# Don't be like this guy.



## Marauder06 (Jul 22, 2016)

"I'm not really good at all that intel stuff, but you know what I'm REALLY good at?  Running fast.  So let's all go do that."



> As the new commander of a Military Intelligence Company, I determined to change the culture within my organization. In my estimation, the unit needed to shift more to mental and physical toughness, and move on from a year of reset. To do this, I placed a heavy emphasis on soldiering first, and being an Intelligence professional second.
> 
> One of the first actions I took to shake things up was a plan to “smoke” the unit during a Company run.




"Sir, you humiliated us." - A Commander's Lesson in Leadership - The Military Leader


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 22, 2016)

Idiot....


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 22, 2016)

At least he took the feedback on board and did something about it though. That's more than I can say for a lot of so-called leaders out in the world. 

Even if the initial decision is a bit baffling.


----------



## Teufel (Jul 22, 2016)

Is a seven minute mile a smoke fest? I'm a large (200+ lbs) middle aged amphibious mammal and I have no problem keeping a 7 minute mile pace.


----------



## Etype (Jul 22, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Is a seven minute mile a smoke fest? I'm a large (200+ lbs) middle aged amphibious mammal and I have no problem keeping a 7 minute mile pace.


For an MI unit, maybe. There's a huge disparity between the combat arms units (especially airborne or other light units) and support units in the Army as far as physical fitness is concerned.


----------



## BigNutz (Jul 22, 2016)

It frustrates me that the leadership culture we live and work in dictates that a new leader _MUST_ do something to ensure senior leaderships knows he/she lifted their leg on the tree. This despite any existing level of morale or effectiveness that already exists. I saw this explicitly with a senior leader (2-star) that we had to live with for about 2 years and is finally moving on. I get it, if you're not improving your dying. Roger Copy Check, but goddamn it, it better be broke before you try and fix it...



			
				 despite any existing level of morale or effectiveness that already exists[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> I know, awesome command of the English language...right?!?!?


----------



## CDG (Jul 22, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Is a seven minute mile a smoke fest? I'm a large (200+ lbs) middle aged amphibious mammal and I have no problem keeping a 7 minute mile pace.



Apparently for all the females it was. A sustained 7 minute mile is one thing, but this was just a single mile at that pace. This post could probably also go over in the Women In Combat Arms/SOF thread.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 23, 2016)

I use to do sub 7min mile paces on the APFT, just kick it out for the test and puke after. But for anything more I was a dependable 8 min pace guy.


----------



## busyworks (Jul 23, 2016)

Teufel said:


> Is a seven minute mile a smoke fest? I'm a large (200+ lbs) middle aged amphibious mammal and I have no problem keeping a 7 minute mile pace.


For a single mile?? hell no. This is coming from a COMMS guy that was with the wing too..

I think the Females had no right to be upset with anyone but themselves in this situation. but, whatever.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 23, 2016)

This is a case of knowing yourself and knowing your unit.  I've been in the Army over 21 years, and while much of it was in SOF, I served in conventional units as well.  There is no mixed-gender, conventional combat support unit that has a "standard" of a 7-minute pace.  There is no conventional brigade that is going to run at a 7-minute pace.  Save that for PT tests and ability group runs.  The commander started his article off saying how he wanted to emphasize "soldiering first" but what he really wanted was to show everyone what a bad ass he was.  Individual and crew-level collective training is an NCO responsibility.  He should have clearly articulated his intent to the company leaders, and let them come up with a PT plan to build up to the commander's collective training objective.  If this guy's main goal in life was to lead PT, he should have been a squad leader instead of a company commander.  He needs to lift his sights a bit higher and trying to show off.


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> He should have clearly articulated his intent to the company leaders, and let them come up with a PT plan to build up to the commander's collective training objective.  If this guy's main goal in life was to lead PT, he should have been a squad leader instead of a company commander.  He needs to lift his sights a bit higher and trying to show off.



THIS.


----------



## Teufel (Jul 23, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> This is a case of knowing yourself and knowing your unit.  I've been in the Army over 21 years, and while much of it was in SOF, I served in conventional units as well.  There is no mixed-gender, conventional combat support unit that has a "standard" of a 7-minute pace.  There is no conventional brigade that is going to run at a 7-minute pace.  Save that for PT tests and ability group runs.  The commander started his article off saying how he wanted to emphasize "soldiering first" but what he really wanted was to show everyone what a bad ass he was.  Individual and crew-level collective training is an NCO responsibility.  He should have clearly articulated his intent to the company leaders, and let them come up with a PT plan to build up to the commander's collective training objective.  If this guy's main goal in life was to lead PT, he should have been a squad leader instead of a company commander.  He needs to lift his sights a bit higher and trying to show off.



