should be able to take higher level standards and be rewarded for such (like we do with the German Armed Forces Badge). The lowest bracket should not be vastly lower than the next higher bracket because you do not want to set people up where they cannot have career mobility because they have not been held to a high enough fitness standard. I also think that at the "Combat Arms" level, events could be added to address specific needs of an MOS.

In any event, we should be focused on what our shortcomings have been over the last decade. In every analysis I have read about OEF/OIF, I have never once heard that the problem involved lack of Soldier physical fitness. I would love to see this matter put to bed so we can focus on developing the kind of professional force we will need to face the kinds of threats we are likely to see in the future (high tech, social media savvy, cyber-based enemies). More push-ups, adding pull-ups, crossfit, will NOT get us there, but will surely deter the kinds of Soldiers we need from even joining our force.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jan 8 at 2015 10:20 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:20:58 -0500

Id love to see it happen, I doubt it will.
It makes too much sense. And would add some additional issues .. If a SM is MOS A, but working in MOS B, which PT test do they take?
If a unit has several MOS in it, say a CAV HHC, you would have to be able to track, organize, staff and execute dozens of different PT tests standards.
And you would need new equipment which costs money service do not have.. TAS-C has lots of "rubber Duck" rifles for the 11 series MOS PT test... but they would have to buy "Rubber laptops" for the Admin MOS, "Rubber O2 Tanks" for the Med folks and "Rubber food" for the food service MOS PT test.. though, well never mind, units could just send those PT testers to the DFAC and get like items from the dinner menu (I kid, I kid....lol)

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 10:38 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:38:18 -0500

I wonder how it would be for MI soldiers...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 11:53 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:53:21 -0500

How about grade specific PT?

Seriously, can you imagine being an HHC 1SG with MOS specific tests--you'd have to manage 20, 40, or more, different tests, twice a year.....

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 8 at 2015 12:20 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 12:20:49 -0500

I don't like this at all. This logic is a slippery slope and I don't agree with its implications for the broader force. Then why not also just lower marksmanship requirements for certain support MOS's that are least likely to need to use their weapon? For example, people who go 12 months on a deployment without ever leaving the FOB one time? Why should they have as high a threshold to meet for their MOS with their weapon, when their weapon skills almost don't matter?

I just don't like the idea of compromising standards as fundamental as physical fitness.

Response by MSG D Cebo made Jan 8 at 2015 1:05 PM

MSG D Cebo — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:05:54 -0500

NO... ALL Will have the same level of Fitness stop not a topic!!

Response by SFC Wesley Arnold, Jr made Jan 8 at 2015 1:15 PM

SFC Wesley Arnold, Jr — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:15:47 -0500

Aside from all the jokes and pokes I'd like to take against other MOS's ... This would only be benifcial if it was (1) remove from All Promotions/ NCOERs/ ORERs
(2) It would need to be set a BDG Level based on METT ... During periods OIF / OEF FA units were retrained to assist the large number of required MP units.

You say that it should be more MOS specific; how ever, during a convoy ambush or FOB attack everyone becomes a "Trigger Puller" which in its self is none MOS specific.
(My thought would be) If too much of a standard separates of one MOS from another you are likely to have both non physically and non deplorable Soldiers. Add too a BDE level Standard to evation for high impact / ready deployable unit

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Jan 8 at 2015 1:33 PM

Cpl Peter Martuneac — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:33:33 -0500

I don't like it. I think it breaks down cohesion across the Army and loses the spirit of that old slogan "Army of One". Maybe y'all should do what the Marine Corps did and add a Combat Fitness Test for infantry MOS's.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 1:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:43:25 -0500

You bring up an excellent point of the 'same level of fitness', but at the same time, it must be a type of fitness. I'm a 46 Series, a Military journalist, and the joke for us is "What are we going to do? See how many shutter snaps and quotes we can write in two minutes?"

The honest truth is that the military level of fitness should not be lessened or changed from a standard. We all understand that our jobs are different. We understand that the physical and mental endurance are different as well. But, the core idea is the minimum level of fitness and strength that we all possess. Take away that basic level and the functionality of a unit comprised of several different MOS is going to have issues.

I am on board for testing and training MOS skills, but we are all rifleman first, and need to keep those standards in place.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 1:51 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:51:21 -0500

How about scoring based upon MTOE or unit? This would mitigate the headache of various MOS standards within a unit. That means that all personnel assigned by MTOE to an infantry company would have to complete a different standard than those assigned to the BSB.

Response by LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® made Jan 8 at 2015 1:52 PM

LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:52:47 -0500

Both sides make really good points. My concern is however that we saw in some cases (rare I admit) when they are put in a situation that requires them to be in physical shape. Cooks, admin and finance people all had to defend their post when they were ambushed.

maybe the army should outsource jobs that don't require physical aptitude? I can see some resentment within the ranks that this soldier is on a different standard. Doesn't have to do the same thing, and I have seen different standard tear apart otherwise good units.

Even if MOS stick to one unit, there will be times that they will be opconed to another unit that doesn't follow that which will potentially create animosity. In addition, any branch and rank can be a CSM, 1SG. If you can't do PT at that high of a rank, I think it will be difficult to get the respect you need.

Response by SMSgt Judy Hickman made Jan 8 at 2015 2:06 PM

SMSgt Judy Hickman — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 14:06:23 -0500

I do not believe all MOSs or AFSCs need the same level of fitness. The AF has decided to have a baseline PT that applies to all members. Each AFSC can set their own requirements for their career field to ensure that the member's upon entrance are able to accomplish certain requirements. One example, is a few years ago, the EOD AFSC changed their entry requirements because they were having too many people unable to complete the course (due to the heavy suits/endurance) & if the member's are unable to maintain the qualifications to stay in the career field, then they will be medically boarded and hopefully allowed to cross train to another career field. I've seen this with security forcers members cross training to less physically tasking career fields in the medical field.

I personally do not feel we need different PT for different AFSCs, we can control the needs for different levels of physical requirements by maintaining solid entry/retention requirements.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 2:49 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 14:49:25 -0500

The military still needs to maintain it's minimum set physical requirements. True not all MOS/AFSC/Rate are equal. But if special units or infantry choose to go farther in their standards good for you. But some need to loose the mentality I'm only behind a desk so I can slack. At least show your character and commitment has the will to be successful. And that includes the minimum requirements in all aspects.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 3:36 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 15:36:33 -0500

All soldiers should be held to the same standard regardless of their MOS. The current pt test is a measure of overall fitness and should not be altered to a specific measure of fitness for specific jobs.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 8 at 2015 4:08 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 16:08:29 -0500

Every Marine a rifleman.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 4:21 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 16:21:17 -0500

Are you talking about the same test, but with different standards per MOS? In reserve units with several types of MOS, such as training units, the logistics would suck.

I also wonder about a soldier who is no longer active in a particular MOS. This happens a lot in reserves. Should a field arty SFC who is working Ops/S3 be tested the same as a field arty PSG in an active artillery unit?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 5:40 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:40:36 -0500

The headline made me think the APFT standards might be lowered for some specialties, but after reading the article, I'm thinking some jobs will have to do extra stuff.

I have long thought that the company clerk, for example, does not need to have the same level of fitness as an infantryman, a Ranger, a Special Forces Soldier.

It will be interesting to see if this comes to anything.

Response by SFC Michael Jackson, MBA made Jan 8 at 2015 6:08 PM

SFC Michael Jackson, MBA — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 18:08:05 -0500

The military maintains a "next man or woman up" program where service members have to be ready to take up the fight at any time, and not necessarily you're specialty. Don't think we need MOS specific test because the current test offers a fitness-level range.
Regardless of MOS, a SM should be able to pass the minimum baseline for basic skills such as rucking, carrying ammunition, manning crew-served weapons, reacting to an ambush, carrying a wounded battle buddy or wingman, and other tactics.
Also, support MOSs often are assigned, embedded, or attached to combat MOSs. You have to able to keep up, pull your weight, often work out of your MOS. Being support, to be respected you must be at least as good as the combat MOSs. Often, you need to be better!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 6:23 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 18:23:09 -0500

It sounds like another way to waste money.
How would they figure out the requirements for support MOSs like 88(K-L-M-N), 25U, 74D?

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2015 8:24 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 20:24:11 -0500

The Army should have a standard like it does. Specific MOSs or organizations should then be able to make their standards higher based on the difficulty or requirements of the job.

The 75th Ranger Regiment does this and it works well to keep all Rangers at a minimal fitness level.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 2:09 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 02:09:07 -0500

I can see this for cutters. If you're a surgeon, I really don't care about your 2 mile run time.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 12:09 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:09:18 -0500

No. I completely disagree with this. We are all soldiers first and should be held accountable to the exact same standards...in the blink of an eye your buddy could drop and all of a sudden your "MOS" changes completely.

Response by Sgt Jason West made Jan 9 at 2015 12:33 PM

Sgt Jason West — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:33:48 -0500

Everyone should be able to pass the basic test(s). I believe in the Corps now they have the Combat Fitness Test (CFT) along with the Physical Fitness Test (PFT).

Now on top of those I can see specific tests for specific MOSs that may require it, but no standards should be below the standard tests.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Jan 9 at 2015 1:16 PM

SGT James Elphick — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:16:09 -0500

I think the old Army adage "You can add to but you can't take away" applies here. I think there still needs to be a service wide PT test that everyone has to take but if the service deems it necessary (as Lt. Rosa pointed out for AFSOC) then the option to ADD additional requirements for an MOS could be a good thing. I know in the infantry a score of 60 in any event on the PT is considered failing though in most of the Army that is enough to pass. So there is some measure of it already in place.

While we are on the discussion though we should probably look at updating the PT test to better reflect the actual strengths and stamina needed in combat. I'm not convinced that push-ups, sit-ups, and a 2 mile run accurately reflect combat ready fitness standards.

I also think though that to be assigned to a BCT in this day and age there should not only be additional, more rigorous PT standards but also increased training to ensure that all soldiers in the Brigade are proficient in handling the threats encountered down-range. But this is a different discussion.

Response by SPC David S. made Jan 9 at 2015 1:27 PM

SPC David S. — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:27:49 -0500

I don't know about this LT. As every member in the Army is a soldier there are some basic skills that one learns and needs to know. Also I think this could cause some dissension within the troops. If sh!t gets behind the wire the element of being fit and able to engage the enemy is still there. I think this is the wrong direction in IMHO. Certainly in my MOS of 19D I wanted to be a fit as possibly as it made my job easier. Reshaping the Army to the "lazy" generation is not a fix it is a hack to the much greater problem in society.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 9 at 2015 2:13 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:13:05 -0500

I think that the Army has to adopt the same attitude as the Marines and every soldier has to be prepared to be an infantryman. Thus, all should qualify at the same level of physical standards.

