Should NCOs with permanent profiles be allowed to hold leadership positions?

2017-04-05T06:51:38-04:00

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Apr 5 at 2017 6:58 AM

2017-04-05T06:58:31-04:00

SFC Private RallyPoint Member It's NCO's that cannot take a 3 event APFT that will eventually not be allowed to hold leadership positions. Also, I agree with this. At the very end of my career I had a breathe at my own pace and distance P3 and no way in hell should I have been in a leadership position. Which is why I retired when I did.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2017 7:06 AM

2017-04-05T07:06:43-04:00

SFC Hill,
This topic along is a touchy subject. I am on a P2 Profile for a serious injury to my knee and I am constantly trying to prove myself to others because as soon as they know you are on profile they have an issue with it. I believe that just because you are on profile, it shouldnt keep you from holding a leadership position. That is just my stance on this position. I will say this, you dont have to be in a leadership position to be a leader.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Apr 5 at 2017 7:29 AM

2017-04-05T07:29:25-04:00

This is similar to the days in the 101st that if you were a LT, CPT, MAJ, LTC and could not complete Air Assault School you could not hold a "green tab" position. It was the same for NCO's then also, and we had several aviation leaders removed from positions due to this policy. You have to ask your self at times if non-combatant MOS or units without the rigors of the physical that a profile may limit someone. I do believe 100% that folks who are in positions regardless of rank need to be deployable and able to perform their duty as specified. If unable then they need leadership positions in garrison units where functioning overseas in an austere environment may not be in their future until either recovery to full PULSHE status or into a non-leadership staff position. The leading from the front is possible even with a P3 profile if in the right unit. Assignments officers and individuals just have to be honest and pick the right job, at the right time and the right place.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Apr 5 at 2017 7:35 AM

2017-04-05T07:35:37-04:00

SFC Private RallyPoint Member "What do you think about NCOs with permanent profiles AND not being capable of performing their assigned duties without restriction not being allowed to hold leadership positions?"

Sergeant Im glad you asked...lol
Yes I know I changed the "question"

Because a profile in of it self does not equal an inability to perform the core duties assigned.
The SFC Platoon sergeant in the S6 section responsible for network connectivity can likely do his assigned duties with a P3 hearing profile and wearing dual hearing aids.

The HHC commander that has a P3 profile for carrying a pack more then 10 miles....likely does not impact her ability to perform her duties.

THAT SAID..Yes, if the P profile impacts the NCO's assigned duties that needs to be considered..If there is a more qualified SM available, the limited and restricted NCO should be moved out of position.

Blanket policies like "All NCOS with a P3 profile will be removed form leadership position and or not assigned one" Are lazy leaders, refusing to do THEIR jobs. observe, Analyze, research, and then decide.

Any leader who sets such a policy ...their leadership is in question firstly.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Apr 5 at 2017 7:57 AM

2017-04-05T07:57:05-04:00

It sounds like an "All must fit one size" policy that officially stigmatizes good NCOs. When I was a junior NCO, it was commonly accepted in infantry companies that most of the senior NCOs had P3 profiles because of worn-out knees. It was also commonly accepted that those same NCOs would still routinely run us into the ground, and you'd only hear about the profile when their back or knee trouble flared up.
If NCOs learn that permanent profiles will block them from the leadership positions that they need for promotions, it won't take long for them to start making the same decision I did as an ROTC cadet, when I wound up getting sent to sick call after I had to drop back on a PT run. When the PA said that he considered me eligible for a P2 or P3, I asked him to not do that, pointing out that having a profile would very likely disqualify me from getting commissioned, and that would be despite the fact that my personal PT program back at Cal Poly included daily 5-mile runs (averaging around 40 minutes, if I remember right).

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2017 8:09 AM

2017-04-05T08:09:58-04:00

Leadership and PT are not the same thing. It sounds like the Army routinely confuses the two.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2017 8:29 AM

2017-04-05T08:29:25-04:00

If they can't perform they're not fit to deploy then put them in TRADOC or recruiting and suck all the yahoos who are perfectly capable of deploying out of their hiding places in those commands.

