"The 60% Soldier..." What are your thoughts on this?

SSG Jacob Wiley — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 08:14:36 -0500

Saw this on a friend's FB post. I like a good debate, so I am going to share it here. Read it through, then read my reply. What's your thoughts on this?

THE SIXTY PERCENT SOLDIER

We DO NOT promote Soldiers simple because they are eligible. DA form 3355's submitted for the 60% Soldiers. 60% Soldiers show up for the APFT to just pass; do common tasks to pass, and shoot their assigned weapon just to qualify. They don't compete for NCO or Soldier of the month, Sergeant Audie Murphy, SGT Morales, They do not volunteer for Airborne, Air Assault, Jumpmaster or Ranger School, or any other professional training such as Recruiter or Drill Sergeant. They seek out and hide for years in TRADOC or AC/RC assignments; they even hide out in their unit of assignment. Then have the gall to ask where my MSM or my ARCOM is? The 60% Soldier will know there are drugs in the unit, maybe even do drugs and drink excessively with junior Soldiers, but stand in every Friday safety brief and pledge to do the right thing. They are often caught in violation of AR 670-1. They grow sideburns and keep their appearance just under regulation. I hear them ask the question in the APFT push up line, "How much to get 60 points?" I am often told that they do their job well and that we should give them a chance. Well I'm here to tell you, that they get paid to do their job well. They are promoted because they give 200%, seven days a week, not 60%, 4 to 5 days a week. Soldiers deserving of promotion must be already setting the example. They must do push-ups and sit-ups for the full 2 minutes, run as hard as they can to always better their last time, and they must think and concentrate to shoot expert; after all, who will train tomorrow’s expert, todays marksman? Who will lead their teams and squads through vigorous PT, todays APFT score of 180?

As your 60% Soldier defends your perimeter, he's only good for 36 seconds of the final 1-minute attack. He only hits 6 out of 10 incoming enemy soldiers. He only remembers 60% of his MOS and individual training. Let’s hope part of that 60% is the First Aid you need on the battlefield.

Your good promotion candidate should already be in your NCOPD class. He should be learning to instruct and train. He should admire and emulate those appointed over him and not selecting 60% Soldiers for promotions.
Go ahead; promote your 60% Soldier today. I hope he's your 60% First Sergeant tomorrow.... -author unknown

Response:

If the army wanted everyone to make 270 on an APFT, they should have set that as the standard. If sideburns are truly a no go, but it's just "hidden" in the reg - it should have stated clearly not to have them - don't give Soldier the option. Don't "volunteer" for hooah schools? Well...shame on the army for making said school optional then. And shame for drinking with juniors and building a bond...who cares that they do it every weekend? Seems like they are able to make it a ritual because no ones driving drunk and getting hauled off to jail, meaning they are adhering to said promise on Friday's safety brief.

Passing is passing. 12 mile road March in 3 hours or the megatron that came in under two. On training stats, no one knows who got a 300 or a 180 - it's just total # who passed. Ever sat in command and staff? Then you know what I'm talking about.

People should push themselves to the max because THEY are ambitious and want to. Because they have a desire to master everything the army has to offer. Otherwise, that individual is literally only upholding the standards - which is exactly what the Army is about, and upholding standards in itself is all over NCOER bullets and reason TO promote. "Sets an example to subordinates by consistently passing the APFT". Strong bullet comment...eh. Factual, and indicative of maintaining compliance with army standards? You bet!

If soldiers are supposed to pull 300s, shave it bald and skip their family to be TDY for school every three weeks then it would be in a regulation; not a 180 standard, not "no lower than the lowest opening of the ear", and schools wouldn't be optional and require a packet.

This 60% Soldier mentality stuff is in some hard-ass' "secret how-to-be-hooah-like-me reg" that counters all published Army standards.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 7 at 2015 8:28 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 08:28:53 -0500

I challenge you to consider whether we should allow the 60% Soldier to remain in service or allow them to complete their honorable service as we assist them through the transition process.

I believe it took a 70% to pass my college classes with a D average, was it the same for you? If you happen to continue your professional education, you will find that those 70% classes most likely will not transfer to an accredited school, should they accept a mediocre student into their institution? While 60% might be the minimum standard, should we embrace/accept mediocrity in our ranks? And, if the individual has the ability to do much more than 60% but chose not to, then we should consider the Warrior Ethos "I Will Never Quit".