Once upon a time, those in the rear with the gear might never even hear a shot fired in anger. They performed vital and useful services that helped the infantryman at the front defeat the enemy. Of course, in those bygone days, the front was often very distant.

However, with the advent of modern warfare, including insurgencies and terrorism, every base camp perimeter is a front line and conflict may erupt in the most distant rear areas. Indeed, many of today's enemies avoid the grunts and canon cockers to attack the rear almost exclusively.

No, everyone in uniform had better keep a helmet and gun handy and be prepared to use it. And, they better be physically fit to serve as an infantryman on a moments notice.

Response by SGT Allison Churchill made Jan 9 at 2015 2:54 PM

SGT Allison Churchill — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:54:40 -0500

I don't think the people who fire at American troops give a rats' ass what that person's MOS is.

In addition, it seems like the people with more physically demanding jobs already do more physically demanding training--even if there isn't a test proving that.

Response by SPC Daniel Bowen made Jan 9 at 2015 3:49 PM

SPC Daniel Bowen — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:49:15 -0500

With everyone giving valid points, I would have to agree in the long haul that it would be beneficial to the Army as a whole to have different standards for PT. Now the charts would change for promotion points but that isn't rocket science. Honestly if we were to keep it the same standard all around, I'd raise it. A 180 on PT test is a joke if you're between the ages of 18-35. It doesn't matter if you sign up to be a clerk or a grunt. If shit hits the fan and the bastards are in the wire, you need to be physically and mentally tough. If you can't keep up with the fight, then you're a problem and in big one. You're better off passing your ammo off to someone who can and will keep up. The cold hard truth is there are many soldiers I saw or worked with in overseas bases and if something bad happened, I would not want them to watch my back because I could not trust their physical ability to help me if needed.
Now with that being said, having separate standards per MOS can cause issues such as that, BUT raising the minimum standards for combat oriented or attachment MOS's from 180 to say 240 (example) ONLY benefits the unit as a whole. Higher standards met allows a more effective fighting force, boosts unit pride, success mentality, etc, etc. Some jobs in the military would never deploy or even see a tracer fired from the enemy. It is kind of a buzz kill to see certain needed people to be bounced due to not making a set of push ups but their job is mission essential but never takes you in the field.
Raising the standards also breeds a "old school" class of soldiers. Having pride in serving your country is great, but to be apart of a particular job or unit, there is more pride and success that way. Some think something like a PT standard is just a small change, but it's a piece of creating a greater and more effective military unit. It's a small piece, but a necessary piece.
Lets keep it simple: Should a grunt who barely passes the PT be in the field when his lack of physical abilities have a higher risk of being a hinder on his unit? No, that should not be the case. As a team you can try to improve those individuals, but even with help they can still lose that care. And passing the minimum still keeps them in the job when instead you can find someone else who would meet the higher standards and be more effective in the long run.

Response by SGT Tamara Triplett made Jan 9 at 2015 5:10 PM

SGT Tamara Triplett — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 17:10:50 -0500

For the APFT no but for unit Pt yes. As a medic we did litter carries, and different manual carries for pt all the time. Fireman carry races were always fun.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 7:31 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 19:31:24 -0500

Ok someome needs to stop tapping the GFI Fairy, this is a stupid idea.
What's a clerk going to do, run around with a box of files? Bench press a computer monitor?
Mechanics will have to tighten 50 bolts in two minutes.
Come one!

Response by CW3 Eddy Vleugels made Jan 9 at 2015 8:49 PM

CW3 Eddy Vleugels — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 20:49:21 -0500

I would say that there has to be a basic APFT standard that every member has to pass; it is OK for any specific MOS or specialty to have higher standards than the basic APFT.

Response by 1SG Nick Baker made Jan 9 at 2015 9:00 PM

1SG Nick Baker — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 21:00:59 -0500

Will they get lower pay?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 9:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 21:03:38 -0500

There should be one standard male and female. End of story the military is not for every man or women. You receive 2 fails in a row you get put on probation and have a choice of going to a camp to work on your physical ability and PT and if you still can't pass. Your gone. No exception it will include all lvls of officers and NCO alike
However what I think should happen will never happen because there is to many politics and to many people that would complain about it not being fair

Response by 1SG Rich Martinez made Jan 10 at 2015 12:35 AM

1SG Rich Martinez — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:35:58 -0500

The standards should be the same for everyone regardless of MOS, rank, active, guard, or reserve. If you give everyone different standards then the Military will look and act like a soup sandwich.

Response by SFC Nikhil Kumra made Jan 10 at 2015 9:11 AM

SFC Nikhil Kumra — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:11:11 -0500

The Army could have approached their downsizing plan almost solely on fitness levels. We know so much today than we did ever before on not only what a fit, healthy body is, but also how to get there. The Army, and perhaps the entire US Military, IMO, has always been decades behind understanding. Even the food in our chow halls has the potential to be awful with all of the unhealthy options available.

With that, one standard, a hard standard, that involves a test of strength and mobility, and better food in the chow hall would not only reduce numbers significantly, but also in the long hall reduce health expenses.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Jan 10 at 2015 9:22 AM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:22:24 -0500

very bad idea one army one standard.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Jan 10 at 2015 9:41 AM

SGT Richard H. — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:41:18 -0500

We kind of already do (or did) have MOS specific "PT tests", but not quite in the way mentioned. Typically in an Infantry Bn, while there is no real official recourse for not doing so, the 'minimum' passing score for the APRT (APFT in my day) is higher than the 180 required by the big Army...I've seen as much as 270 be the expected minimum. You won't get chaptered if you aren't there, but you'll definitely find yourself working harder.
Also, there are MOS specific tasks...road marching, for example. Most (if not every) Infantry unit I was in did 12 road marches at least a couple times a month, sometimes even weekly. Obstacle courses. Most posts have them, not many units use them. I've been in units that did, regularly, and your time mattered. Good stuff for an Infantry guy, but maybe not so important for a pay clerk. I'm sure there are other examples I can't think of right now.

Just my opinion, but I do kind of agree about the "MOS specific PT test" but maybe not so much in the way mentioned here, which I think would turn into a DA designed farce. Doing it at unit level, and based on mission specific needs works well, and seems more appropriate.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 12:53 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:53:55 -0500

Bad idea

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 12:51 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:51:08 -0500

bad idea.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 12:51 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:51:30 -0500

bad idea

Response by SPC Stewart Smith made Jan 10 at 2015 4:59 PM

SPC Stewart Smith — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:59:33 -0500

If anything, the standards should be raised.
180/300 is failing in every aspect of life except Army PT.
And I don't know if the PT test has changed at all, but it was pushups, situps, and run when I was in. This is a terrible PT test.
It should contain weight equivalent to that of an average soldier. I may be able to run 2 miles in 11minutes, but if I can't carry my battle out of harms way, what good am I?

Response by SFC Aaron Finley made Jan 10 at 2015 5:10 PM

SFC Aaron Finley — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:10:23 -0500

The Dictionary says, "Physical fitness can be defined as a general state of health and well-being or more specifically as the ability to perform aspects of sports or occupations. Physical fitness is generally achieved through correct nutrition, exercise, hygiene and rest. It is a set of attributes or characteristics seen in people and which relate to the ability to perform a given set of physical activities".

My opinion is regardless of what organization a person is in I think everyone should have some form of fitness. Being healthy is not a bad thing.

Even being 1 pound overweight can present problems for anyone. Obesity can help explain some conditions people may have, such as: High blood pressure, Heart disease and stroke, Type 2 diabetes, High cholesterol, Joint problems caused by extra weight, Trouble breathing, including sleep apnea, in which you briefly stop breathing while you're asleep and Gallstones.

Being healthy is GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 6:35 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:35:07 -0500

Seems like an "You can add to, but can't take away" situation. Keeping the same standard in all MOS's I think is needed. In more strenuous jobs, maybe add a ruck march, pull-ups, swim, etc...
Beacause what would come next? Different grooming standards in garrison? Conduct based on MOS?
Doesn't seem like a good idea especially with people having multiple MOS's or people that intend to switch MOS's and be competetive in promotions and advancement.
Just seems like lowering the bar.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 10:14 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 22:14:39 -0500

How is this even a question? The Army developed a base line, but it's up to leaders to further develop the unit PT program so their Soldiers can perform their mission.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 2:59 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 02:59:03 -0500

I feel that that is an awful idea. As a 91 series I would hate to see what our pt test would consist of.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 5:24 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 05:24:58 -0500

Before reading any other replies, I think the Infantry, SF, Rangers, Delta and Units that directly work with infantry should be held to a higher standard, perhaps PT closer to the 85% percentile...when the rest of the Army can get away with 60%...which is a joke.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 5:30 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 05:30:33 -0500

A combat fitness test seems appropriate for Infantry units seems legit, hell even the Marines are doing it...we can't let them have all the glory.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 8:16 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 08:16:12 -0500

I like the idea of a MOS specific PT test but I think problems will pop with the set up of those PT tests. For example if a BN is mostly made up of 11Bs then the unit will have no problem getting a PT test set up for them. But most units only have 1-2 74Ds and if their PT test is different then setting it up will be a pain. They also won't be able to take a PT test the same day as any other MOSs. I think this would cause problems for any 1SG who is trying to set up PT test dates.

Response by 1SG Pete Marcell made Jan 11 at 2015 10:35 AM

1SG Pete Marcell — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:35:11 -0500

So if you're in an HHC will you have to run and tabulate different tests and scores for each MOS? "Infantry here! Armor over here! Admin line up over there. Light Wheel Mechanics there. Chaplin??? Well Sir, do what you want I suppose."

The practicality is impossible. Also remember, at the core, we are all Soldiers. In combat the enemy doesn't ask what your MOS is, they just shoot or blast you. Remember Jessica Lynch? She was "just" a supply clerk. As a Soldier one must be proficient in all aspects of soldiering, and have a base level of field-craft, one of which is good fitness.

Response by 1SG Pete Marcell made Jan 11 at 2015 10:37 AM

1SG Pete Marcell — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:37:15 -0500

As a 1SG I want to be tested on my coffee cup holding endurance. I am second to none!

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 11:14 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:14:51 -0500

When a deployment comes around the possibility of a base mostly smaller and more isolated ones run the risk of being overrun and if that happens then everyone no matter the MOS becomes infantry and should pick up there weapon and fight off the enemy and should be able to perform any and all duties that could come with a firefight such as picking up or dragging wounded that could weigh anywhere from 200-300 LBS with all there gear on or have good enough cardio strength or endurance to run in full kit to different fighting positions and lowering the standards for different MOS'S doesn't make me as a infantryman feel comfortable going out on patrol with attachments of other MOS'S

Response by SPC Joshua H. made Jan 11 at 2015 12:58 PM

SPC Joshua H. — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:58:32 -0500

You sign up to be a soldier, you be a soldier and live up to the standards. If you are unable to perform, maybe you made a bad choice and should have gone into retail where fitness for duty doesn't matter.

