What do you think will happen to the ACFT?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Nov 2020 17:20:54 -0500

SWAN has officially challenged the validity of using the ACFT for promotions. Years ago when the Army first indicated the ACFT would replace the APFT I predicted that SWAN would legally challenge using a gender neutral fitness event for promotion points because it would disadvantage women. At the time, I predicted the Army would keep the APFT with its scaled grading standards and use the ACFT as a GO/NO-GO event, similar to how the USMC currently does, or else remove points for fitness events completely.

SWAN has a very valid point and it's likely that other US Congress members will challenge it as well, and if that doesn't stop the Army, they could file a suit under EO because women will naturally score lower, meaning lower promotion points.

There are quite a few leaders on here who have watched the Army adapt its policies over the years, what do you think the Army will do with the ACFT?

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-combat-fitness-test-service-womens-action-network

Servicewomen's advocacy group says the ACFT could deal 'irreparable damage' to the Army

SWAN joins a growing chorus of voices raising concerns over the Army's new fitness test

Response by CSM Chuck Stafford made Nov 21 at 2020 5:45 PM

CSM Chuck Stafford — Sat, 21 Nov 2020 17:45:08 -0500

Your thinking is sound, the left side of the social justice is boxed into a conundrum. It will play a lesser role as it affects promotions and therefore paychecks

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2020 7:23 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Nov 2020 19:23:31 -0500

It's ambiguous; there really is no good answer. Either they will develop a gendered grading scale, or it will become pass/fail with no points awarded for promotion.

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Nov 21 at 2020 7:36 PM

MAJ Javier Rivera — Sat, 21 Nov 2020 19:36:22 -0500

One more reason (allegedly) to scrap the test. I, for example, didn’t like the ACFT’s complexity nor the price tag. As a Company Commander, I like the APFT’s simplicity. Did it needed an update? I cannot argue against it. Perhaps crunches inleu of sit-ups (imagine how many lower back injuries we could’ve prevented) was an option.

Response by SGT Joseph Gunderson made Nov 21 at 2020 7:54 PM

SGT Joseph Gunderson — Sat, 21 Nov 2020 19:54:08 -0500

I don't see a reason to scrap it or to move to a scaled system based on gender. Either women can perform the same duties as their male counterparts or they cannot. This has been the argument used to push females into combat arms and special operations, and I don't see how the same people who are for these changes can turn around and say a blanket PT standard that treats everyone the same is discriminatory. People need to choose which version of reality they are going to argue for and stick with it.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2020 7:59 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Nov 2020 19:59:40 -0500

I'm thinking that it's either going to get revamped with new/different events or get taken away due to the reported number of failures on both sides

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2020 9:11 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Nov 2020 21:11:38 -0500

I don’t see how fitness scores would be excluded as a factor in promotion. Not that this is the only metric that matters, it’s just that in a competitive system every data point possible is needed to differentiate between individuals.

I called this one before it happened. It’s a shame they couldn’t figure this out before spending millions of dollars on equipment sets, though. Hopefully we can scrap it and just go back to the APFT.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Nov 21 at 2020 10:35 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sat, 21 Nov 2020 22:35:28 -0500

Everything you said, and Roger. The Army has been trawling for an APFT replacement since I came in the early 90s this is the friction between combat arms and the rest of the world. We've had several abortive attempts as chronicled with much enthusiasm for the past 30 years. This is the furthest it has gone. Actual implementation. Dollars spent equipment distributed at great cost. Score chart.

It will largely depend on how the HASC and the SASC approach it. Ranking members. Whether they will take this on and make the fight in a new administration. The final fight in it will be fought in the NDAA

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2020 11:45 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:45:54 -0500

The entire reason for the implementation of the ACFT was to ensure the Army as a whole could win a war.

Everyone understands that women will naturally score lower. I believe that’s the reason for the tiered system. Black, gold, silver. The Gold (Light) standard is something anyone could complete and score high while significantly injured.

Their arguments aren’t exactly valid as force breakdown would show that over 95% of the female fighting force falls under the Gold standard and over 60% of the Male fighting force falls under the Black (Heavy) standard.