Are you fanning the flames of debate or do you yourself stop at 60% and insist the same from your Soldiers?

http://www.army.mil/values/warrior.html

Warrior Ethos - Army Values

The following is the Warrior Ethos

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 7 at 2015 8:46 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 08:46:17 -0500

I agree with your response because some people are not or never will be PT studs. Some scrape by shooting marksman because they do not get to shoot often and never get to practice.

Some Soldiers just want to do their jobs and do them well, they may ask questions like where's mine but that is when you as a leader should engage them and say he/she got this because they did x, y, and z.

In that scenario I say a lot of me but I did not consider myself a 60% Soldier I did my best in everything I did. In my 12 years I only attended three boards two E-5 boards, and an E-6 board.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 7 at 2015 9:11 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 09:11:45 -0500

Total package. It's always about the total package.

Some soldiers will be lousy shots, and that 60% is what you are going to get out of them. BUT, they will be PT studs. They will have high proficiency in their field. They will be squared away in uniform. Other soldiers will have some variation of that.

The problem is when you have an individual who is barely performing in multiple areas, without excelling in others. In other words, his total package is sub-par.

Promoted above his peers. That is the key phrase.

"Know ye, that reposing special trust and confidence in the fidelity and abilities of..."

So, we promote because we trust them. Not just trust them, but have a special trust in them. Not that they are capable in doing the job they are currently doing, but in doing the next level. That they can lead those below them. Our warrants grant us authority, invested power.

Response by CPT Andrew Reed made Mar 7 at 2015 9:44 AM

CPT Andrew Reed — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 09:44:41 -0500

SSG Jacob Wiley Excellent discussion starter, and I like your response (though I predict a lot of people wont.) This is a situation that we all encounter on a fairly regular basis.

One of my First Sergeants kept a small poster on the wall behind his desk. "When you joined the Army, you volunteered to meet our standards." He would point to it when talking to those young men and women that weren't quite cutting it. When I started as a platoon leader, I was full of piss and vinegar. I had fire in my veins, and I was upset when my Soldiers didn't push themselves to meet their potential. That poster on my First Sergeant's wall cuts both ways.

People join our organization for a lot of reasons. To serve their country, pay for school, receive training in a trade, provide a paycheck for their family... There is no 'right' reason. They all volunteered, they're all willing to make the sacrifices the nation requires of them, and they are all expected to meet our standards.

I don't get angry with the Soldiers that I perceive to be underperforming anymore. Instead, I question what motivates them. I question how their leadership is engaging them. I try to figure out what it's going to take to push them to excel. For some, excelling in the Army is not something that's important to them. That's okay.

Regarding promotions, we have standards and promotion policies in place for a reason. Up to Specialist, I think meeting the Army standard is good enough. Most Soldiers are young and they don't quite know what direction they're going in life yet. A good NCO will help them find that direction, and push them to be the best that they can be. Maybe that is with the Army, maybe it's not. Once it comes to Sergeant though, we have a board for a reason.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Mar 7 at 2015 10:17 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:17:07 -0500

TL/DR: (I rambled, and am not going to edit, so...) If a Solider choses to perform at the minimum standard, they should expect a minimum standard career/term of service.

I think both have merits. I haven't weighed in on this topic for quite a while, so......

The Army Standard is the Army Standard, which means it is the Army Standard. 180, with 60 in each event, is a passing APFT score. Which means it MEETS the standard. 23/40 on the M-16 qualification course is a passing score, which means it MEETS the standard. Etc, etc, etc.

The Army sets standards to ensure a baseline is met. All Soldier will be able to at least....

Someone who is the "60% Soldier" (Never heard the term before, but like it), neither impresses nor offends me. They meet the baseline that the Army has set. If I get them, I know that they will be at least a minimally functional Soldier[1].

I see no reason to be offended by their performance. The Army set a standard, and they met it. That is the DEFINITION of success. Some units and schools will have a legitimately higher standard[2]. Members of those units should MEET those standards. As you stated in your reply, if the Army wanted 270 to be the standard, it could do that. It declined.