The PT test has as much to do with personal and unit discipline as it has to do with fitness. If your and or your unit is not upholding at least the minimum standards, you are failing your job. You signed on that line, you should have known it wasn't going to be a cake walk. If you can't even push yourself to meet the minimum standards, how are you going to be able to push yourself to perform at the top of your abilities for your job?

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Jan 11 at 2015 1:25 PM

SGT Mark Sullivan — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 13:25:29 -0500

One Standard, whether you like this or not, personally I could care less if you like it or not. Every MOS is just an extra skill identifier, Every soldier in the Army, is initially trained as one thing, An Infantryman. So, along side the Marines, we are, and will be Infantry first, and then whatever MOS afterwards. Therefore, All we need is one standard, and one standard only. One standard covers ALL MOS's

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 2:57 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 14:57:56 -0500

I was under the impression that we all are soldiers first. The enemy doesn't discriminate based on MOS they see one uniform and one army. We all should be physically fit to the same standard even if that standard is raised.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 3:02 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:02:00 -0500

You people are forgetting one basic principle about the Army…everyone is a Soldier FIRST! It doesn't matter what job they have, in combat, everyone has the responsibility to pick up a rifle and assault through an objective. You can't do that if you're not in shape to do so. That's why the APFT has been one standard for ALL MOS's, and still is. To change it would ensure that only Combat Arms personnel are the only ones fit for combat.

Response by MSgt Joseph Dias made Jan 11 at 2015 3:07 PM

MSgt Joseph Dias — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:07:42 -0500

What ever happened to every soldier is an infantryman first? When I joined the Army back in 1980 that was the mantra! Though the tactics have evolved over the years because our enemies have "changed" the USSR is no longer with us in its former status but Russia lives on. The battle field is dynamic and you never know where the enemy will strike! Everyone everywhere is a target. Why not train everyone to be prepared and fight back? Give everyone a fighting chance and train them properly.

Every Soldier must be prepared to fight for his or her life and unit. To accomplish the mission! It starts with training their bodies and minds. They must be physically fit and technically proficient at their MOS' , AFSC' etc.

Anything less would be a poor rating on an OPR or NCOER. Leadership would be letting soldiers down if they lowered standards. They already have higher standards for Special Forces.

Lowering the standard does nothing but lower the quality of the Army as a whole. Train harder if needed, don't lower the standard.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 3:50 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:50:59 -0500

I think one standard for everyone should be the standard, but it should be harder. We have to many people that skate by doing to bare minimum. It would be a great way to help with our numbers for the downsize. I only want to retain the best and if you can't put forth the effort to be the better then see ya. It is a measurable way to see who is better. I understand some people are just faster or stronger, but it is achievable with the right amount of effort.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 3:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:53:37 -0500

I believe that there should be a simple standard for everyone - across the board to meet that essentially tells the Army "I am fit and meet or exceed the basic standard required of me".

I also believe that there is a need for MOS specific standards. This is in no way meant to demean, belittle, or denigrate someones MOS for we all contribute to the overall mission (how PC was that?)

I would expect that a combat arms Soldier to be more physically challenged in their MOS versus a combat support Soldier. If your MOS requires that you be able to ruck 10 miles with a 45 pound load then I expect that you be physically capable of doing that and that you are in better shape than most others.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 11 at 2015 4:56 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 16:56:41 -0500

I like to see Leaders thinking and coming up with new and possibly innovating ideas, but I like to have one standard. Far as different things, it is possible to have the SMs in the same MOS compete with each on a BN level for bragging rights, a four-day pass, and a AAM or an ARCOM.

Response by SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA made Jan 11 at 2015 5:16 PM

SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 17:16:17 -0500

If I may interject; Is seems to me that the test is not the problem, this is only a reflection f what goes on the other 5 months and 29 days and looking at the current military results...pretty daunting. This looks to me like the recruiting command is having to much influence on standards!
We all know someone who taped out but was overweight as compared to the bodybuilder who taped out due to having a neck like a tree trunk.
I personally was always at my limit of 206 pounds, it was impossible to build muscle becasue I was then to heavy and becasue I have a super long neck (yes, funny!) I could never make the tape test. Because it was difficult to build real mass and muscle, my pecs were suffering and therefore my push-ups, my run always was sub standard die to my short legs and long upper body but I NEVER considered "hey, maybe I should have different standards".
I see this as a way to be able to recruit more sub standard soldiers becasue currently recruitment is not hitting numbers for new recruits.
I certainly hope this does not change, it reminds me of the new way of children's baseball; Every team gets a trophy, no one looses...how will this set the pace for their expectations from life? Do we really need to bring this to the military now...maybe it is the result of those changes years ago ensuring everyone wins.
Steady on!

Response by SFC Peter Pizarek made Jan 11 at 2015 5:27 PM

SFC Peter Pizarek — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 17:27:08 -0500

Horrible concept. I thought we were all infantry first?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 8:13 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:13:40 -0500

ONE TEAM. ONE FIGHT

Response by MSG Karl Arrington made Jan 11 at 2015 8:59 PM

MSG Karl Arrington — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:59:04 -0500

This is not a good idea at all. Every Soldier has to meet a base standard of fitness regardless of MOS. So if a Soldier is in a "non-PT Intensive MOS" but assigned to a combat arms unit, does he/she have to participate in and pass the combat arms test, or the MOS specific one? Doesn't the STP have exercises to address enhancing combat arms PT? 88M's aren't combat arms, but don't they need a specific level of fitness to operate convoy vehicles for extended periods of time and over uneven terrain?

Response by SPC David Brown made Jan 11 at 2015 10:43 PM

SPC David Brown — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:43:17 -0500

It would appear to me, and even though mine was strictly peacetime service. That if you've signed on the Dotted Line as a Soldier of the United States of America, that You therefore could Assume that Your Service MIGHT include a tenure in a Combat environment. Even though I served during peacetime, I was also educated by my NCO's & Change of command that Physical Fitness is of Tantamount Importance IF ever Deployed. Therefore, I was motivated to hit the gym a little more in addition to being pushed in Regular Battalion, Battery and Platoon PT. There MUST be ALWAYS be Lofty Fitness Standards set forth for ALL Soldiers. It is the only way to ensure that ALL troops, Male & Female are at Top Readiness Standards. Each Individual Soldier should Also Feel that They MUST be in Top Shape to Defend the Freedom's & Liberties that we are charged with Protecting. Simply my Thoughts.

Response by MAJ Richard Blount made Jan 11 at 2015 11:16 PM

MAJ Richard Blount — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:16:47 -0500

I was a battalion S-1 which pretty much would mean I wouldn't have to pass a heck of a lot of fitness standards. But, what would have happened if I had been assigned to a leg unit? I would have a lot of catching up to do. Plus maintain my jump status! Probably best to keep everybody at least marginally fit.

Response by SPC Charles Griffith made Jan 12 at 2015 2:20 AM

SPC Charles Griffith — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:20:03 -0500

There is a standard for a reason. You are aware that your primary MOS is 11B right? You are a Soldier act like one.

Response by CW4 Keith Dolliver made Jan 12 at 2015 5:27 AM

CW4 Keith Dolliver — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:27:48 -0500

It seems like I'm seeing a lot about "one standard", "everyone's an infantryman first", etc. So I would just pose this question... is that just within the Army or within the military in general? The reason I ask that is because I have read numerous comment about maintaining that military standard, military readiness, military fitness, so on and so forth. If that's the case, then I would argue we're already failing in that regard by having four different fitness standards, one in each service, in addition to the added requirements for the Special Operations community. I'm sure you could argue that the reason this disparity exists is because each service chief has looked at their service's mission and set a minimum fitness standard that they believe is necessary to accomplish that mission. If that argument holds for why the different services have different requirements than why would that same argument be invalid for different branches within the Army?

A few other thoughts, when you look at the increasing nature of Joint and Combined units in the military today, the missions aren't even that different, especially with what we've been doing the last 13 years. Take a large Role III facility down range, say Kandahar or Bagram. Inside that facility you are likely to have Army Medics, Navy Corpsman, and Air Force Medics all doing the same job, treating the same people, yet with three different minimum fitness standards. This example doesn't just apply to the medical field though. Different pilots of different services all on the same airfield, flying the same aircraft with different standards. Army and Marine artilleryman with different standards. My point isn't to insist that we should all be the same, just merely to point out that these variances already exist within our military.

As far as the logistics or conducting multiple different PT tests within a unit, I agree that it would be more difficult than it is currently, but if you talk to any of your fellow service members assigned to a Joint or Combined command you will realize that they are already doing that successfully.

If this were something that were actually to happen, I feel like a different test by CMF or Branch vice MOS would be the best way to go. It wouldn't be quite as troublesome as each MOS having their own and I feel like the physical requirements for the different MOS's within each CMF/Branch are more or less the same regardless of the actual MOS within that Branch.

Response by Sgt Adam Jennings made Jan 12 at 2015 6:45 AM

Sgt Adam Jennings — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 06:45:08 -0500

As a Marine I think this is a horrible idea! Every military member (and I know they're not) should be able to meet the same minimum physical fitness requirements. When active I weightless in a 220 lbs at 6'2". Just about every bit of that was muscle. If I got shot it would be nice to know the smaller people in my unit could at least drag me to safety. Just a thought. I know the Marines operate differently than the Army, but c'mon, how many times have Army POG's found themselves in the thick of it like our Marine POG's have.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2015 7:05 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 07:05:40 -0500

From day 1, we as Soldiers are told that our Primary MOS is 11B, Infantry. We need to have and do have a minimum standard that EVERYONE in the Army has to meet. If your base is overrun and the fighting kills all of the "fighting forces" i.e. infantry, and all you have is PACC clerks and cooks, you will wish that they had the same level of fitness as the infantry. So why go through all of that? One standard for the Army, you know, the ARMY standard.

Response by SFC Vernon McNabb made Jan 12 at 2015 7:45 AM

SFC Vernon McNabb — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 07:45:39 -0500

CPT Private RallyPoint Member, I think it's a bad idea to change the APFT; however, I am for MOS specific PT instead of PRT. Take for example my MOS, 15T (Blackhawk Helicopter Mechanic). My duties range from routine maintenance to heavy phase maintenance, to crewchief and doorgunner. MOS specific PT could be centered around those duties.
Examples:
50 lbs tool box workout
climbing up and down the helicopter (stair/bleacher running)
50 meter dash (simulates emergency egress from acft on fire)
different buddy carries (simulates carrying another crewmember from a burning acft)
Timed E&E with M240H and a box of ammo in the woods and must travel approx 100 yards and set up position.