For the Gold standard, individuals must do the minimum of a 140lb deadlift, a 4.5M standing power thrown, 10 hand release push-ups, a 3:00 sprint-drag-carry, 1 leg tuck or a 2:00 plank, and a 21:00 2-mile run and that’s for 60 points in each event.

I’ve watched females do very well on the ACFT and I’ve watched females do very bad on the ACFT. I’ve also watched males do very bad on the ACFT. The point of the test is to correlate combat tasks to physical readiness/fitness.

Each event represents a task you could encounter down range. The argument about promotion points is valid but the last I heard about it was points for the ACFT would change based on your physical category. So if a soldier falls under the Gold standard, the points would be calculated based on their perceived ability. For example, if the soldier did the bare minimum for each event, they would receive the bare minimum promotion points. If they achieved the silver (intermediate) they would receive the bare minimum multiplied by half putting them at the middle ground for promotion points and if they achieve the black (Heavy) standard, they would receive 3/4 the max amount of promotion points.

The argument isn’t really valid. Yes, females are naturally at a disadvantage, but the Army is not an equal opportunity employer. If you are unable to meet a set standard that correlates to combat, then quite frankly, there isn’t a future for you in the Army.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2020 1:01 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 01:01:20 -0500

They are creating a Promotion Tier system of the scores for both Men and Women, kind of like curving the grade on a test, so for staying in the Army its the same across the board. For promotion however, you would be scaled against a Top 10%, Top 25% and then Top 50% in your gender. This I think is a fairer way of allowing women to be competitive for promotion, without having to have totally separate standards based solely on gender.

Honestly, there have always been fewer women in the military, the ratio is something like 4:1 in raw numbers but, actually eligible for promotion is probably closer to say, for every 10 eligible, only 2 might be females... so not the existential threat to promotability that many males fear.

As far as the scores across the Army--gender neutral, clearly there will always be different group, those who are PT studs and will always work to achieve as close to 600 as possible, and those who just want to pass because its a check-the-block requirement, often they have jobs that aren't in a combat environment or where they primarily work in an office, so no need to be hooah hooah... regardless of how much Big Army feels everyone needs to be a PT stud.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Nov 22 at 2020 1:41 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 01:41:03 -0500

You know that with the AFPT, the service bent over backwards to get their points up. Since then they have qualified for combat arms, graduated Ranger School, passed SFQT and been awarded their beret. They have demanded equality and done well at making it work. Surely to God, the ACFT has been studied enough to upgrade it so it is completely fair to both sexes. Hell, folks with back problems. or leg problems will have problems with the test, . Paratroopers after a hand full of years will have trouble. There is no one size fits all without a hell of a lot of tweaking. You know that as well as I do. SWAM is going to cry regardless- and we have yet to force women to register for the draft- thats unfair, even if it hasn't been used since 72.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2020 3:06 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 03:06:04 -0500

You have the answer in your original post. "women will naturally score lower, meaning lower promotion points"

Will they naturally score lower for lack of discipline and effort, or because of a physiological disadvantage? It's a very important question, because one of those issues can be resolved potentially, while the other can not.

Is physical fitness THAT critical to EVERY Soldier that it must be a determining factor in promotion? If yes, then yea...there needs to be a single standard across the board without regards to age or sex. If not, there is no reason why it can't be a split standard. But if you have more than 1 standard, you can say goodbye to that equality thing. The concept of a separate standard, literally proves both sides are not equal.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2020 4:16 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 04:16:03 -0500

I think we get gender standards. Too much money has been spent to scrap it at this point imho.

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Nov 22 at 2020 9:07 AM

CPT Lawrence Cable — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 09:07:01 -0500

I believe that I pointed out that the Army tried to develop a MOS based fitness test with no age or sex adjustment back in the late 80's/early 90's. The results were the same, too many women could not pass the test at the level required by their MOS. It didn't even get considered for a replacement of the APFT.
What they should do if develop a training system that would allow more female soldiers to more than pass for the level of their MOS. Cynically, what they will do is go back to a tiered system that will allow female soldiers to promote on a different standard.
Since the goal is to open up all MOS's to female soldiers, I would hope that they would actually leave the present standards for the tests. If female soldiers ever expect to be treated as equals, they will need to be judged at the same standard as the male soldiers. I will be shocked if it happens, but that is should be the ideal.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2020 10:38 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 10:38:30 -0500