--BREAK--
Meeting the baseline also does not impress me. It simply means that you do your job at an acceptable level. That is what you are PAID for. Again, it is the baseline. No sin, but definitely nothing to get excited over.

The person who gets a meritorious award is going to be the one who does something... meritorious. Doing the job you are paid for isn't - again, it's the baseline.

The person who gets the 1/1 or 1/2 eval is going to be the one who does MORE than the baseline. It should be noted that a 3/3 is "success"/"meets standards." The person whose promotion packet is going to be endorsed is the one who has DEMONSTRATED the ability & drive to perform at the next level. This is going to be the person who has gone significantly above the baseline and DISTINGUISHED themselves from their peers.

As long as a Soldier is content to do their job to the Army standard, I am content to let them. They should know that they are deciding every day what sort of career path they are establishing for themselves.

They should also know that in a shrinking Army, the Army may not be willing to let them have a career on those terms (RCPs, OSBs, QRBs, etc.). An Order of Merit List doesn't work well for those who do the minimums.

[1] It is my personal belief that any Soldier should be able to perform at that 60% level at all times, i.e. without additional train-up, but that is personal rather than "official".
[2] A legitimately higher standard is one that is set by an authority that is competent, but regulation, to do so. If I decide that my BN has to all shoot Expert, that is not a legitimate standard for this purpose. It might well be a criteria for determining awards, promotion recommendations, etc. But not for the issue of meeting ARMY standards.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Mar 7 at 2015 10:21 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:21:44 -0500

I will also add in response to your correspondent's post he demonstrates an attitude that I often see in the Force (and here on RP) that TRADOC assignments aren't things that "real" Soldiers do. However, the ARMY thinks that the institutional Army is important, otherwise there would not be a TRADOC in existence. The viewpoint that some Soldiers aren't "real" Soldiers because you don't respect the billets that the Army created and placed them in is both short sighted and toxic to a functional organization.

(and a separate issue from whether or not some Soldiers sham in them....)

Response by LTC Paul Heinlein made Mar 7 at 2015 11:05 AM

LTC Paul Heinlein — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 11:05:20 -0500

Great debate.

I believe everyone (for the most part, minus a hiccup here or there) gets to the level where their mental & physical capabilities and attitude (self motivation/drive) become average and they no longer standout (as above average or a go get-ter). For some, this is much sooner than others. Some might also get to a higher level where they are even "below" average. These are the people that are really struggling to get by (but their motivation/drive to succeed may help them overcome their shortcomings).
So maybe the people the conversation is referring to, have just reached their total potential or over reached it. If they have not, and they are stagnating, that is when the leader needs to jump in an assist them in achieving their potential. Some will respond and others won’t. These people will eventually move on and/ or out for one reason or other. And that is the natural progression of things. Just like in sports. At the young ages in sports, there are a lot of kids playing, but over the years as physical capabilities get challenged, the ones who do not have the capability or desire to compete go off and find other things to do.
If everyone was equal, and competed and achieved everything that makes people standout, then those things identified as remarkable (ABN, Ranger, Air Assault, 300 on APFT, Audie Murphy Club, Soldier of the Year, etc.) would be held in as much esteem as the Army Service Ribbon is to someone who has been in the Army for 10 years or so. Some people don’t recognize it, but in some ways it’s harder to get and stay in the Army than it is to get into and stay College. Many people are turned away at the recruiting station; don’t make it thru basic, etc. Whether you like it or not, by the time they reach a line unit, they have already stood up as Above Average at some level..And that might just be where they peaked.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 12:02 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 12:02:33 -0500

I can't stand this 60% malarkey. What I mean is that if a soldier strives to meet the standard is putting fourth the minimal effort forward. If he is so far below it that he takes his 110% just to get to the 60% mark it is their own fault. If a soldier tells me that they just passed on a APFT I want to know what is their score. If it was 192 I am going to inform them that they need to try better. That is nothing to brag about. If a soldier came in and said he got a 290 then I will tell him to keep it up.

This mentality is contagious and dangerous. It is damning the aspirations of so many of our young soldiers. When it comes down to you are boots on ground that 60% effort isn't good enough. I am going to need your all. If you can't put your all into your profession then how can you magically do well in combat.