The list is endless.

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made Jan 12 at 2015 10:13 AM

SSG Ralph Watkins — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:13:18 -0500

Why? What has changed that the Army needs to come up with this decision? The Army used to think more like the Marines when it came to fitness, training, & readiness. All are riflemen first, MOS is secondary. Would this mean only infantry PT qualified people will be deployed in combat job & non-PT qual'ed won't be sent to fulfill needed combat positions. My unit in Iraq, our platoon came from different units with a wide variety of MOSs & all made into combat MPs. We had all passed a standard PT & were fit enough to deploy after less than 2 months of train up. Having all soldiers meeting a specific set of standards is vital & it keeps down the complications of different standards for different people. I used to be in the intelligence field & then in combat arms. I've seen people in POG units who could run circles around most combat arms people. If they can do that, then others can meet the basic PT standards set forth for the entire Army.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Jan 12 at 2015 10:28 AM

SGT James Elphick — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:28:16 -0500

As I have reviewed this I thought of a possible issue that would need to be address and that is ensuring proper training at the unit level to ensure these standards can not only be meet but that soldiers can continue to meet these standards. All too often in my experience in the Airborne Infantry the only thing we did for PT day in and day out was run. I became an excellent runner but my push-ups always struggled and my sit-ups slowly declined throughout my time in service. I hear alot of "you should take care of it on your on time" and all that but why should I have to? Soldiers already work 10-12 hour days, why should they then have "homework" when PT is already conducted daily? Without properly trained trainers the only people who will be in combat arms MOS's are those in peak physical shape (but without maintenance you might lose them too).

Overall the army is going to have to rethink how it does PT but that is a different discussion in itself.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2015 11:17 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:17:59 -0500

This is the absolute worst idea I've ever heard! The APFT should remain one standard for all. As a matter of fact the APFT should be changed to one standard for males and females. The problem is everyone gets wrapped around this MOS thing. Your MOS is more like a task that you were assigned. You're told to do it, but it doesn't excuse you from doing other duties. The Army is a ground force and every Soldier in it should be trained in enough ground tactics that should they be needed to replace their battle buddy who God forbid was shot and/or killed that they can have the basic skill to fill the requirement. For some strange reason, and I guess we can chock it up to laziness, folks in the Army started thinking that their MOS was the end all to be all and that would be all that they would do for a career. However, this goes against the intent and purpose of why the Army was created. The Army is here to defend America and win wars for America. This is why we train and we all should train the same. However, if you have an MOS that requires you to utilize extra equipment such as satellites and things of the sort then you should be training on both your satellites and your Army Warrior Tasks, because although you are by MOS/task a satellite guy, by the nature of the culture and career that you volunteered for you are a Soldier and a warfighter first.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2015 12:16 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:16:46 -0500

I thought we were all basic riflemen and soldiers first. Standards set us apart from civilians and should motivate us to be better physically rather than settling. We should strive to become stronger, mentally and physically, so that we can do what others cannot in time of need.

Response by SPC Mary Phelps made Jan 12 at 2015 3:19 PM

SPC Mary Phelps — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 15:19:14 -0500

Way way Back, like 1970, there were at least 3 pt tests, one for combat forces, one for soldiers with administrative duties, and then the women's test

Response by SFC Dan Sorrow, M.S. made Jan 12 at 2015 4:43 PM

SFC Dan Sorrow, M.S. — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:43:01 -0500

I doubt that would ever happen because it would be too complicated to manage it. The APFT standards are already the minimum standards. I believe all MOS's already have additional physical demand requirements, in addition to the APFT standards, that you're referring to. For example, my MOS (44B) is classified at the heavy exertional level by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). During my AIT and again while I was instructing before I retired, our solders, airmen, marines students had to prove they could lift and carry a certain amount of weight individually and as a two-person carry. You could also reference the physical profile requirements for each MOS (PULHES). Significant changes in a soldiers PULHES could result in a reclassification or separation. I hope this helps!

Response by SFC Royce Williams made Jan 12 at 2015 5:01 PM

SFC Royce Williams — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:01:09 -0500

No matter how you set it up there is always going to be a minimal standard. Well. That's why you have right now. A minimum standard. Units already set up there own pt minimum. I have never been in a unit with a goal less than 270 No you didn't get kicked out of the army for having less than that but you were required to do extra pt and weren't allowed to go to certain schools or hold certain positions. Every Soldier ha to be able to shoot, move, and communicate no matter if he is outside the wire every day or one time in a thousand. If you lower the standard more than what it is there will just be more unfit people getting other Soldiers injured or killed because they can't do their job. The Army is overweight and out of shape as it is. The standard should be raised.

Response by SFC Royce Williams made Jan 12 at 2015 5:13 PM

SFC Royce Williams — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:13:51 -0500

Lowering the standards for the weak instead of making them perform is what's wrong with the world today. Look at no child left behind. The intent was to be helpful but all it did was let people move up who weren't ready. My son is an example. He is a senior this year only because it was given to him. He didn't earn it and now he struggles with his senior classes more than he did as a junior. If we keep lowering the standard there will be none.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2015 7:41 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:41:34 -0500

Certain units, in the AF anyway, have higher PT standards such as special forces, but you still need a baseline standard for all.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2015 10:23 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 22:23:19 -0500

Well,

I truly just read this stuff for entertainment, but most should consider the fact that the weight and PASSING the APFT, or PT isn't that hard. It may be hard to get 300s or excellent, but passing... Weight, maybe hold down the fork?

Response by CPL Jay Freeman made Jan 12 at 2015 10:38 PM

CPL Jay Freeman — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 22:38:46 -0500

should stay one standard for all not just for some MOS special forces are required to do harder pt but that is what they accepted it. everyone is expected to fight if required cant have a fat guy running ammo to the front line if he dies from not being able to breath

Response by CPT Brian Kent, PhD made Jan 12 at 2015 10:41 PM

CPT Brian Kent, PhD — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 22:41:04 -0500

This is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard in a while. We already give different tests for different ages. I have to say I really like fewer brackets not more. The battlefield is being blurred where the lines are so the days of rear echelons are about gone

Response by CW3 Jose Colon made Jan 13 at 2015 2:18 AM

CW3 Jose Colon — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 02:18:03 -0500

One Army , One standard. This is the miliary. not a civilian job. Soldier first. MOS and rank second.

Response by SSgt Dan Montague made Jan 13 at 2015 9:59 AM

SSgt Dan Montague — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:59:01 -0500

I like the concept. There has been debate in the Marine Corps about dropping standards for officers infantry training because so many woman are being dropped. I think dropping any standards is wrong. However, I think we should have mos specific tests for qualification. Not in every mos, just combat mos. How many times have you had someone in the artillery that couldn't pick up a 110lb round. or a grunt that can hump a 50cal and their own pack. Have a basic physical test after basic/boot camp to see if they can cut it.
As for your branches physical fitness tests, keep it the same all around for all hands. But, the ground combat/support mos's should adjust their workouts to their needs. Like infantry doing more humping and obstacle courses with gear. Artillery focusing on upper body strength and endurance.

Response by SGT R J Imhoff made Jan 13 at 2015 11:32 AM

SGT R J Imhoff — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:32:08 -0500

Yes, ultimately everyone is a foot soldier in the Big Conflict. Your MOS/Job may not require a high level of fitness. But, in a conflict your environment/location may. I don't care what your MOS is, other lives depend on you to be able to do your Job anywhere you are needed.

Response by MSgt Jason S. made Jan 13 at 2015 5:40 PM

MSgt Jason S. — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:40:44 -0500

I've seen this argument for YEARS on the "other side" of this issue with the Air Force Intel community. All Branches BEGIN with a standardized PT program...if a linguist, or weather, medical, or any other AFSC (MOS) who is required to sit at a desk more than not gets to the point they can no longer meet that original standard (and are not injured of course), then this has become a personal choice NOT to put the work in as an active uniform wearer, no matter what the shift or hours. This is typically followed by an "overage of hours" argument...when you sit in a "dirtbox" for extended periods of time, there are typically NO set hours and we get what we get, but ALWAYS seem to find away to keep sharp and fit and on point. Perhaps units SHOULD design a combat-ready higher level standard for this reason and for that I give the thumbs up...but for those who would ask for a more lenient standard for those most likely desk-jockeying...NEGATIVE...to say a "big brain" MOS gets a relaxed PT standard is ludacris, and this just screams "I may be a little more intelligent than the average Joe, but I'm also a tick lazy and can't/won't properly prioritize, so I'll just play the 'smart' card and see if that flies"...but that's just my two cents worth mostly on the flip side of this question...opinions have always varied....good thread...

Response by SFC Chris Crossley made Jan 14 at 2015 9:22 AM

SFC Chris Crossley — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:22:30 -0500

The logistics alone make this a bad idea. How many different "standards" would be developed? The changes to DA PAM 611-21 and AR 40-501 would be drastic. Who would determine what the "standards" for each MOS are? The standards are already outlined in DA Pam 611-21, for each MOS by grade. Additionally the PULHES defines the acceptable standard of fitness to remain in said MOS. This is altogether different than what the APFT measures. By the way, it is the Army Physical Fitness test, which would require a name change, as it would no longer be the "Army PFT" but the “MOS PFT,” or something similar. Last but least, a complete rewrite of the recently rewritten FM 7-22, and any other FM's, TC's and the like that are related to the subject of "Army fitness."

For a more practical matter, when a grader is getting ready to administer the APFT to Soldier, would said grader need to ask the Soldier "what is your MOS?" Then the grader would have to flip to the appropriate "grading standard by MOS/Gender PFT score card." Wouldn't the overall concept be more beneficial for the Army to just “train physical fitness to the Army standard?” Units are allowed to have “organizational fitness goals or unit levels of fitness.” Which do in and of themselves set a new standard.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jan 14 at 2015 2:01 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:01:30 -0500

Good Question. The best way to address it though would be a reminder when all else fails if you are a Soldier or a Marine you are a Rifleman same goes for the Navy when all else fails you are a Fireman and in both situations a certain degree of Physical Fitness is Required.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2015 2:17 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:17:18 -0500

It's my opinion we would be setting ourselves up for failure. When everything goes to hell, every single Soldier becomes a rifleman. We should all remember PFC Lynch and what can happen when Soldiers cannot defend themselves, or are otherwise not proficient in the basics. The same applies for fitness.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2015 8:53 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 20:53:36 -0500

I personally don't think that this should be impleted because it would take away from standards

Response by 1SG Mark Mccall made Jan 14 at 2015 9:01 PM

1SG Mark Mccall — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:01:30 -0500

The fitness of todays incoming personnel are much less than years ago, the annual fitness testing of the Army across the board ensures minimal standards are met. Enhanced physical training at the unit level for special ops, infantry and other non-chair-borne ops increase the everyday ability of those units and their personnel.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2015 12:42 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:42:03 -0500

The answer should be obvious. Some jobs are harder. Rifleman or mortar man? The job specific physical requirements differ based on how heavy are the weapons and equipment you must manipulate and how far and how fast do you have to carry this armament and equipment. Those of you saying "everyone is rifleman" are kidding yourselves. The Army has MOS's for a reason. It is a way to specialize and capitalize on a population with a wide variety of physical and mental capacities. Every soldier "might" be in a position that they need to call for and adjust indirect or aerial delivered fires. Should we change the GT score requirements for everybody to the same as 13F? 75% of you would be out of a job because you can't do the math consistently under stress. Our current physical fitness standards are baseline, lowest common denominator. They are woefully inadequate for sustained infantry ground combat or special operations forces, which is why certain units have higher physical performance standards.