You are one hundred percent correct as usual Mara. I intended to comment on this commanders definition of a "smoke fest". His approach to leadership through PT was way off mark.

There are other ways to show off your fitness as a commander if that's your thing. A friend of mine was a CAAT platoon commander and his platoon was broken down into two sections. He would run his PFT with the first section: 100 sit-ups, 20 pull ups and a three mile run in 17:30. He would wait until the last runner made it across the finish line and knock out a second PFT with his second section: 100 sit-ups, 20 pull ups and a sub 18 minute three miler. He was and still is a beast. He lead by example and not through PT shaming.


----------



## compforce (Jul 23, 2016)

So this article hits on one of my biggest pet peeves.  The leadership emphasis on PT as the primary measurement of a Soldier's effectiveness.

Let me ask a question for thoughtful discussion...  We'll assume both are male just to remove the gender variable from the equation

Two SUPPORT soldiers, each with 5 years experience in the position and the same date of rank, are assigned to the company and you've been given first choice to add one to your team/squad.  Both have the basic soldier skills down pat and can be depended on to be team players.  For this exercise, we assume that they will ALWAYS have the same description.  Training them up on their weakness will have the effect of causing their strength to deteriorate. (there's a reason for this statement, it happens to be exactly what happens in real life).

The first one is a PT stud.  300 on the PT test is just getting warmed up.  BUT he knows absolutely nothing about his job.  Nada, zip, zilch.  The guy is a mental rock and despite having experience, he can't seem to perform the basic MOS specific tasks.

The second one barely passes the PT test... 2 out of 3 times.  He fails 1 in 3, passing just enough to avoid the remedial PT group.  BUT he's the god of his MOS.  He's the guy that not only knows the tasks, but understands the theory behind them and can apply it in unconventional ways to achieve results that are out of reach for anyone else in the same position. 

Which one would you draft for your squad/team? 

I have a reason for asking the question, but would like to see some of the responses before I sway the vote.


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2016)

compforce said:


> The second one barely passes the PT test... 2 out of 3 times.  He fails 1 in 3, passing just enough to avoid the remedial PT group.  BUT he's the god of his MOS.  He's the guy that not only knows the tasks, but understands the theory behind them and can apply it in unconventional ways to achieve results that are out of reach for anyone else in the same position.
> 
> Which one would you draft for your squad/team?



I've been there and I'll almost always take the SME. You can drag his PT scores up easier and faster than you can the guy who can't/ won't/ is slow to learn.

As you know, that's not how the world works.

My OCS class graduated 41. Everyone in the top 10 had perfect or nearly perfect APFT scores. One could barely lead, another assaulted a fellow candidate, and a third has poor leadership scores and his academics were among the lowest in the class. He was something like 6th or 7th in my class. Physical fitness is vital and a good benchmark of how much effort a soldier puts into "the total package." Again, you can drag the physically weak guy up a notch or two easier than a rock. There's zero reason a guy in the bottom third or even quarter should graduate near the top based on PT.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 23, 2016)

compforce said:


> Which one would you draft for your squad/team?



The third guy.......:die:


----------



## compforce (Jul 23, 2016)

Centermass said:


> The third guy.......:die:



Not an option.  In this scenario you have to take one because you and your biggest rival are the only two with an open slot.  The third guy was assigned to BN HQ because he's a slug that's only there long enough to be chaptered out... but hey, if you want him the CSM may just work with you 



Freefalling said:


> Physical fitness is vital and a good benchmark of how much effort a soldier puts into "the total package." Again, you can drag the physically weak guy up a notch or two easier than a rock.



That's a part of my question.  How do you spend his training time?  Do you let him continue to study and lead the way at his job while continuing to be barely acceptable on the PT side?  Or do you spend the time on PT, knowing that it necessarily means that his proficiency at the MOS is going to be lesser than it could be?   There are still only 24 hours in the day, you can't alter that parameter.