I don't buy this "Good Field Soldier" stuff either. It is like saying that you are only good at part of your job. I would much rather have someone that is consistent than someone that is "OK" with their poor performance. If you are horrible in the field and are OK with that then they are accepting failure in that area. I am sure they would do the same in another. But if they identified their weakness and worked on it the would be better in time.

I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be, one-hundred-percent and then some. -Ranger Creed

Response by SGT Edward Thomas made Mar 7 at 2015 12:06 PM

SGT Edward Thomas — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 12:06:39 -0500

That 60% theory doesn't hold a lot of water to me. The schools that were mentioned often require a minimum of 60% in each event of an APFT at the 17-21 year age group. So with that thought process when I was 31 years old I passed that APFT with a 225 in the 17-21 year age group. I was no PT stud. I had to work hard to get to that point to push myself farther and faster. At age 31 I graduated the Basic Airborne Course when I was watching younger soldiers drop out like crazy. I also saw 2LTs on txt and return to Ft Bragg not make it. One thing I do know about these average soldiers is they're loyal to the unit. I would take a 60% soldier that wants to serve and do their job as to a soldier who is badge collecting.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Mar 7 at 2015 12:28 PM

1SG Steven Stankovich — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 12:28:05 -0500

A long time ago the 60% Soldier could get by. Minimum effort, minimum dedication, and they would just slide on by. Usually they would stumble to the rank of SGT and from there they "may" get nabbed for Recruiting duty or Drill Sergeant duty and as long as they didn't screw up, they would survive, make SSG, and remain competitive...at 60% effort.

Those days are gone. The only thing 60% gets you nowadays is 100% bounced out the door. Our Army is now a "we need" organization who selects those who they need vice an organization "who needs you." Step up or step out.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 2:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 14:05:24 -0500

Well there is a lot in there. Let me just put my thoughts on this and well the 60% soldier we all know one and I am sure most have had one under them. This 60% soldier does what he needs to and well if this soldier is getting out then that is ok. However if you want to get promoted then you need to separate yourself from your peers we promote because you did better and we promote because you have that leadership potential. How can you lead if all you can do is pass. Remember that leaders lead from the front. How can you push your soldiers if all you can do is pass? That 60% soldier is a ok soldier but with that mindset will not make a good leader.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 2:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 14:32:26 -0500

SSG Jacob Wiley I like your answer and agree with it! These 60 percent Soldiers mentioned I have seen but they are few and far between. Usually there is 1 per platoon from what I have experienced which 1 out of 40 isn't bad stats at all

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 2:40 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 14:40:31 -0500

As long as there has been a standing military force in our country there has been a need for a standard. Defining standards are how we determine who is just getting by and who is putting forth the effort to stand out and better themselves. These are usually the ones who get promoted. The main thing we need to remember is without a minimum standard, how do we determine who is truly eligible for promotions and other recognitions?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 2:49 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 14:49:47 -0500

So what if 60 percent is that Soldier's 100 percent effort? They have met the standard and are still performing at the max. Should they not be allowed to continue serving? As many have stated we don't train nearly enough to maintain basic marksmanship skills (luckily for me I own rifles and am fortunate to have the income to support buying ammo and range time) and in many units PRT is not being pushed to the necessary limits to maintain the current level of a Soldier's fitness. Also I have observed that incentive which previously lead Soldiers to excel have been all but eliminated. Soldiers in my experience are more than willing to volunteer for schools but with many schools offered having limitations of MOS or unit affiliation, you can't fault a Soldier for not attending. And with the new trend of Internet training taking away from leader and Soldier interaction, it is no wonder "we" don't sufficiently instill higher goals in our Soldiers.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 6:10 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 18:10:04 -0500

Good post, SSG Jacob Wiley. I don't exactly disagree with you regarding standards, but I always tried to live the "Be all you can be" Army motto. And I think that's what right looks like.