Response by CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2015 2:09 PM

CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:09:49 -0500

Bad idea. So because your an admin never leave the wire person you don't have to be able to perform as well? Take a note from the Marines, they have a Combat Fitness Test on top of their regular fitness test it is aimed at everybody with the "every marine a rifleman" mentality. On the Navy side we have different requirements for different types of duty, specifically anybody going to a Naval Special Warfare team/unit is held to a higher standard and anybody screening for special duty like a Tier 1 unit has to pass their screening. Outside of that we are all held to the same standard.

Response by Amn Richard White made Jan 17 at 2015 4:20 AM

Amn Richard White — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 04:20:53 -0500

One stsndard

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 6:05 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 06:05:28 -0500

There ought to be a minimum that everyone must meet. Anything more than that should be based on the required physical demands of specific MOS or duty position. As I understand, every soldier graduates from basic training as an infantryman. So everyone in the Army should as a minimum meet the physical requirements of an infantryman regardless of what other MOS they have.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 11:11 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 11:11:59 -0500

Soldiers are Soldiers...regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, sex....there should be one standard. If you want to be held to a higher standard...then take the walk and try for one of the Special Operations MOS's or a SMU. But to have different standards for different MOS's...that's not the answer. That will further divide POGs vs front line Soldiers, not to mention...lowering standards for certain MOS's.

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Jan 17 at 2015 11:46 AM

SPC Christopher Morehouse — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 11:46:02 -0500

Why muddy the water further? We are one Army.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 11:58 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 11:58:36 -0500

Everyone arguing against MOS based PT tests for the sake of one standard: please remember that logic for age and gender.

Having MOS based pt tests would force us to reconsider our board procedures, as well. We would have to recognize and reward people for being proficient at their job, not on some universally lowered average standard.

I for the "what about the 42A tests?" crowd: they are already passing the "infantry pt test" despite being trapped behind a desk where their counterparts are walking the moor pool all day. Why not just admit the current standards are too lax on the hooah types?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 12:54 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 12:54:04 -0500

Yes. Even as. mechanic I was assighned to a rcp. We did the same stuff as the 12bs

Response by MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 1:15 PM

MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:15:41 -0500

Absolutely, unequivocally the answer is yes! End all be all at the end of the day every soldier regardless of MOS must be a rifleman. You must be able to win the battle with superior firepower and training. Ideas of separate standards based on MOS are idiotic. That's like saying admin clerks should have a lesser rifle qual than combat soldiers. If the last 12 years have taught us nothing they taught us that every MOS can find itself in the middle of a firefight. That any personnel male or female can find themselves in a hostile engagement at any time. If you have separate standards for the admin versus the pay clerk versus the medic then you are going to run into severe issues of personnel finding themselves at the wrong end of an engagement and in doing so endangering all the other people that trained to a combat standard. This is the army not the Girl Scouts. Fairplay and egalitarianism have no place. It's not for us to decide what training we think is required it's what training the army as a whole has to be prepared to do based on its overall mission not just our little piece of it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 1:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:33:43 -0500

I am now wondering what will happen to all those hard charging technical and tactical proven troops/leaders who were injured in a previous fights that now cannot perform physically as well as those not having been in a fight yet and who are fully physically capable. Will these new troops not battle proven be able to out promote those that are battle proven leaders because they can do more push ups ?. Lets think about the purpose of promotions and the 5th order of fire.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 1:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:48:01 -0500

In the long run this is not a realistic idea. It sounds good idea but in war you may not operate in your MOS. You could be kicking in doors or any number of other missions.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 2:17 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 14:17:03 -0500

Everyone could be infantry at somepoint regardless of mos so I think we should all have the same standard. I mean there are a few specialties that may not get deployed and maybe they could have a lower standard but I mean the standard right now isn't even that hard so I mean how much easier can you really go?

Response by SFC Shawn Laws made Jan 17 at 2015 2:39 PM

SFC Shawn Laws — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 14:39:07 -0500

I would have to say no to the question, and it is already defined by the army. DA Pam 611-21 already states it.
With that being said, in today's Army and the FLOT is no longer defined. Everyone has to meet the standards. We are and will continue to keep those that do not meet the standards of both ABCP and APFT.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 3:01 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:01:43 -0500

Yes everyone in the military needs to do the same damn pt as a infantryman! The core of what you are as a soldier is a infantry it's what you do, period. If you can't do it then you shouldn't be in. People take advantage of the current pt test as it is and it's embarrassing to stand next to someone that has a belly wider than my height! I'm not the fittest or the skinniest person in the military but I bust my ass to exceed the current standards because I believe we are more. I signed the dotted line and I know what's expected of me as a soldier and a leader.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 3:02 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:02:06 -0500

I agree with certain MOS/positions requiring different APFT standards. In a age of cyber warfare, we need more computer and network efficient personnel but sadly, we are not going to get the best of the best because they will not meet the requirements we presently have. Traditionally, we expect every Soldier to meet the same standard, however, there is an extreme difference between how a 11b and cyber Soldier wages war. I understand the objections and I also wish there was a way to get the best of the best in cyber warfare with the present APFT standards being met, but realistically, I just do not see it happening, which means we continue down the same path of spending lots of taxpayer's money on contractors, who, we have to save when it all goes down, because, they have no APFT standards to speak of.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 3:11 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:11:45 -0500

I kinda hope so but at the same not. Imagine the nuance that would come about... I mean really, cav infantry and ada would have to bench munitions while supply would have to bench boxes, admin benching computers... God the agony

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 3:18 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:18:40 -0500

I think people are also forgetting that pt help with mental issues and physical issues! The standards shouldn't change across the board they should be enforced more frequently.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 3:29 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:29:52 -0500

Yes infantry should have a lot more challenging pt test

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 3:39 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:39:08 -0500

If anything, they needs to raise the standard not lowered it. We are all needs to perform the same level of Fitness as an Infantryman or Combat Mos to every aspect as much as we can. Train to fight and train to get stronger because deep down all of us are Soldiers first and our priority is to engage and destroy the enemy, whether you like it or not.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Jan 17 at 2015 3:46 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:46:48 -0500

Well, first we have an Army standard that EVERYONE should meet. After that, it makes sense that certain MOS's will have additional requirements to be met. You would have (obviously) a different standard between an Delta Operator and a Cook. These things are already being done, I am not sure what we would need to change.

Response by LTC Kevin Rants made Jan 17 at 2015 3:50 PM

LTC Kevin Rants — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:50:25 -0500

As with much that we see/hear in the main stream media/Army times, I am sure there is more to the story.

But, at face value, differentiating physical standards based on MOS is a not a good endeavor for the Army pursue (my opinion).

Let's look at what makes the Army special - taking members of society, with varied backgrounds (socio-economic, religious, etc) and building Soldiers with purpose. When we start setting different baselines between different MOS, that does nothing to build cohesion and teamwork in the organization. Before you know it, we'll start assigning different dress standards based on MOS, then religious beliefs, etc. It is a slippery slope.

Look at the Marines, every Marine is a rifleman first. Those skills and standards are at the core of their philosophy. Our APFT and fitness standards are universal across the force. Should there be MOS specific supplemental tests? No, I don't think so. Here is why: As a Battalion XO, my driver came from the S1 shop, a 42A. Given that a 42A's primary mission, how would you assess their ability to be a vehicle operator/maintainer, which includes TM/ -10 level requirements against a mechanic who's job it is to maintain vehicles? You can't, not fairly anyway.

I say give the leadership flexibility to the young NCOs to develop and train their troops to the appropriate physical fitness level. There is some incredible power in an organization when every leader, down to the Team level is rowing in the same direction, but that power is stifled with top driven excessive requirements. Commander's intent, periodic inspections and continuous engagement/feedback is how I'd pursue this, not a formal test.

That being said, a Combat Fitness assessment is a good idea in my opinion. Physical tasks under the rigor/scenario of combat requirements, separate from the APFT. Again, look at how the Marines do this separate assessment as well.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 3:57 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:57:45 -0500

The APFT is pretty much a failure within the Army when you think of all the wasted man hours for all the soldiers involved giving the test and also those lucky enough to be in remedial PT program. What percentage of soldiers actually get off remedial PT and stay off. It's hard enough to even find competent leaders that will hold the standards during the test. On the officer side it seems even worse, you see the ones you know don't make tape and wouldn't be able to pass the APFT, but you don't see them in remedial of any sort. It seems it's only gotten worse, but yes I do think there are certain MOS's that should required more than the basic 180 P/F.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 4:19 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 16:19:40 -0500

Whereas this may have some merit, as a 14 year ARNG soldier, I have seen administrating the APFT is hard enough doing MOS specific test would be a nightmare !

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 4:25 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 16:25:23 -0500

I'm not in the Army, but I've worked with them in the past. I can't believe this is even a legit idea. I believe if you join the military, then everyone should be fit especially to meet at least the minimum requirements. There should be no debate about if PT should be different because of your job. If you don't like PT for that branch, then join one with less standards.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 5:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:00:01 -0500

It should be one standard all the way through, we go through Basic training for what reasons?
To learn the Basics of becoming a soldier and an infantryman.
When the chips fall, that artillery unit has to pick up their weapons and fire at the whites of the enemy say as the infantry, that mechanic will have to draw his M4 or whatever and return fire, same as the infantry.
We should all be held to the same standard regardless of MOS, that's my opinion.
How about we stop trying to make our soldiers weaker and instead try to help our brothers in sisters who are taking their own lives.
That should be the focus of the military at this point in time.
Not "should we make our Joe's weaker?"
Again, my opinion.
-Sgt Hunter

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 5:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:46:31 -0500

I completely agree it should be specific to MOS but some food for thought is it really fair that I will have to work twice as hard as some soft skill MOS to meet my standards but when it comes to DA boards we get looked at the same?