----------



## AWP (Jul 23, 2016)

compforce said:


> That's a part of my question.  How do you spend his training time?  Do you let him continue to study and lead the way at his job while continuing to be barely acceptable on the PT side?  Or do you spend the time on PT, knowing that it necessarily means that his proficiency at the MOS is going to be lesser than it could be?   There are still only 24 hours in the day, you can't alter that parameter.



Early in the morning or before his duty day. If the unit doesn't have organized PT the soldier's development is his NCO's responsibility. Deployed readiness becomes a different challenge, but it shouldn't be an issue at home station. Guard guys are in a little different position, but it is still an NCO's responsibility.

The big question: Are his low PT scores hindering the mission? If he's passing his APFT and they are not, then you have a sticky situation. When I was an NCO, if my soldiers passed there was no discussion save for how their PT scores factor into promotions.

I will say back when we ran SOCCE missions at JRTC (a lifetime ago) or anything directly involving the B Teams, we wouldn't send out the guys on the bottom end of any spectrum. We took several factors into play and generally struck a balance with FOB/ AOB impact (did we short ourselves or the "customer"), personalities (the guys who can get along with others, "locker room" chemistry), PT, resourcefulness, etc.


----------



## compforce (Jul 23, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Early in the morning or before his duty day. If the unit doesn't have organized PT the soldier's development is his NCO's responsibility. Deployed readiness becomes a different challenge, but it shouldn't be an issue at home station. Guard guys are in a little different position, but it is still an NCO's responsibility.



So now he is effectively being punished with extra duty if he's going to maintain the same level of proficiency in his MOS...  Oh no soldier, we expect you to continue to be the shining star you are when doing your job, but you're going to have a duty day that is two hours longer than everyone else's so you can raise your PT scores.  That way leads to resentment and lack of retention of the SME.  If you allocate part of the morning for additional PT then he can't keep up the same level of study on the MOS side.  It's a balancing act and the problem is that the Military, and Army in particular, always err on the side of PT rather than actually knowing how to do your job and trying to excel at it.



> The big question: Are his low PT scores hindering the mission? If he's passing his APFT and they are not, then you have a sticky situation. When I was an NCO, if my soldiers passed there was no discussion save for how their PT scores factor into promotions.



Back in the day they used a combination of SQT's (Skill Qualification Tests) along with PT and other factors for promotions.  They dropped the requirement to know your job to be promoted when they dropped the SQT side.  Now PT has a much bigger impact on promotion than actually knowing what the hell you are doing.  It's also used as the primary benchmark of a soldier.  Before anything else, PT comes first in everyone's minds.  Again, not talking about Combat Arms.  We're talking about everyone else.

The standard Army answer is exactly what @Centermass said.  We'd rather have a mediocre performer on the job with solid PT scores than someone that is incredible at their job, but weak on the PT side.


----------



## SpaceshipDoorGunner (Jul 23, 2016)

Your question really depends on the supported unit and what his MOS demanded. Barring extraneous circumstances, why is it hard for one to get better at his job and the other to just get his ass in shape? Both are basic tasks? 

Seems like a typical Army answer but they are both basic tasks. I don't think it dismisses that basic requirement when you are more proficient in one or the other. That's still a deficiency... I think all the rules of the road are laid before you and if one wished to excel in this career field they would strive for excellence in both, right?  I know people that meet both descriptions and have seen PT studs get picked up and SMEs passed up. The military isn't for everyone and it's far from perfect. As for those SMEs, they might as well get out and put their knowledge to use in a solid, PT-less career field?


----------



## busyworks (Jul 24, 2016)

I may be the oddball here, but if your unit has a large portion of individuals who literally cannot suck it up and bust out a sub 7 minute mile once in a blue moon, then you have a serious fitness problem that needs to be addressed. Did he go about it the right way? definitely not, but I literally do not see anything too extreme with this article.

We had similar programs in my mixed-gender, conventional unit. This literally doesn't strike me as anything out of the ordinary, other than it being implanted directly by the company commander.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 24, 2016)

SpaceshipDoorGunner said:


> Your question really depends on the supported unit and what his MOS demanded. Barring extraneous circumstances, why is it hard for one to get better at his job and the other to just get his ass in shape? Both are basic tasks?



Not when actual job aptitude, skill, or capacity even remotely involves physical activity at all.