Response by SFC William Stephens made Apr 5 at 2017 8:43 AM

2017-04-05T08:43:18-04:00

I think if your NCO and you have a profile you really can't control that but the IE ARMY will find some way to do away with you and the start will be your LEADERSHIP POSITION. I think if your broke in the words your soldiers can see that and know that you can not lead them in combat so you should not be leading them, my words to you.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2017 8:50 AM

2017-04-05T08:50:33-04:00

I've become suspicious of how many actually need them. I always passed my PT test, but I never achieved all 90s because of a few standard injuries that I was able to manage by going to regular therapy. I can't tell you know many NCOs told me to go get a profile even though I could perform all required events and training movements above standard but not to their personal standard.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2017 9:25 AM

2017-04-05T09:25:29-04:00

I agree with it wholeheartedly. We all freely took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and part of that was that we agreed to shoot a minimum of 23 targets, run four miles per year, and do some pushup and sit-ups. Why is it okay to break that agreement now? Lots of seniors I've seen with 'service connected' injuries/disabilities really aren't. Many of those injuries were from their own doing, i.e. failing to maintain an adequate level of conditioning. I'm not talking about those of us who actually were injured in combat or burned in on a drop zone. I'm talking about the guys who let themselves gain a bit of extra weight and then complain about knee/back pain. Go to any military hospital and look at the percentage of profiles. It's appalling. I'm 40 years old, have multiple combat tours, combat injuries from hostile fire, and can still beat most of the 20 year old soldiers. It's not because I'm an amazing physical specimen (far from it), or that it doesn't hurt (it does), but it's because I said I would when I joined. It's nothing more than following the Army Values.

I look at it as if you can't/won't fulfill your basic oath you took when you entered the service, then why would I want you in front of other Soldiers potentially infecting them with that same attitude or at a minimum tolerance for failing to uphold Army values.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2017 9:54 AM

2017-04-05T09:54:22-04:00

Yes.

Response by SFC Andrew Miller made Apr 5 at 2017 10:29 AM

2017-04-05T10:29:04-04:00

After my final trip to Iraq, about 2-3 years before I retired, I received a P3 for own pace and distance because I had developed asthma, high blood pressure, and a heart condition. The heart condition actually made me non-deployable.

While my profile was own pace and distance, I still was able to get out there and do the company and battalion runs and smoke the crap out of the young soldiers especially on a ruck march. My run times did drop significantly, but I could still pass the 2 mile run whenever I attempted. I was taking three different meds daily and still do to this day.

The battalion was getting ready to deploy about 7 months before I was going to retire which I planned more because I was non-deployable and the age of my kids than the "physical limitations". I was asked to stay through the end of the deployment to help with rear detachment. I think I worked more during those 14 months or so than the rest of my military career. While we had a RD Commander and 1SG, I ended up taking on almost everything else. The staff sections reported to me, I was the S2, S6, Operations and Schools NCO, EOL, and whatever else needed done. My profile had no bearing on my ability to perform and regardless of duty position, the junior NCOs came to me or brought their soldiers to me if they needed anything.

I agree with SGM Erik Marquez that the NCO needs to be able to physically perform the duties of the position to hold it, but I never once had a soldier question my leadership ability due to my profile.

Response by 1st Lt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2017 10:32 AM

2017-04-05T10:32:37-04:00

Maybe this is a starting point to classify persons by APFT/PULHES for non-combat vs combat roles.
Looking at the long-term of the military, having the right talent in the right places is a way to improve efficiencies of the entire system with fewer people...a force multiplier.
For example, a medic attached to an infantry unit would require different physical abilities than that of a medic in the clinic. The one in the clinic wouldn't even carry a ruck. If that medic wanted to transfer to a line unit, the PT requirement would differ.
Again, PT is good for overall health and should be encouraged.
I have passed every APFT so far in my career but I have bulging discs. I'd prefer to lighten up the PT and still serve. My fear is that some will continue to push too far simply to be retained, as all do. It will likely increase the damage, further increase medical care, etc. If those with minor injuries could continue in a limited PT capacity, it would save the government money (over time) and retain someone more experienced with desire to serve.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Apr 5 at 2017 10:44 AM

2017-04-05T10:44:11-04:00

Short answer - It depends if the profile affects their job performance.

Response by SGT David T. made Apr 5 at 2017 10:45 AM

2017-04-05T10:45:19-04:00

I think it all depends. It depends on if the NCO can perform their job or not. An Infantry NCO who cant walk probably should be reassigned. An Admin NCO, is a different story. PT does not equal leadership ability. This has always rubbed me wrong when I was in. I have seen exceptional leaders who were treated like crap and not advance because they had a profile. I have some of the most worthless NCOs who were good at PT treated exactly the opposite. Just because someone has a limitation, does not mean they cannot perform their duties.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Apr 5 at 2017 11:19 AM

2017-04-05T11:19:34-04:00

Maybe? So much more information needed to properly answer this question.