Response by PO2 Stephen Brinkley (Scott) made Jan 17 at 2015 6:08 PM

PO2 Stephen Brinkley (Scott) — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 18:08:32 -0500

Every branch of our military should maintain the same standards. If you are special forces your standards would increase.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 7:59 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 19:59:23 -0500

Bad idea. End of the, we're all Soldiers, and there's one standard that we have to meet. Leaders need to ensure that one standard is met. I'm all for MOS PT to increase proficiency, but again that should be leader driven. If we had an MOS where everyone was scoring a 300, then there would be thought for consideration, but we all know that's certainly not the case. An MOS APFT is just a precursor to lowering the standard.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 9:27 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:27:40 -0500

This is a horrible idea.people need to remember that they are a soldier, airman, marine, and seaman first. You never know when you will be called upon to perform a task or duty outside of your career field. This will only cause dissent among members in different career fields and have different standards which in turn could reduce the good order and discipline. I know this may be a stretch, but the pt standards are a start.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2015 10:11 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 22:11:10 -0500

Bad idea. I'm a JAG, but if I'm in a convoy and get hit with an IED, it's on me to pull people out of a burning vehicle. Plus, physical fitness is a great equalizer in the Service. We all hit a standard. If we want to exceed it, we can. That's why I have Airborne and Air Assault wings. My 2 cents.

Response by SPC Corey Johnson made Jan 17 at 2015 11:02 PM

SPC Corey Johnson — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:02:02 -0500

Hell yes we all need the same PT test! Terrorists dont pause to ask what mos you have so they know to what level then can emgage you! I think everyone should be able to keep the EIB ruck standard too!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 1:09 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 01:09:38 -0500

As an infantryman I can see both sides of this. The military has changed in the years since I joined. When I first joined, scoring a 300 on a PT test was looked as a goal not the standard. NCOs were marked well on their NCOER and there's a badge that's awarded (but never worn). Instead now your expected to score a 300 on the PT test in the Infantry and are looked down on if you don't. It's a shift in perspective for combat MOS' that has led to some feeling different standards for PT tests are needed.
I don't think different standards are needed. NCOs run PT plans meeting their officers guidelines. You train your soldiers to the standards you want them to be at and provide them with the time and the tools to meet those standards. Want higher PT scores two a day PT schedules.
In our military we are all supposed to be held to the same standards and look the same. We keep relaxing that in a time where I feel it's most important to be inforcing that in our military.
Let unit standards keep combat arms PT scores where the unit wants them, no need to creat separate tests.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 1:17 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 01:17:15 -0500

Everyone should have the same requirements for the AFPT, the problem lies in the fact that we have already allowed for separate standards to be made. If we are willing to allow for the lowering of standards for females and older Soldiers, then why is it a stretch to allow for changes based on MOS? We should adopt a one standard AFPT, we should not change requirements based on MOS, gender or age.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 1:49 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 01:49:05 -0500

I think all service members should have to do the same physical fitness test. I also believe that every service member should have to do a MOS physical test as well. Let's just say that I'm some young buck that wants to whoop but as an ranger. I should have to carry tons of weight and all that jazz. If I was wanting to do aviation the I should have to do something else in that field. We should keep the standard the same across the board, but have something a little extra for the different need'S per their MOS. Does an office clerk need to hump a rucksack 12 miles knowing they only need to move around 400-600 feet a day. Not picking on those office heroes, butt let's be real.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 2:09 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 02:09:39 -0500

Hey LT, are you saying that if you put a standard for your men to meet that they wouldn't train and meet that standard? If you want your men to be able to do pull ups after a pt test, put the standard out there and have them do it. Think it's a great idea take it to the captain, he can make it a company standard. He thinks it's great he can take it to the BC and implemented for that bat. No need to change standards when units can do it for themselves.
I know crazy right? Not really its been going on off the books for a long time, just like all the cold weather gear we get issued but can't wear. Units have the power to change standards for themselves without involving the whole army.

Response by 1SG Henry Yates made Jan 18 at 2015 7:19 AM

1SG Henry Yates — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 07:19:07 -0500

The Army has something similar to an MOS specific APFT that is conducted by the Occupational Therapy medical field with a referral from a Soldier's PA/ PCM. It's called the FUNCTION CAPACITY TEST/ EVALUATION. This test is currently used for Soldiers who are attempting to return to duty (RTD) after MEB/ IDES, evidence in the MRII process and a few others. With a recommendation from ones Commander it has the capability of allowing a Soldier to be retained or potentially allowing a Soldier to be retained in a new MOS in demonstrating MOS specific physical ability.
http://www.ebooksde.org/pdf/functional-capacity-evaluation-in-army.html

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 7:51 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 07:51:49 -0500

The Army is one team, one fight. It should also be one team, one standard.

Response by Cpl Aaron Nelson made Jan 18 at 2015 8:50 AM

Cpl Aaron Nelson — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 08:50:25 -0500

I tend to see it like this

When the tires on my car start losing their tread I go and get them replaced. The same brand, size, all at the same time. I'm sure most folks do this too. It's basic common sense. Nobody wants to risk a flat tire or blow out on their commute or trip or whatever.

If you begin to divide levels of readiness based on MOS then you are putting four different sets of tires on your vehicle. You might get to where you want to go, but it wont be a smooth ride.

Response by SSG Alford Pouse made Jan 18 at 2015 9:17 AM

SSG Alford Pouse — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:17:23 -0500

No matter what you job is your primary is infantryman. The test should be centered on that. One job one test, no variations.

Response by SPC Leonardo Luce made Jan 18 at 2015 10:09 AM

SPC Leonardo Luce — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:09:00 -0500

I disagree it shouldn't matter your MOS bottom line everyone is infantry first then your specialty. What is the first thing you are trained? To be a soldier first because if God forbid something happens you have to be prepared to perform.

Response by MSgt Timothy Johnson made Jan 18 at 2015 10:14 AM

MSgt Timothy Johnson — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:14:30 -0500

Should be same challenging system AND I believe the unit should be required to add one or two events directly related to an MOS. That should cover fitness and ability to perform within your MOS.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 11:53 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 11:53:24 -0500

leave the standard like it is. It should just be a baseline to measure fitness, all other concerns should be left up to the commander. If a soldier is not fit for combat arms the commander should be able to refer the soldier to a POG unit. And a POG unit ought to be able to decide for itself whether a particular soldier is an asset or liability. 10-1 odds that anyone wounded in Iraq/Afghanistan was treated by someone that should have been kicked out for failing to meet the pt standards at some point in their career.

Response by CPL Brittney Pennington made Jan 18 at 2015 12:30 PM

CPL Brittney Pennington — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 12:30:10 -0500

i just think that would be dangerous. What if I were told I didn't have to score as high as the next guy to pass an APFT? Then we deploy and are faced with a situation involving the enemy? I'm gonna need to be strong enough to save myself and/or my battle buddies and if I'm got I can cause myself to die or someone else. Have to always be tactically and physically proficient.

Response by SPC Geoffrey Jenkins made Jan 18 at 2015 2:43 PM

SPC Geoffrey Jenkins — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:43:35 -0500

I think the PT test should be the same across the board for all the MOS's.One Army one standard!

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jan 18 at 2015 6:46 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 18:46:24 -0500

the thing in the Marines that got me was SNCO's who couldn't pass swim qual.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jan 18 at 2015 9:11 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 21:11:48 -0500

I think there should be one standard for everyone on the APFT. However, I think it would make sense to have a separate skills test for certain MOS's that are physically demanding. If you can't meet the physical demands of your job, it should be reclass.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 18 at 2015 9:51 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 21:51:45 -0500

We kind of already do have varying standards. Example: my PT routines with 3/10 (Arty) were much different than with 2/6 and 1/8 (Infantry) and 5th Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company. We still were only tested on the Corps wide standards, but each unit trains differently depending on their mission, METLs, and SOPs.

Making new standards for each unit debunks the promotions process, as an FO who sits at the Division FFCC will not have the same requirements as one who is with the infantry. When the Infantry FO doesn't meet the assumed higher standards of the infantry, that is grounds for a non-rec come promotions, while the FFCC FO, who is in the same shape, doesn't face such consequences due to the assumed unchanged standards of his unit.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2015 12:05 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:05:56 -0500

I think it should be one standard. You never know when being fit is going to save your life. We are the Army. We are all expected to go to a combat zone during one point in time nowadays. I finance office in Iraq can get attacked and as members of the Army these people should be able to survive and fight back. There is a term for people who shouldn't have to adhere to the Army standards, civilians.

Response by PO1 Russell Henson made Jan 19 at 2015 12:41 AM

PO1 Russell Henson — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:41:29 -0500

That's why the Army is weak. They also allow walkers instead of running 2miles

Response by Sgt Sasha Cruz made Jan 19 at 2015 12:27 PM

Sgt Sasha Cruz — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:27:32 -0500

Since in the Marine Corps, every Marine is considered a rifleman first, MOS second, I do believe that fitness standards should be the same. I think infantry already gets more humps and weight added on their humps(hikes). But the minimum should stay the same.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2015 12:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:49:09 -0500

There needs to be one standard period. If a unit/branch or base wants to impose a higher standard locally that is their choice. If they went down that road the PT test would become a nightmare, the graders would have to know and have on hand every different one for the members of their units. More wasted taxpayer money and taking away from training and mission dollars.

Response by SGT Bobby F. made Jan 19 at 2015 10:24 PM

SGT Bobby F. — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:24:33 -0500

This is a tough one, particularly because no unit is made up purley by one MOS. Overall, the Army should have one standard that must be met, period, end of story, by everyone. It speaks to the fact that at the end of the day, we're all Soldiers and must be able to perform to eliminate the enemy.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jan 19 at 2015 10:46 PM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:46:07 -0500

I believe MOS specific (gender neutral) PT tests make sense. The PT test should be based on the job regardless of gender. This reminds of places of like Fort Bragg, or Fort Drum in the early 90s (18th Airborne Corps) when we had helicopter pilots and the COSCOM on jump status (really?), and we required everyone to "if you are not Infantry, act like Infantry." The best example was the change in 91-92, when all were required to do the 12 mile road march semi-annually and so many were becoming non-deployable... So, the standard changed to 6 miles for everyone except infantry and those that walked with the infantry... 12 miles for an Apache pilot, a PBO, a Dr. or Lawyer, or even a MP? This makes sense.