I am pretty sure I know what Compforce is talking about.  There's quite a few jobs in the military across the board where ability to PT has zero positive or negative effect on your ability to do your f'ing job. which is based off of what your brain can do, not what your muscles can do... yet there's this huge push to bother with being a PT stud, when it's totally irrelevant to your combat effectiveness as (insert geeky MOS here as an example). 

More important is the amount of Rip-its/Mtn Dew/Tobacco available to keep those guys and girls brain fueled so they can do what they're there to do, honestly.



compforce said:


> So now he is effectively being punished with extra duty if he's going to maintain the same level of proficiency in his MOS...  Oh no soldier, we expect you to continue to be the shining star you are when doing your job, but you're going to have a duty day that is two hours longer than everyone else's so you can raise your PT scores.  That way leads to resentment and lack of retention of the SME.  If you allocate part of the morning for additional PT then he can't keep up the same level of study on the MOS side.  It's a balancing act and the problem is that the Military, and Army in particular, always err on the side of PT rather than actually knowing how to do your job and trying to excel at it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Major questions I would be asking:

Can the "PT Slug" pass his pt test?
Does the "PT Slug" want to do better in PT?

If the answer is yes, then there's ways that wouldn't really extend a duty day at all, yet incorporate PT tasks into the day beyond your morning formation fun, that would end up having a positive impact.

First of all, I would be questioning what the unit (even at the team/squad level, if allowed to break it down that far by the command) is doing for PT. Effective PT that not only improves overall fitness as well as has a distinct impact on your PT test, doesn't take 2 extra hours a day. It takes focused work during the standard allotted time, and focused effort from everyone doing that PT. 

Example, which can be debunked by the PT gurus here:

30 sec sprint 30 sec jog 45 sec each 60 sec each up to 2 minutes then back down with 15 sec shorter rests on the "return trip" is just about 17 minutes of running, yet has a huge impact on your run time regardless of age.
7 minute abs is just that, 30 sec each L/R obliques, 1 min crunches, 1 min situps, 1 min flutter kicks, 1 min leg lifts (with rubber band for additional stress if you have it), 1 min supine bicycle, 1 min hello dollys... it'll help.
25 down with seconds of rest for reps completed for pushups  takes about 12 minutes, and will have a significant impact on your PT test.
Pullups.... just do them to muscle failure before every meal. Most every chow hall has a pullup bar in the front of the line area, if it's a good chow hall anyways.

Those 4 things combined with proper preplanning (aka hey pt slug bring your PT's to the office every day) will not add any significant extra amount of time to the duty day, and can be knocked out quickly, with measurable positive effect on the soldier's PT score, so they're not nerfing their promotion potential (even if they don't want it, as I consider a SME worth working on, even if they dislike it, to ensure their promotability to dropkick the stupid in the ranks).


----------



## SpaceshipDoorGunner (Jul 24, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Not when actual job aptitude, skill, or capacity even remotely involves physical activity at all.
> 
> I am pretty sure I know what Compforce is talking about.  There's quite a few jobs in the military across the board where ability to PT has zero positive or negative effect on your ability to do your f'ing job. which is based off of what your brain can do, not what your muscles can do... yet there's this huge push to bother with being a PT stud, when it's totally irrelevant to your combat effectiveness as (insert geeky MOS here as an example).
> 
> More important is the amount of Rip-its/Mtn Dew/Tobacco available to keep those guys and girls brain fueled so they can do what they're there to do, honestly.



Agreed. (especially on the Rip-its) But that is why I sorta prefaced my statement with the fact that it depends on the demands of the MOS. It's splitting hairs but his specific example of PT test failure is still a failure to meet a basic task? A good example of this issue would be my fellow intelligence professionals working strat sites that don't need to get down to business... PT really has no bearing on their jobs there, other than to keep their strat site guts in check.  However, it's still a basic task that the military asks of you and if you're not about it, then why stay in the military? MOS and position specific PT tests are probably the way to go.


----------



## Brill (Jul 24, 2016)

The stated purpose of Army unit PT is esprit de corps and not fitness.  As others have said, PT is a NCO's job.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 24, 2016)

lindy said:


> The stated purpose of Army unit PT is esprit de corps and not fitness.  As others have said, PT is a NCO's job.


Where is that stated?  Curious, not challenging.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 24, 2016)

For intel, pass the PT test. Move the fuck on.