Even if you don't believe in that - if standards are standards (and they are) - trying to do better than the minimum standard and doing one's best will set one apart from one's peers. Those who aim high are more likely to be recognized, promoted early (or just promoted), etc.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2015 8:50 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 20:50:00 -0500

I saw this topic earlier and went past thinking I had nothing to add, but here I am.
I only spent five years in active service, I've spent ten out. I don't think there is such a thing as a 60% soldier. I've never met a soldier who consistently aimed at just passing. Maybe they struggled in certain areas or those areas weren't priorities. Every one who signed up and made it through training is exceptional in someway. Something motivated then to sign up and at least try their hand at a difficult career. Is it for everyone? Of course not. Are you entitled to a full career? Of course not.
The expression "not everyone grows up to be an astronaut"comes to mind. The sad truth is not everyone is Alvin York, Audie Murphy, Patton, Grant, our Lee, but neither were thousands of soldiers on the field with them.
A soldier who meets the standard has done just that, met the standard. That should entitle him to the opportunity to perform his duties to standard free of harassment about not exceeding the standard or negative repercussions.
Should he be made aware that just meeting the standard means no preferential treatment in the scheduling of schools? Absolutely. Should they be told that this could affect promotions and retention? Of course.
Not everyone grows up to be a ranger and that's the truth. Neither should they. Aspire? Yes. But the idea that every soldier in every branch in every unit is a ranger who hasn't had the opportunity to shine is a delusion. A soldier who meets the standard should be treated as a soldier.
On a more technical note someone with experience in a G-3 should chime in with why the standard is. I imagine history buffs, officers and senior NCOs already know. "Get there the firstest with the mostest" General Nathan Bedford Forrest CSA.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 8 at 2015 12:40 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 00:40:11 -0500

60% is the pass/fail cut line, just like it is for HS and college. But, is that what we really want? War is unforgiving, so 60% is not really want we want. We want 100% and then some. A Leaders standard for everything should be your very best, never just passing. Leaders must work to improve the organization and each Soldier, and help to but into doing their very best vs. just passing. It takes time and effort. 60% Soldiers are not going to be leaders.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2015 11:32 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 11:32:17 -0400

The response part is asinine at best. I have heard that attitude over and over, and it is usually from said 60%er who got promoted by other 60%ers. I am not a 270 apt soldier, but I strive for a 300 every time. I am not the best in the army at any one thing, but I strive for perfection in everything. When I fail, I learn from those mistakes. If my soldier makes a 180 on an apft, yet was pushing his hardest, so be it. He was trying for a 300. It's the guy who can score bether if he/she puts forth the effort, yet doesn't care enough to try. That is the difference. It pervades all aspects of their military career and their personal lives. Good NCOs see it, even if they cannot always articulate it well. Stop making excuses for them, get them out of the army so they can be the guy who makes 60% fries at McDonald's.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 8 at 2015 4:11 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 16:11:09 -0400

The problem with this entire argument is that no one who scores 180 and shoots marksman will be promoted. They won't make cutoff and they won't be able to compete against their peers in centralized boards. No one scoring 180 will ever make 1SG. The argument is very Elementry and misguided. It's just someone upset with a 60 being a passing grade. Get over it.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2015 4:15 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 16:15:05 -0400

A 60% did not nor would not last long in my unit, neither when I was a Platoon Sergeant/Leader nor when I was a First Sergeant; reason being if the 60 percent performer is having a bad day (which being a 60% performer, may be 60% of the time) he is NOT meeting minimum standards most of the time, he's failing to meet them.

You can talk about 60% for APFT, Rifle Marksmanship...Ok, I get it, understand...those Soldiers you can help and get better out of them (whether they like it or not)....but if he's giving me 60% on maintenance; 60% of his job and skills in the field, then he's a liability to me, his teammates, his platoon, his unit and to himself.

You can color it with all the pretty words and phrases you want to making allowances and excuses and call it meeting Army Standards. Unfortunately, the Army has never gotten that part right; Meeting the Army Standard (minimum) is only 1 point from being a failure.

So lets not pour piss on my head and tell me it raining with a 60% performer being acceptable. Not if he/she wants to make the Army a career! Not if he/she wants to get promoted! Not if he/she wants to be successful. It did not happen under my leadership and that is the only part of the Army I had control of.

Any leader who really cares about their Soldiers, their Unit and their mission will not tolerate a 60%
performer for long.

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Mar 8 at 2015 4:34 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 16:34:02 -0400

This is where NCOERs and the actions of leaders come in.