Or, perhaps on baseline APFT, then MOS specific and gender neutral standards for each job.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2015 12:23 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:23:44 -0500

Here’s a thought, why not focus on get Soldiers to effectively passing the standard APFT. The United States Army is a lifestyle, and physical fitness is a component of it. Regardless of the MOS, Soldiers must maintain an optimal level of physical and medical readiness at all times. What you put into it, is what you get out of it. As leader, we must establish an effect physical fitness program that develops and challenges our Soldiers to be physically fit to meet the demands of on the battlefield, and to function in austere environments. Soldiers must embrace this and challenge themselves too. It is also their individual responsibility too. If MOS is a concern, then integrating MOS specific tasks during PT. Last time I checked adversaries or foes are not discriminating us based on MOS or anything else. We need to just close this topic, and focus on being Soldiers for once. What are we going to tailor next, MOS socks and t-shirts? How about throw in designated MOS headbands and wristbands.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2015 3:21 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 03:21:19 -0500

Making different APFT standards would cause a lot of issues. You can't have different standards per MOS because many people would try to re-class to those job's with a lower standard. As 42A, I know my job is not as physically demanding as most, however, part of being a military professional is remaining fit. My standards should be just as high as any other MOS because we are all professionals.

Response by SGT Jen Roy made Jan 20 at 2015 9:59 PM

SGT Jen Roy — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:59:27 -0500

I concur with that one. There should be one standard for all during war time.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2015 10:18 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:18:38 -0500

I think instead of lowering the standard for pt based on the mos, we should increase the knowledge standard and make each soldier take a subject matter test for their respective mos

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2015 11:07 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:07:49 -0500

1 Standard, 1 Team, 1 Fight.

Response by SFC Richard M. made Jan 21 at 2015 11:24 AM

SFC Richard M. — Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:24:50 -0500

I don't think there should be an MOS-specific APFT if only because the common warrior tasks require a certain level of fitness for every Soldier, not just those from a certain MOS

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 22 at 2015 4:25 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:25:03 -0500

Single standard. The problem with multiple standars is you end up having NO standard. People start getting denied promotion/recommendation even though they meet the standards 'on the books'. It's just bad policy.

That's why a universal standard exists. You might tighten requirements to get into a specific school or training program, but anything else is just unenforcable.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2015 5:22 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 17:22:40 -0500

Will you kick a skilled Neuro surgeon or heart surgeon out of the Army because he can not complete the PT test?????
Combat arms require higher level of fitness than more technical positions. Everyone needs to be fit, but in certain MOSs it is more important to mentally competent than physically so. Cyber Warfare for example, you want the smartest nerdiest in the country sitting at the computer protecting the computer infrastructure. I personally am a value to the Army for my ability to put soldiers back together after injury, not for my shooting abilities, or my ability to run and carry loads.
Maybe there can be a tiered PT test or scores.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2015 11:32 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:32:49 -0500

1LT Rosa,
As someone who has led and worked at multiple levels from platoon, to Corps and up to multi-national task forces, I can tell you that ALL MOSs should have a unified standard, which should be based on the rigorous demands of combat, not just on their specific duty specialty. I have been on multiple combat deployments and those "desk job" MOS that you seem to infer don't need as high a physical standard (i.e. 42A) as do others (i.e. 11B) often find themselves in very non-MOS-typical roles when in a combat environment (I am referring to your alluding to requirements above and beyond the base PT test standard). I have personally been on a variety of mission types in combat zones where drivers, gunners, and others have been a mix of MOSs, and EVERY one of them had to be able to perform to the same combat standards (i.e. be better than the enemy or end up dead). The enemy doesn't care if you are a "desk jockey", a "wrench monkey", a "snake eater", or any other nickname various MOSs may have. The enemy has one goal in mind ... to KILL YOU AND THOSE LIKE YOU.

If a specific MOS field wants to add a separate physical requirement, that's something that would best be done while in that MOS school, such as AIT or a MOS-specific qualification course (i.e. Ranger, Special Forces, etc.). If you tried to add these requirements to the "official" PT test for a given service, you no longer have a service standard. Then how would you weigh the PT achievements of one MOS in that service against any other? There would not be a common base against which to measure that aspect of a service member's performance and you could potentially prejudice a fully-qualified service member's chance for advancement based on an artificially unbalanced "test standard". And by definition, if you have a variety of PT test requirements that differ by MOS, you no longer have a service "standard".

I fully agree with you that the physical requirements of each MOS are not equal to all the others. However, the standard service PT test is not the place in which to test MOS-specific standards of performance.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2015 4:05 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:05:41 -0500

I think we should stop focusing on the number of pushups one can do, how fast they can run and try to focus on individual job competence. When was the last time the Army tested individuals on their levels of job or basic soldier competence. Is the Army afraid of the results? I recall taking and passing a couple of Skill Qualification Tests (SQT) in the late 1980’s. I think after that in the mid 1990’s the Army created a test called the SDT, and after a short time of dismal results, threw that test out too. I feel people focus too much on a numerical quantifiable APFT score and not enough on competence.

The Army NCO creed does not mention running 2 miles really fast of doing a hundred pushups, but it does take the time to mention competence. Stop the excuses of "some people just don't test well" or words to that effect. Smart people who do happen to test well are tired of hearing that lame old excuse.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 11:01 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:01:35 -0500

This is a no brainer. The standard should be raised for infantry type units, no way someone with a 180 should be allowed to remain in an infantry unit. Also no way a 179 should be chaptered out of a cryptolinguist position, or a personnel unit. The other major factor is the integration of females, should be a standard MOS based PT test with equal standards.

I would recommend creating a regiment test rather than an MOS, Infantry/Engineers/Armor/Finance, etc. The test would be based on your unit type. So if you are a mechanic in a ranger Bat you need to meet the ranger standard. If you are a mechanic in a personnel unit, you meet the personnel standards. A mechanic in a mechanic unit you meet the mechanic standard.

The unit based PT would be needed to be able to facilitate the test.

Also as the test should be based around MOS type requirements, why not use the EIB for infantry, weight lifting and cardio for mechanics, and a basic standard for cubicle (contractor) units.

We need to stop purging our support personnel by forcing them to sit in a chair for 10 hours a day then stop their promotions because they can't run. Particuarly after we have just taught them farsi and given them a top secret clearance.

Response by SGT Clyde Rhoads made Jan 28 at 2015 4:42 PM

SGT Clyde Rhoads — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:42:00 -0500

In SOF units, the army standard is raised by 10%. Still the APFT, but you must maintain 70% in each event, though this isn't a challenge for most SOF personnel.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2015 11:36 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 23:36:46 -0500

The big problem with physical readiness in the Army is two-fold.

The first part of the problem is what the Army has become. We have become a culture of powerpoint classes, paperwork, and classroom training. The days of short ruck marches out into the middle of the woods where butcher-block paper classes and actual field training seem all but gone. I spend most of my time in front of computer these days. Civilain studies have proven that no matter how strenuous the exercise is, an hour or two's worth of exercise a day does nothing for you when the rest of the day is spent sitting. Allot of newer-built office are made with desks that require the occupant to stand. Army needs to, litterally, "get off its ass"

The other problem that the Army cannot possibly fix, and that is what the Soldier does after the flag comes down at the end of the day. Soldiers no longer organize pick-up basketball games. They dont go jogging, hiking, biking, or swimming. They go home, crack open a beer, and sit down in front of the TV and play video games. Recreational physical activity isnt cool to younger people anymore. Call it bad parenting, blame the phys-ed teacher, or whatever you want. The truth is that there is no PT test, no PT program that will fix the issue. If I go up in front of my platoon tomorrow and ask for a show of hands of the people who score 240 or higher on their APFT, and then ask who of those people have active off-duty lifestyles e.g. weight training, running, sports ect., I would see that the two statistics are related. I have PT failures that passed the APFT downrange because they had nothing else to do with their free time than go to the gym.

Of course, as a Noncomissioned Officer, I know it is not useful to identify a problem without finding a solution. Honestly, I just don't know what big Army should...or can...do to fix the physical unfitness epidemic in its ranks.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2015 5:10 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:10:34 -0500

I wonder why no one has recommended (either that or I missed it) having an additional or second test for the Combat Arms MOS'. The regular Army APFT would be required for everyone to pass (current grading standard) and then have Combat Arms MOS' be required to do an entirely separate physical fitness test consisting of events related to what you could expect to see in a combat situation. Obstacle course in some version of “battle rattle” maybe…..?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2015 2:48 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 02:48:22 -0500

We need a Spartan type test, given a weapon of choice, and 7 days in the wild with minimal provisions...you must be able to fend for yourself...

Response by CSM David Heidke made Jan 30 at 2015 8:50 AM

CSM David Heidke — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 08:50:40 -0500

We need to have hand to hand combat... To the death.

Then we wouldn't have to have any draw downs, and only the fittest would survive.

And the Generals could figure out how to give dishonorable discharges to the losers, so they could avoid paying out benefits.

I'll make E-10 yet!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2015 9:49 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 09:49:49 -0500

The military should not base your physical abilities based on your MOS that is something I don't agree with some things need to stay standard.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Feb 3 at 2015 2:48 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:48:00 -0500

First off, I think it will be used as a means for soldiers to be lazy. I want to be [insert MOS], because the PT standards are lack. Secondly, for units and platoons that acompass a wide range of jobs it would be hard to do platoon and company level PT with different standards.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2015 3:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Feb 2015 15:14:16 -0500

I think this could be a good idea if it happens. Granted, there needs to be at least a minimum for the entire Army to abide by (and let's be real, the minimum needs to be a higher standard than the current joke-of-an-APFT minimum), but having PT standards representative of your job could be an excellent idea.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 6:29 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:29:39 -0500

I think every MOS should have at least the standard Pushup, Situp, and 2mile run (Army that is, not sure what's included in other branches). It would be very chaotic if drill sergeants need to cater to each soldier during an APFT based on their MOS during Basic Training.

Should the regulation change, I would suggest they implement the additional physical training events during AIT. However, what events should be included in their APFT test, would ultimately be determined by their assigned unit. Considering every unit is made up of multiple MOS, it would be less complicated and more organized if everyone conduct the same APFT.

Still sounds chaotic though.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2015 6:49 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 06:49:04 -0500

We are all soldiers and should be held to the same standard. Just because one is a grunt and the other is a paper pusher should not matter.

Response by Cpl Alex Whitney made Mar 3 at 2015 6:34 AM

Cpl Alex Whitney — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:34:06 -0500

The whole mentality of the military is to build a force that embodies teamwork. The whole team should be held to the same standards. Regardless of your MOS, PFT standards should be the same across the board. This ensures fairness with promotions and for those that lay-move. This would be a ridiculous idea - being a Marine, we have the same standards for PFTs across the board - my vote, leave it the way it is!