----------



## AWP (Jul 24, 2016)

@Il Duce 

Nope, back up that Disagree.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 24, 2016)

Everybody in the military should be in good shape, no exceptions, and able to meet all the physical requirements of their MOS and age. Why go beyond that for non-combat arms MOSs? Instead emphasize updating skills & knowledge in their job.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 24, 2016)

I think in a lot of ways the binary choice of ‘PT stud’ or ‘brainiac’ is a false one and should be avoided.  In @compforce original post it, to me, would depend on the rank of the two personnel.  E-4 and below any deficiency is trainable but as you start moving up the ranks there are minimum levels that have to be achieved before you move on – if not, there’s very little chance you can be saved as a Soldier.  E-6 and above there is no PT score that can save someone who cannot perform and train others to perform MOS tasks.  Similarly though, at E-6 and above if you are not capable of maintaining superior bearing but instead are sliding by at the minimum standard in any aspect of bearing (of which physical fitness is one) then you have limited potential for promotion in the force.


I disagree with the idea there are PT stud MOS’ and nerd MOS’ and you can disregard or downplay aspects of 6-22’s attributes and competencies depending on MOS.  I think fitness is critical across the board – and the APFT is always going to be an extremely imprecise way to measure fitness, as it should be to apply to the whole force.  For an infantryman the ability to ruck, maneuver in short bursts, recover from the inevitable injuries of his profession, etc. are the most critical aspects of fitness.  An Infantry Soldier who scores a 250 on the APFT but always carries the 240B, is alert in an ambush position, and can keep going days into a patrol is superior I would think to a 300 APFT Soldier who has delicate ankles so needs to stick to the road, can’t stay awake without their evening macrobiotic shake, and needs 8 hours a night to stay alert.  Similarly an MI Soldier’s critical aspects of fitness may be the ability to stay alert working difficult hours, the ability to stay healthy working in a germ factory/TOC, and the ability to keep up with the unit they’re attached to.  In each case APFT score is not the most precise measure of fitness – but it generally correlates.  It’s rare you’ll find a 300 APFT’er with massive fitness deficits in functional areas but equally rare you’ll find a 180 APFT’er who is outstanding in some aspect.


On the same note, and the main reason I disagreed with @ocoka one’s post is I find the MI corps does itself and the Army a disservice when it pretends it’s Soldiers don’t need to be fit – except as a way to impress people.  The IC is replete with personnel who have extreme expertise in technical aspects of the intelligence enterprise – military, civilian, and contractor.  The thing I think military personnel need to bring to the intelligence enterprise is the ability to see things from the Soldier’s perspective.  If you’re not a Soldier, just a civilian wearing a uniform, you can’t do that.  That’s why it’s critical for MI Soldiers to be fit, to be able to shoot, move, and communicate, and to gain experience on the battlefield.  Every time I’ve been an S-2 I’ve sent my Soldiers on convoys, on patrol where possible, and always down to the company level TOCs frequently during training and deployment.  The idea is not to hunt a CAB or exercise their maneuver-envy.  They’re required to brief what they’ve learned, and usually with a minimum of prompting they’ll start modifying their products and analysis to reflect that perspective.


As a little bit of an MI soapbox I’ll add I think this is an aspect of what’s so dangerous about the LTG Legere – led FOUNDRY and intelligence reach efforts.  The idea MI Soldiers are trained by outside elements instead of their leaders, are trained as individuals instead of teams, and support is best when done in a basement CONUS with a great internet connection instead of deployed with units is total bullshit but it’s the strategic vision our MI leaders have been pushing the last decade – and it is a disaster in my view.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 24, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> ... The thing I think military personnel need to bring to the intelligence enterprise is the ability to see things from the Soldier’s perspective.  If you’re not a Soldier, just a civilian wearing a uniform, you can’t do that.  That’s why it’s critical for MI Soldiers to be fit, to be able to shoot, move, and communicate, and to gain experience on the battlefield.  Every time I’ve been an S-2 I’ve sent my Soldiers on convoys, on patrol where possible, and always down to the company level TOCs frequently during training and deployment.  The idea is not to hunt a CAB or exercise their maneuver-envy.  They’re required to brief what they’ve learned, and usually with a minimum of prompting they’ll start modifying their products and analysis to reflect that perspective...