Let's say I had a SPC in my platoon that was always going the extra mile, pushing him/herself in PT, bettering him/herself in their civilian life. Let's say I had another SPC who embodied the idea of the "60%."

Then the CO comes to me saying we needed to hard-stripe some of our E4s and is asking for recommendations. My NCOs and I would easily recommend the hard-charger over the sham-shield.

Bottom line, the military has ALWAYS had hard-chargers and shammers. There were probably Roman soldiers that only sharpened their swords when the Centurion was paying attention, and soldiers that always had their sword, armor, and body is fighting form. Really, this "60%" stuff is just putting another name on it. Historically, it's been the motivated individuals who advance significantly, and the less-than-motivated that just hide until they leave service.

The good troops will tend to rise to the top, and the shammers tend to weed themselves out.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2015 4:59 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 16:59:43 -0400

I love your response, and totally agree. Just because you are super Hooha, doesn't mean anyone else has that same drive. There is a standard, and if you meet the standard, there should be no question about the persons heart, or commitment. Change the standards if they are too easy, otherwise, let them be.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2015 11:48 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 23:48:33 -0400

The meterics don't always paint a complete picture. So relying on alone is a terrible idea. You need to know the substance of a Service Members Character. However metrics are helpful when the understanding of you people doesn't help you make the choice. Good discussion.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2015 1:07 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 01:07:42 -0400

60% is the standard on PT, 57.5% is the standard on Marksmanship. If you are consistently giving the organization between 57.5% and 60% output from your effort then at the end of your initial commitment I believe it is right to not retain you, as you are barely adhering to the standard. Colleges have Academic Probation for those students that are hovering right around the line to meet graduation requirements, and if you are on Academic Probation long enough you are told not to come back to school. This is the same way. Do I have a problem with someone just meeting the standards? No. Do I have a problem with someone that does not try to improve themselves? Yes.
With regards to the hair, since it is one of my favorite subjects. Look at the senior leaders of the Armed Services, if they are not bald, they have hair, combable hair on their heads. They look like normal haircuts, not the leave a small tuft of hair on top of my head and shave everything around it. I think High and Tights are faddish, and faddish haircuts are against Army Regs. People need to grow up with respect to haircuts.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 2:14 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:14:00 -0400

SSG Jacob Wiley If I was your leader would it be ok with you if I only put in a 60% effort when handling things that affected you. Let’s say you put in a packet for a cool school you wanted. If I let it sit on my desk till the last minute, maybe forget to pass it by the 1SG for signatures and then turn it in right before the deadline. The deadline is the deadline right. What if we knew for a fact that there were 10 slots and 50 Soldiers wanted to go? Would you want me to put in maximum effort to get your packet in?

What if I was to sponsor you or some other Soldier to the board? When the CSM asked me why you or said Soldier deserves to be promoted. Would me giving a half hearted 60% well he gets a 180, shoots his gun ok and shows up for work be ok? Or would you want me to try my best to show the board members why you earned the privilege to be the next rank.

It always amazes me when Soldiers want to talk about meeting the minimum cause it’s the "standard" but these are usually the first ones to complain when someone doesn't drop everything and bend over backwards to help them. Then they pull out the creed and quote "I will always place my Soldiers needs above my own"; yet fail to follow the other creed "I am an expert and I am a professional". If you stop at 60% and do not strive for anything higher you are nowhere near an expert or a professional.

Response by SPC David S. made Mar 11 at 2015 2:50 PM

SPC David S. — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:50:45 -0400

The truth is these individuals are not incentivized to push themselves beyond minimum standards.

Personally if it was up to me I would love to see performance reflected in pay - you want to put out 60% you take home 60%.