Response by 1SG Brian Adams made Apr 5 at 2017 11:19 AM

2017-04-05T11:19:56-04:00

Yes...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2017 11:34 AM

2017-04-05T11:34:10-04:00

Yes! I have had a P3 profile since 2009. It does not hinder my ability to perform, lead, train, mentor, or motivate Soldiers. However, each P3 should be evaluated based on the individual profile and the requirements of that position (which is the purpose of the MEB/PEB process)! I was found Fit for Duty.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Apr 5 at 2017 1:56 PM

2017-04-05T13:56:27-04:00

Why not? Just because the body may be broken doesn't mean the brain is.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2017 2:51 PM

2017-04-05T14:51:20-04:00

as long as they can speak, i dont see why not.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 6 at 2017 12:27 AM

2017-04-06T00:27:49-04:00

SFC Private RallyPoint Member That is all situation dependent... What matters is can you perform the job, the mission, function. Deployability matters too.

Many troopers have Permanent Profiles for injuries sustained on active duty, in combat, etc.. That may or may not hinder one's ability to do their their job and/or lead... Everyone should be handled as an individual.

My 1st squadron commander had an eye patch, from Vietnam... He did not seem to be hindered. General Shinseki lost half of his foot in Vietnam...

The issue comes when Officers or NCOs use the profile system to avoid duties and responsibilities.. It is also position, and MOS related as well as SGM Erik Marquez stated.

I have also seen more than one Colonel, after 911, that was non-deployable... but could run marathons and do triathlons... That meant the rest of us had to go more...

Response by MSG Carolyn Emery made Apr 6 at 2017 1:42 PM

2017-04-06T13:42:11-04:00

This is a very relatable subject to my last six years in the US Army. I was selected as the HHD Detachment Sergeant in front of 8 SFC's who were my seniors by DOR. I served in the position for three months and then made the difficult but correct decision to be replaced. I could not in good conscious serve from the front, and asking my Soldiers to do something that I could no longer do. I was fortunate to PCS to a new duty station, who took my physical limitations into consideration and placed me in a position where I could serve significantly at the MACOM level. I received a P3 Profile (walk-only event) for APFT, and was still allowed to do all the requirements to make myself deployable. My command placed me in a staff position (G-34) where I served as the Force Protection Officer and spent many trips TDY throughout southeastern Asia region over the next four years until my retirement.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2017 5:11 PM

2017-04-06T17:11:39-04:00

I think it depends on the leadership position and the NCO.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2017 5:38 PM

2017-04-07T17:38:27-04:00

I honestly believe that it should not be a cookie cutter standard. I believe that it should be based on that individuals abilities and his/her actions. There are a lot of personnel that have profiles and ride them to the fullest even at the senior level. Then there are those that truly try to do their best within the limits of their profile and some that push harder than they should knowing that they have a profile in case they push to hard and need to recover some. The medical process to decide if they can still perform their MOS that is up to the Drs. not the command.

Response by SPC David Hack made Apr 8 at 2017 1:52 AM

2017-04-08T01:52:15-04:00

Hey, I recognize that patch that 1LT's wearing! ONCE A CYCLONE ALWAYS A CYCLONE!

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2017 7:46 PM

2017-04-08T19:46:28-04:00

Well, FDR lead from a wheel chair.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2017 9:57 AM

2017-04-10T09:57:01-04:00

Not all Soldiers on a profile seek minimum standards or accept them from their Soldiers/Subordinates! I for one maxed all of my APFT's for over 9 years and boxed for 4.5 years. Minimums are not in my DNA.

When I see leaders who I know are on a profile trying their hardest to mentor, lead, motivate, and encourage Soldiers to succeed and be the best I am pleased. I understand that we are a Fighting Force, but fights are also won with the MIND! I'm not sure what the best solution is, but a case by case evaluation versus a blanket removal of all P-3's from leadership is a seemingly better option for the military as a whole.

Not all P-3's are created equal.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2017 7:13 AM

2017-04-26T07:13:56-04:00

In all reality it comes down to what your job requirements are, but this means there should be a set standard to perform that duty regardless of age, sex or physical profile. Why should a male be kicked out if he can't get a 180 in male standards but passes female standards then females get to stay in but don't reach male standards? It's time for the Army to set a standard per MOS and nothing else.