I agree with your stance but imho if women can’t meet the standard then that’s subpar performance on their behalf. Yes, women physically are weaker then men which is a fact not an opinion. We’ve legitimately had YEARS to train up for this. Failure to meet the standard doesn’t mean it’s too hard, it means they haven’t put in enough effort. Now in some events such as the deadlift and knee tuck yes, due to less upper body strength they may score lower but if we want 100% equality the standard needs to be the standard. If you physically can’t meet the demands of your MOS, this might be a clear sign that either you’re not cut out for the job OR your time dieting and training need to increase. We’ve also spent too much money on this equipment as well to just scrap the test.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2020 10:52 AM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 10:52:57 -0500

As a female who who has worked in Male dominated industries for several years, this is the most FAIR fitness test and I couldn't be happier with it!
When I went into the oil field I was 125lbs and couldn't carry a bucket of tools to save my life. EVERY man out there intentionally made my life hell. "Sink or swim" was the game. They were going to push until I broke. I didn't break. In 5 months I from 125 to 155 and out worked every man on my crew. Could I lift as much as they could? No. But I didn't take breaks. I didn't slow down. I worked my ass off and I quickly became a favorite among the seasoned hands and supervisors and other crew leaders specifically requested me to come help motivate their guys. After all, pride is huge and no man out there wanted to be out worked, out performed and out paid by a "girl".

The ACFT puts gender aside. You can either do the job or you can't. Making fitness and readiness a priority! If you can't do the job GO HOME! Females wanted equal rights, with that comes equal responsibility. I only want the best on my crew. So either step up or step out.

Response by SPC Cathy Goessman made Nov 22 at 2020 2:00 PM

SPC Cathy Goessman — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 14:00:00 -0500

The ACFT is a much better test than the APFT but they do have a point at the higher point levels. Everybody should pass it. The minimum are not that high. But females may seriously have a problem putting up a three repetition 340 lb deadlift for 100 points. That's considered a pretty advanced lifter for females. And does not being able to do that mean really impact their job as a soldier? And of course let's not forget that they still expect people to gain no muscle if the weight tables won't change.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2020 9:07 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 21:07:36 -0500

Interesting read SFC Private RallyPoint Member. I raised a brow to the notion of the ACFT becoming simply a Go/ No-Go event. I think that allows some compromise. You'd still have the more difficult test that the ACFT requires and for the reasons it requires them, while at the same time making it more about being able to pass the event rather the the points based system that are factored into promotions, schools, etc.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Nov 22 at 2020 9:49 PM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Sun, 22 Nov 2020 21:49:44 -0500

Why not go/no-go with zero promotion points, but BONUS points for high scores (kind of like airborne advantage points)?

No one, male or female is disadvantaged for their score. However, those who go above and beyond are rewarded.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2020 4:35 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:35:41 -0500

Dumpster fire

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Nov 23 at 2020 11:20 AM

Sgt Dale Briggs — Mon, 23 Nov 2020 11:20:54 -0500

I got out in 1979, and things change, back then the minimum to pass a PFT was 3 whole pull-ups, 3 mile run in under 28 minutes, plus sit ups, I can’t remember the minimum. So from that what needs to be scaled back for anyone regardless of gender to make passing the test easier? You could make it go away I suppose, but seriously the minimums are ridiculous regardless of your sex, yiu don’t get out of boot until you can pass, really you have 13 weeks to do so, I don’t see how you can make it any easier.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2020 4:27 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:27:54 -0500

Doesn't apply. WOPA Life Member. Weekly trashcan walk is PFT. 12 oz. curls help.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2020 5:18 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:18:13 -0500

One thing that I think must be remembered is that the Army doesn't belong to the Soldier. It belongs to the American people. We serve in the military not to further our own agenda. If SWAN wants to have a say in the ACFT, so be it. At the end of the day, if the American people want the Army to look more equitable for women (if not in practice, then by outcome) then that is the Army we will serve in. We all know that a more lethal force begins with physical fitness (you know...the cornerstone of combat readiness), but if we swing the pendulum so far that women are disadvantaged (physiologically) then suddenly the army doesn't look like the people that it serves and the civ/mil divide grows ever wider. I predict a return of gender specific standards in some form or fashion. I agree with others that there is too much sunk cost in the development and implementation of the ACFT at this point to scrap it altogether.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2020 6:26 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:26:04 -0500