Response by SPC Thomas Hobbs made Mar 11 at 2015 3:22 PM

SPC Thomas Hobbs — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:22:06 -0400

I agree with some of both sides of this argument. I cannot honestly agree to all of either side. Passing is passing, the standard is the minimum, and that is what is required to get promoted and continue a career. That said, at times, it is better to simply maintain the standard as opposed to exceeding it. I exceeded the standard in almost everything that I did. When I barely made the standard, or the few times that I didn't quite make the standard (missed my run times by 3-4 seconds on average, literally, because I had knee surgery), I would get counselling statements, "corrective training", etc. The majority of the time, I would exceed set standards and get no recognition whatsoever, not that I was wanting a pat on the back, but at least recognize that and give me a little leeway with my knee. Honestly, my knee was my only issue, and that was reason enough for my "leadership" to fuck me over, because it didn't allow for me to exceed in 100% of everything I did. They expected that if I can exceed in one thing, I must be a shitbag because there was one thing that I couldn't exceed in. I did my job very well, I did others' jobs very well. I exceed most standards, but the few that I couldn't quite meet were more than enough for them to keep me down. I could rant for days about this, but I will spare everyone. I know that some of you will draw your own conclusions for what kind of a soldier I was based on the little bit that you see here, but I'm all out of fucks, sorry.

Response by PFC Nathaniel Thedford made Mar 11 at 2015 4:50 PM

PFC Nathaniel Thedford — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:50:14 -0400

Well since you're asking for opinions, I think that soldiers that go above and beyond their call of duty deserve the most respect and go figure why the 60% soldier only gets 60% back, even though most know the Military gives 100% back.

However, sometimes soldiers do try to be 100% but fall short or, for example, I know for a fact (when I served) at FTCKY the rifle ranges for "other than" 11b and Special Forces didn't get the fine-tuned target holders that would lay day right after getting hit the first time. Was not a big secret in my Company (594th Trans) that we might have to shoot a target twice for it to count up at the Cadre tower. So maybe being that 101% at FTCKY is possible because let's face it, it really doesn't matter if a Support MOS can knock an enemy off at 300+ yards away as long as they can hit up to half of that whereas an Infantryman is going to be able to go to the best ranges the Army has to offer because how they score will affect their future in the military, especially if they are really good at hitting targets far away; they might just get the opportunity for more HOOAH schools to go to.

I still say be 100% percent to Uncle Sam no matter what. It's tough to do all the time especially in times of Global Terrorism, but nonetheless you'll be happy that you did looking 10-20 years in the future; Veteran or still serving.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Mar 11 at 2015 6:46 PM

SFC Collin McMillion — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:46:21 -0400

I personally cannot support anything less than %100, far too many have "gave their all"!

Response by SSG Ike Phelan made Mar 11 at 2015 7:02 PM

SSG Ike Phelan — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:02:13 -0400

I agree with some of the stuff you said but i have to disagree with some points you as a E-1 to E-3 asking what passing is on an APFT is understandable but once you become an NCO all that needs to change something that I think everyone who serves needs to understand is we are war fighters and that being said we all need to be in fighting shape. Now drinking on the weekend with your soldiers for squad cohesion is fine but there is a big diffrance between doing it everyweekend and doing it for comradery. I am not going to touch the whole shaving thing that is were you are getting in to someone being vain about their appearance. I am not saying you need to be gun ho all the time but you do need to be the person that people look up to and say that is the type of NCO I want to be or the Officer I want to be one day.
I can not stress this enought when you become a leader in the Army you are saying that I am that guy who loves what he does and I want to deploy every once in awhile and I want to learn how to be a better leader thru the diffrent courses my MOS offers and I want to experience all the Army has to offer so I can tell my soldiers what to expect when they apply for that training or so I know how to train them properly for the course they want to attend. There is no other job were you have so much control over someones life as a leader other then being someones parent. I know this for a fact becuase I am a dad and I was a leader and I often used lessons learned from one to help me with the other. I know that there are other parents out there who know exactly what I am talking about. I just hope that our leaders are taking their jobs serious and not giving their soldiers 60% becuase the soldier deserves everyones 100% officers NCO's and DAC's. So have fun with them but encourage them to do their best at all times you do not have to apply for every school or get 300 on your APFT but you SHOULD at least Try to give it your all. I lost to many freinds over the last few years and I only pray that someone was not giving 60% when my friends were killed.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 5:47 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:47:57 -0400

I wish I could meet and discuss this face to face with the Facebook poster. He or she has a lot of misconceptions about the Army as a whole and what makes a Soldier. I wonder if SMA Dailey would be considered a 60% Soldier due to his time in TRADOC?