Response by SSG Christopher Freeman made Mar 3 at 2015 9:01 AM

SSG Christopher Freeman — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 09:01:53 -0500

It is common knowledge that different MOSs have different physical needs. Infantry needs more physically fit Soldiers than say Public Affairs. With that in mind, we should all be able to perform at a comparable level as an infantryman. Reason being that if we need to do what they do, we should be able to perform near their level of physical fitness. Just because you are a 42A doesn't mean you can't get pulled into an infantry patrol. Will it happen, probably not. But we should be prepared for these types of things. My opinion is that 180 should be failing and the minimum should be raised to 210 with 70 in each area. It boggles my mind that big Army pushes the Soldiers athlete concept yet we have so many who struggle to run 2 miles in their 60% range, especially with doing PT 5 days a week. I also think that rucking should be part of the physical assessment. Make the 12 mile a mandatory event to be conducted separately from the other events to limit injuries. the standard: 3.5 hours. You fail, you get flagged, just like failing the APFT. Make it just a little longer (time-wise) than the AASLT standard. Get rid of the push up and go to pull-ups.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2015 2:30 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 14:30:04 -0400

This is not a good idea and all the reward you should need is self satisfaction (saw in another coment that it rewards people for accomplishing a higher physical test). And to make a pt test of various levels sounds like individual units are not cutting it with their own pt so big brother has to step in. Either way it's either someone not doing their job by keeping their unit to a higher standard or its someone that is failing themself.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2015 2:47 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 14:47:11 -0400

There's some merit to the Idea, I think. Problem is, it's just simpler to have one standard across the board. Simpler and cheaper. With the budget cuts, any costs that go into that level of a revamp will have to come from somewhere. I say keep as is.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Apr 6 at 2015 2:51 PM

BG David Fleming III — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 14:51:31 -0400

As a senior officer, I want to be evaluated on the stamina I have as measured against the number of meeting I can sit through.

Response by SGT John Wesley made Apr 6 at 2015 3:09 PM

SGT John Wesley — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:09:18 -0400

I think that the basic APFT is correct. Even us repairman had standards to maintain and the APFT is just one of them. I also remember having to do a timed road March while I was stationed in Ft. Bliss.

Response by CPT Bruce Rodgers made Apr 6 at 2015 5:30 PM

CPT Bruce Rodgers — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 17:30:37 -0400

If we're talking about a large efficient Corperation I would say yes, but we are still talking about the U.S. Army and I would have to say no , you have to use KISS with all army regs

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2015 5:44 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 17:44:22 -0400

I think we need one "Army" standards, but if we are looking to make things gender neutral, each MOS will need a separate standard. I don't expect dental techs to ruck packs with as much ease as grunts (although I am sure some can); I think it makes more sense for the "big Army" to break it out by branch or MOS.

Response by PO1 John Miller made May 15 at 2015 2:23 AM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 15 May 2015 02:23:15 -0400

The Navy pretty much already does this. We have our "baseline" PFA scores that everyone must meet. However, members of the SPECWAR/SPECOPS communities; SEALS, EOD, SWCC, Navy Divers, etc. have additional physical fitness standards they must meet/maintain.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2015 8:26 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 May 2015 08:26:43 -0400

Everyone is acting like these MOS based standards don't already exist. God forbid if you are an 11B in an airborne unit and you don't score a 270....especially if you have any aspirations of going to any school besides bus driver.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2015 12:44 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:44:22 -0400

These discussions miss several important points. First, strength is a skill. You only adapt to technique, not effort. So you need to be able to absorb and deliver force in all six degrees that the body moves. Second, the Army is all about "general effectiveness" vice "personal mastery" or "unconscious competence". Most of you here have done combatives and fought the one minute rounds. Do you really think even a 300 on the APFT makes you fit for combat? Are ever "fit enough"? The Army can come up with a better bodyweight fitness test that should apply to everyone across the board and be gender agnostic. I would suggest looking at the TACFIT "Q" (Qualifier) as example of a 30 minute test that addresses all six degrees of movement taht ae tactically relevant and also tests an important factor unaddressed by the Army: stress recovery (heart rate recovery). For MOS specific tasks, you already have the 12 mile road march in 3 hours, the standard obstacle course, the Land Nav courses, Combatives Tournaments, the All Army Small Arms Championship, the Best Ranger Competition, are all examples of physically demanding job specific tests. http://www.rmaxinternational.com/flowcoach/?p=825

Response by SPC Bobby Coble made Jan 16 at 2016 4:11 PM

SPC Bobby Coble — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:11:30 -0500

I think this is a great idea, but, perhaps, rather than MOS based, make it mission based, perhaps at the battalion level? For instance, everyone in the infantry battalion has to do a road march. with equivalent but relative events for other types of units.

Response by CW5 Jim Steddum made Jan 16 at 2016 4:19 PM

CW5 Jim Steddum — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:19:05 -0500

I think that everyone should be able to pass a base test (like what we currently have). Further, higher level tests should be required for more combat oriented skills sets/positions. If a person with a particular skillset cannot pass what we have now, they should be a civilian.

Response by MSG Paul DePrimo made Jan 16 at 2016 4:39 PM

MSG Paul DePrimo — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:39:22 -0500

This is really painful!..... I went to basic training in 1982, wore BDU pants, t-shirt and black leather combat boots for ALL PT and every other thing we did. I was a combat engineer completing the same basic as every other MOS there. There has been nothing but a decline in everything the Army does (most) Someone introduced sneakers, why will we fight in sneakers?? then they put out stress cards in case someone's feeling was hurt. Then they took BDU's away and replaced boots that can look like crap everywhere you go. ACU's did not have to be pressed. Some Asshat General took the Black Beret from the rangers and gave it to everyone! The paperwork now is absolutely ridiculous. I retired in 2013 and miss everything about the Army except everything I mentioned above! (and some politics) We have Navy & Air Force wanting to be equal to the Marines or Army. We want everyone to wear the same uniform. WTH....I agree we waste way to much money on uniform changes. I see the same General say the Army needs better cammo, but the same General was involved and approved the first cammo change and said the same thing! Sorry but We are NOT one entity, the ARMY is the ARMY, The MARINES are the MARINES etc...be proud of the branch you serve in and DO NOT try to be something you are not! Thank you all for your service!

Response by SGT Mathew Husen made Jan 16 at 2016 5:34 PM

SGT Mathew Husen — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:34:02 -0500

While we are at it, people who fail basic training should automatically pass now because they participated and we do not want them to get their feelings hurt.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2016 7:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 19:48:19 -0500

That is week we as Soldiers should be required to be able to fill in for any other Soldier at any given time

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2016 8:19 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 20:19:04 -0500

We are soldiers first, that is our primary MOS at all times.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 12:03 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:03:01 -0500

Disagree. One test. If they fail - kick them out. If they pass - good for them.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 12:17 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:17:02 -0500

There "kind of-sort of" are different standards around the Army, depending on the command. It seems like infantry and other line combat arms units expect much more than a minimum 180 on the APFT. Many Soldiers who served in such units told me they were required to get at least a 270, or they were placed in remedial PT. In most of the combat service support units I served in however, 180 was acceptable but we were encouraged to break a 240. Officers had to achieve 270 if they expected to get a top block OER in my last unit in Okinawa. I imagine that an infantry unit would expect an officer to achieve a minimum of 270 and 300 for a top block.

Response by SGT Richard Blue made Jan 17 at 2016 1:39 AM

SGT Richard Blue — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 01:39:30 -0500

I don't agree with this at all!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 3:11 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 03:11:11 -0500

Here's the problem I see with this idea; What about units that have low-density MOS's? I'm one of four Air Defenders at an Army Headquarters. The command isn't going to have time to organize an MOS Specific test for me and my guys. Sure I could take the initiative and do it, but the command would have to validate it. They have a hard enough time getting everyone to take an APFT. In my mind, it isn't feasible from an organizational perspective. Too many mixed units for a commander to effectively organize everything.

If this concept is something Big Army wants to pursue, I'd throw out bringing back the MOSQ program. Everyone, everywhere would have to qualify within their MOS annually or get flagged. You could add specific physical fitness requirements into this, like a ruck march, individual and teams lifts, obstacle course completion, etc. You keep your standard, semi-annual APFT for everyone, and then require more specifics as part of their MOSQ, conducted annually.

Response by SPC Matt Davidson made Jan 17 at 2016 4:15 AM

SPC Matt Davidson — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 04:15:03 -0500

no. the point for everybody having the same standard for pt is that while unlikely a mechanic or a desk jockey may have to do the exact same kind of thing as a combat mos soldier such as carrying a wounded comrade or fight. it really comes down to this. if you are on a convoy and get ambushed or you are on a Blackhawk and it goes down do you really want to drag around soldiers that are struggling because they aren't up to the same physical standard for the reason that they are not likely to ever see combat?

I do find it interesting the number of people here that think there should be a different standard because somebody will "never deploy or see combat" ok I understand but here's the counter point. what if they do?

Response by CPL James Mellar made Jan 17 at 2016 4:24 AM

CPL James Mellar — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 04:24:04 -0500

In my day physical fitness was an individual soldier's responsibility. Some soldiers sat at desks all day, and others trained in the field all day, so a good many failed to get all the proper exercise needed, but the Army did not care, since it was the soldier's responsibility to keep in shape. Sure commanders were concerned, and often scheduled remedial pt to help, and that extra training was appreciated, but it never seemed to work if the soldier failed to put in the required individual effort. I always felt that r.e.m.f.s. were lesser soldiers, but if the army goes to M.O.S. specific pt tests, with that finally confirm my suspicions?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 9:26 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:26:31 -0500

I am tired of hearing this tired argument about a PT Test. The PT Test is merely a way to measure physical fitness. Not a way to measure how capable someone can do his or her job. I have yet to meet a person who scores a 300 on their PT Test who physically can't hack it on a patrol. Having said that, I haven't met a soldier who can't pass the PT test, but is able to do their job with a high level of proficiency. Reason being is physical fitness is often a solid gauge for how seriously one takes his or her job. In most cases it shows a high level of discipline. I understand there are exceptions. As an organization we don't deal in exceptions. We deal with standards.

Long story short if a unit feels it best to add standards like 4 mile runs in 32 minutes, or 12 mile rucks in 3 hours to better understand their soldiers physical capabilities so be it. The Army doesn't need to reinvent the wheel. Weak people need to be better at PT.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Mar 24 at 2018 10:14 AM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:14:38 -0400

This is exactly right. Also, we need to eliminate age and gender differences on the PT tests. Rank and MOS differences make sense, age and gender differences don't. An E9 11B probably doesn't have the same physical demands as an E4 11B, but that E4 11B has the same physical requirements whether they're 18 and male or 35 and female.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Mar 25 at 2018 12:05 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 12:05:39 -0400

Nice idea Sir, but since there appears to be no safe areas in the current battlefield, what happens if your FOB gets overrun? The grunts pack up and haul ass and the specialist die in place??

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Mar 25 at 2018 1:39 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 13:39:54 -0400

Well said