I'm happy to defer to your experience and agree with much of what you've written. Your above paragraph conjured up two thoughts, however. Do I want non-combat MOS personnel tagging along on a combat operation just so they can find out what it's like? And why not initiatives to recruit MI personnel from the combat arms fields? People who've BTDT? I can see savvy combat veteran NCOs and O's transitioning into MI with the training. Even wounded guys. How about a combat officer who loses a leg to an IED and is faced with medical retirement? Offer him a chance to stay in if he can pass the courses and training requirements for MI.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 24, 2016)

@Ocoka One - yeah, you've definitely got to be careful what folks tag along on - at least on deployment.  General movements on the battlefield work well (logistics convoy, etc.) but specific high-danger movements don't (presence patrol).  Cordon and search can be a very good one but you have to assess on a case-by-case mission.

I think reclasses do very well in MI at the junior ranks.  Most of the senior reclasses I've seen really struggle to build the technical knowledge necessary.  I will agree on the medical again on a case-by-case basis.  There are far too many permanent profiles in MI who struggle to meet standards of bearing.  But, once in a while you have a case where exceptions should be made.

Case in point I've got an E-4 in my S3 shop right now with 6 years of service going through a med-board.  On paper you'd think - must be a dirtbag - and of course we got him as a 'rehabilitation case.'  This kid is an outstanding leader and Soldier - I use him essentially as an E-6.  He was an outstanding E-4, making rank quickly who went to SFAS.  He was not selected but made it through the whole process - he was invited back, they just told him mature in the Army.  Four months after his return a guy ran a red light right into him - busted the entire left side of his body.  While in the hospital he loses his BLC slot and promotable status because the new rules say you can only wait a certain amount of time before going.  He's sent down to do bitch work while he recovers for almost a year.  He gets back his promotable status but is in a lot of pain - even though he's PT'ing at a 290.  The doctor's say he's got stress fractures in his let two places because of all the PT he's been doing to try to get himself back on track.  So, he goes into the interminable medical review board process.  He's hanging out having had a significant profile for some time (even though he still works out everyday with what the doctors let him do) wondering about his future.  Because he'll end up with a permanent profile he can never go to BLC, never be an NCO.  If he had just made it through BLC before his injury he'd be fine.  He's got the technical skill to be a WO - outstanding analyst with a ton of experience - and does more PT with his profile than half the one's I've seen, but he's an E-4 until he gets out.  Right now my SGM and I are trying to get him finished with college and to some administrative training to set him up for a GS job when he transitions out.


----------



## compforce (Jul 24, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I think in a lot of ways the binary choice of ‘PT stud’ or ‘brainiac’ is a false one and should be avoided.  In @compforce original post it, to me, would depend on the rank of the two personnel.  E-4 and below any deficiency is trainable but as you start moving up the ranks there are minimum levels that have to be achieved before you move on – if not, there’s very little chance you can be saved as a Soldier.  E-6 and above there is no PT score that can save someone who cannot perform and train others to perform MOS tasks.  Similarly though, at E-6 and above if you are not capable of maintaining superior bearing but instead are sliding by at the minimum standard in any aspect of bearing (of which physical fitness is one) then you have limited potential for promotion in the force.



I used the extremes to try to force the discussion out of gray areas.  Does it make a difference if the "braniac" is scoring 200ish on the PT test and passing each event vs just hitting the absolute minimum?  Why?  Did that change the ability to do the job?  Putting Intel into the spotlight as that is your area, how does having a 200 APFT vs a 180 APFT make a difference in actual job performance (aside from the forward guys that are out with the Infantry or SF)?  I'm interested in understanding why that should be a determining factor.  It's a serious question, not me trying to be flippant.  (BTW, I'm using the 60 point standard from the conventional side, not the 80 point point SOF minimum)

What I'm more interested in is how everyone immediately focused on PT rather than on the "whole person".  Why does that focus exist?  I get it for the Marines with the "Every man is a rifleman first" doctrine.  But why does it exist in the Army, Air Force or Navy?  I've personally known people of pretty much all ranks (below O-6) that fit one of the two stereotypes I proposed.  And yet the PT score and the appearance of physical fitness seem to consistently be overriding factors not only for promotion, but how they are assessed by their peers, treated by their units and even how they are treated by Soldiers that are meeting them for the first time.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 24, 2016)

I don’t think that’s something that can be answered exclusively by a numbers spread on the APFT.