"They do not volunteer for Airborne, Air Assault, Jumpmaster or Ranger School, or any other professional training such as Recruiter or Drill Sergeant. " Apparently he does not realize that these training opportunities are provided by...Guess what?...TRADOC.

I don't even know what he means about AC/RC assignments? Is he implying that these hybrid units (of which I am part of) are somehow less "military?"

I get it..there are those who are obviously minimal performers..and typically they are on their way out. The argument that we are shaping the military future with minimal soldiers does not hold water. Trainers and leaders, be it unit level or doctrinal, are generally picked from those who already hold higher standards. When I was interested in becoming a CBRN instructor for a RC unit, I was expected to interview with the CO, the 1SG, and the CSM, with recommendation letters as if it was a selection packet. It was made clear that high standards were expected. (I chose not to do the transfer yet because I have other things on my plate such as WOC board).

Response by SSG Jeremy Kohlwes made Apr 15 at 2016 4:48 PM

SSG Jeremy Kohlwes — Fri, 15 Apr 2016 16:48:31 -0400

I don't like the cute little name that they came up with "60 percent soldier" because what is being described is an attitude that some soldiers have, and I know most people have dealt with a soldier like that. However, there are some people that end up not to far off from that for reasons beyond their control, being a "60 percent soldier" on paper pretty much. I know because I was one of them. My right leg was crushed during my first deployment in 2003 and I went through years of physical therapy while still in. During that time I had to struggle to get a 60 on my PT run. I wasn't able to compete for certain boards because whenever I started having issues with my leg I would be put on profile. The difference between me and the "60 percent soldier" is that I still tried my best and worked my butt of in every other way I could. I was terrible at running but I could still walk and ruck. And I could ruck in circles around a lot of people. I still volunteered for additional duties and training whenever I could. Unfortunately for some people 100% of their effort may be 60% of someone else's. That's where good leadership comes in. To be able to recognize who is putting forth their max effort all the time versus those who can do more but choose not to.

Response by LTC Barry Hull made Feb 8 at 2018 3:22 PM

LTC Barry Hull — Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:22:43 -0500

60% is for the soldier. Leaders set a higher standard. If you want to perform at the lowest standard, expect to be the lowest pay grade.

Response by SPC David Willis made Feb 8 at 2018 3:33 PM

SPC David Willis — Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:33:51 -0500

The sad fact is that the Army still needs 60% soldiers. They should never be leaders but 60%ers are still very capable of squeezing a trigger and taking an objective. Clearly they will never be your Rangers or SF folks but the conventional army runs, eats, trucks, gets paid and is supplied by 60% soldiers. Not every one is a lifer and not everyone has leadership aspirations but that doesn't mean they will fall by the wayside and allow the mission to fail.

Response by PO1 Donald Hammond made Feb 8 at 2018 4:08 PM

PO1 Donald Hammond — Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:08:00 -0500

This one cracks me up. I have always debated the worth of the stupid PT. I also used it to my advantage. I was on submarines. But I had to do a certain number of sit-ups, push-ups, and run 1.5 miles in a certain time based on my age. Where in the hell was I going to run 1.5 miles on a submarine? These tests need to be based on real world skills that the military person will be using. Even in my "old" age as a senior enlisted I could start in the torpedo room, don an emergency air breathing mask, make it to shaft alley, and rig a fire hose. (run from one end of the sub to the other through water tight doors with a rubber mask on that you have to plug into a manifold to breathe). I never had a situation where push-ups or sit-ups were needed to do my job. Navy should emphasize swimming over running. Hauling a fire hose through hatches. And so on.

Yeh yeh. I know. The tests show basic strength. But still.

Now as a senior enlisted I (and some others) realized that if we failed PT we would be required to go to the gym every morning for 2 hours. Instead of on the boat. Hey, they told me I could pass the 1.5 miles by walking. So I walked. Had to slow down at the end. But then instead of being on the boat, I had to do grueling workouts (lol) at the gym. Then the command figured it out. Oh well. Back to work.

I can see the Army and Marines maybe needing to do pull-ups in a combat situation (going over a wall) but what good are push-ups? Looking over a low wall? (up --- look --- down)

I would send the Army and Marines on a city based obstacle course with full gear. Shoot them with paintball guns if they fall behind.