The two biggest plays I see regarding ACFT is that:
1) It becomes more and more GO/NO-GO.
2) There will simply have to be a compromise of what is considered "readiness" and what the Army is willing to consider negative action based on the ACFT or risk having to start their training investment over from scratch with new soldiers.
*****
I'm looking at this from a USAR perspective. APFT could be given monthly for those needing to update their record, or have diagnostic scores. All things being equal, presuming the same soldiers pass/fail the ACFT as did the APFT well, the number of CURRENT RECORD PASSING SCORES is going to go down. Mainly for the reason that units not co-located with Battalion level ACFT equipment will not be in a position to do frequent ACFTs.

Record ACFT events will be more infrequent and soldiers will have conflicting schedules that prohibit them from getting a Record ACFT. Higher level orders forbidding excused absences during an ACFT wont negate the fact soldiers will simply take the "U" on the chin and move on with life and go to that wedding, go to their college finals, do the event they planned 6 months prior to the annual training schedule came out and was changed again 2 months later anyway.

Response by MSG William Wold made Dec 17 at 2020 9:18 PM

MSG William Wold — Thu, 17 Dec 2020 21:18:55 -0500

As more and more transgender men (loosely spoken) turn into women, enter sports and get credit for breaking “women’s” world records it’s only time that the equal ACFT events will have a closed ear to those screaming the “weaker sex” needs different standards.
I had a 5’2” female mechanic probably soaking wet weighed 100. Guys would try anyway, to carry her tools to the motor stables, help her torque nuts bolts etc. nope that’s a no go. She got it there herself. She did the work. Unfortunately she transferred to the Air Force, into a medical field.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2021 10:06 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Feb 2021 22:06:13 -0500

I honestly think it's to easy at least for my MOS, everyone of my guys score in the 550-570 range. I would suggest a ruck instead of a run. To answer your question, I think they will keep it due to it being easier than the last APFT.

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Mar 25 at 2021 8:53 PM

SSG Bill McCoy — Thu, 25 Mar 2021 20:53:07 -0400

I can't honestly say what's fair, or not. It's tempting to say, "If a woman wants to be equal, they should have to perform to the same standards, including physical standards." However, given all the EO bs that equality really isn't "equal," then keep it MOS specific; at least for Combat Arms MOS'. Adjustments for an MOS can be viewed as NOT equal because a clerk typist is first and foremost, supposed to be a SOLDIER, just like an Infantry soldier. So, it would seem that a MINIMUM score should determine a "Go/No Go." No points at all, and a "No Go" is non-promotable.
The MP Corps in the mid-late '70's were using a "Go/No Go" for all aspects of MP duties - Apprehension Tactics, Prisoner Control, VIP/Convoy Escorts, etc. I do not recall how the PT test scores were or whether they were "Go/No Go."
So, it would seem that EVERY soldier, regardless of MOS should have to meet a MINIMUM physical standard, again with "Go/No Go," BUT say the minimum is 70% male or female, clerk, infantry, MP, whatever. That would be a "Go," but the percentage should PERHAPS count when a Promotion Board reviews a packet and EVERY other required performance issue is scored the EXACT same between any two or more candidates. In other words, the PT score should only count when a "tie" score has to be broken. Admittedly, that leads to the same concern that physically, men usually have an advantage. Nothing's perfect, but just like EEO ... everything equal otherwise - EEO (i.e., race, gender, veteran status, etc.) determines who is hired or promoted. Alternately, ignore the PT score, and base a final decision for ties on Time in Grade, Time in Service.
Footnote: Keep so-called "gender identity" out of it and base it ONLY on BIOLOGICAL gender.

Response by COL Bill Gross made Oct 10 at 2021 4:39 AM

COL Bill Gross — Sun, 10 Oct 2021 04:39:45 -0400

Oh, I have no fear. The contractor that made all the special gear will go out of business. Unit's set of gear will slowly start to break down. It will go the way of the Five Event Fitness (PCPT I think). The bones of the post infrastructure hung around many installations for quite a few years. The last to fade away was the Over Head Ladder.