The way we progress in the military is technical and tactical ability alongside leadership.  The case has been made in other forums, and I agree, that we should have a track for enlisted that want to develop technical skills but not be in leadership positions.  That’s not the system we have though.


When I look at an NCO I expect them to be able to execute their MOS tasks at skill level, and lead Soldiers as defined by ADP/ADRP 6-22.  So in the attribute of bearing, can the NCO lead PT effectively, do they set an example with fitness, do they look like a Soldier.  If an NCO is doing/leading/supervising PT with Soldiers 5 days a week, or if that’s not the environment they’re working in do they ensure Soldiers are executing PT 5 days a week (and setting the example by doing so themselves?  Are they enforcing standards of appearance and ABCP – while maintaining those same standards themselves?  If they are doing all those things their APFT score should be irrelevant.  However, I’ve never seen someone (outside some very specific profile cases) who were doing all those things and scoring below a 200 on the APFT on a regular basis.  If I saw that situation in the records of a Soldier in my formation I would have my senior enlisted digging into the details.


To your point that APFT scores tend to carry outsized weight on paper boards I think that’s correct.  Any kind of ERB/ORB review is going to give outsized weight to what the Soldier looks like, what badges/tabs they have, and their APFT score.  I would argue though that one of the reasons APFT score has been able to be an outsized discriminator is the poor evaluation writing skills and willingness to inflate evaluations we’ve seen over the years.  Leaders have been failing to grade subordinates on a total-Soldier basis so everybody looks like they walk on water – whether they can spell their own name correctly or not.  So, boards have looked more at objective discriminators – like APFT, badges/tabs, and uniform appearance.


----------



## Brill (Jul 24, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Where is that stated?  Curious, not challenging.



More specifically, it's the PRT and is in 7-22 under leadership I think.


----------



## moobob (Jul 24, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I think in a lot of ways the binary choice of ‘PT stud’ or ‘brainiac’ is a false one and should be avoided.  In @compforce original post it, to me, would depend on the rank of the two personnel.  E-4 and below any deficiency is trainable but as you start moving up the ranks there are minimum levels that have to be achieved before you move on – if not, there’s very little chance you can be saved as a Soldier.  E-6 and above there is no PT score that can save someone who cannot perform and train others to perform MOS tasks.  Similarly though, at E-6 and above if you are not capable of maintaining superior bearing but instead are sliding by at the minimum standard in any aspect of bearing (of which physical fitness is one) then you have limited potential for promotion in the force.
> 
> 
> I disagree with the idea there are PT stud MOS’ and nerd MOS’ and you can disregard or downplay aspects of 6-22’s attributes and competencies depending on MOS.  I think fitness is critical across the board – and the APFT is always going to be an extremely imprecise way to measure fitness, as it should be to apply to the whole force.  For an infantryman the ability to ruck, maneuver in short bursts, recover from the inevitable injuries of his profession, etc. are the most critical aspects of fitness.  An Infantry Soldier who scores a 250 on the APFT but always carries the 240B, is alert in an ambush position, and can keep going days into a patrol is superior I would think to a 300 APFT Soldier who has delicate ankles so needs to stick to the road, can’t stay awake without their evening macrobiotic shake, and needs 8 hours a night to stay alert.  Similarly an MI Soldier’s critical aspects of fitness may be the ability to stay alert working difficult hours, the ability to stay healthy working in a germ factory/TOC, and the ability to keep up with the unit they’re attached to.  In each case APFT score is not the most precise measure of fitness – but it generally correlates.  It’s rare you’ll find a 300 APFT’er with massive fitness deficits in functional areas but equally rare you’ll find a 180 APFT’er who is outstanding in some aspect.
> ...



When the Army thinks reclassing E6 (P) and above into highly technical MI jobs, then letting the same folks become warrants a couple years later is an acceptable practice, I think some outside SME is going to have to train the force. That was further exacerbated by the push toward standalone BCTs with their own integrated support, rather than having Division MI Battalions with more control over their training and funding via an MI Battalion CDR (instead of an Engineer).

As far as PT goes... there's only a handful of MI MOS's that typically need to be out on combat operations, and if that's all they're doing, they're probably being misutilized. Obviously you don't want people that are a liability physically, but if you identify who is and isn't, you can task organize and find a way for everyone to contribute. I wish all my guys were genius IQ pro athletes, but for 99% of the army (and in the largest ARSOF component), you can't call Branch and say "hey give me a new dude please".


----------

