Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Letters

Tweak PT test

The current Army Physical Fitness Test does not translate into physical fitness for today’s battlefield. Soldiers must have upper body strength and endurance, core body strength and endurance, and cardiovascular endurance to perform their missions.

“But I can’t run where I am stationed” is not a valid excuse. Get out the ALICE [all-purpose individual lightweight carrying equipment] pack or MOLLE [modular lightweight load-carrying equipment], put weight in it (less than 33 percent of body weight) and perform cardio work using squats, lunges, dead-man lifts, raises, calf raises, etc., in timed sets with minimal rest between sets. Special Forces has been doing it for years.

Four recommended improvements for the current APFT:

• Cardiovascular endurance. Change current two-mile run to a three-mile run. Reason: Running three miles is a better measure of endurance than running two miles. The Marines have this right in their physical fitness test.

• Cardiovascular endurance. Add a one- or two-mile 25-pound body armor and/or backpack weight power walk. Reason: Walking with weight that is less than 33 percent of body weight builds strong cardiovascular endurance and muscular endurance for all core body groups.

• Cardiovascular high-intensity endurance. Recommended in addition to the run and/or weighted walk, have five 100-meter sprints with thirty second rest intervals between sprints. Reason: Troops need to have the ability to sprint in addition to regular cardiovascular endurance when performing patrols or other missions.

• Muscular strength. Pull-ups would be a great additional test, but the downside outweighs the benefits. The need to have a pull-up bar means you can’t do this exercise anywhere, can’t do it when it’s raining and can’t it do when it’s cold.

No physical fitness test is perfect, but what is great about the current APFT is it is easy to administer anywhere, is easy to interpret and provides a great baseline for Army physical fitness requirements in garrison and on the battlefield.

With the addition of some or all of these recommendations, the APFT will be an even better tool for our soldiers.

Former Capt. Lee A. Kind

Fairfax Station, Va.

HONOR DESERVES TOP SPOT

It is bad enough that the civilian press constantly elects to push negative military stories, but Army Times seems to have the same priority. The front page of the May 12 issue had a full color picture and the headline “Super Fraud.”

Off to the side is a small one-inch picture of Master Sgt. Brendan O’Connor with the heading, “Bravery Under Fire, Battlefield Heroics Earn DSC For Master Sgt.”

I am a big supporter of prosecuting those that dishonor our heroes by wearing decorations that they have not earned, but this is the third front-page story on this subject in recent months.

Since Master Sgt. O’Connor is only the second soldier to receive the Distinguished Service Cross in Afghanistan, I think that this honor would have been the top story. It deserves top billing.

Sgt. 1st Class Paul McKenna

Burbank, Calif.

While I fully understand that the issue of fraudulent claims of military service and unearned awards, commendations and rank is a growing concern, I find it a disservice to all of those that have honorably served and rightfully earned the accoutrements that they wear on their uniforms to see stories of fraud usurp the headlines from the more deserving and positive accounts of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines serving our country.

The cover of the May 12 issue of Army Times reflects a near full-length photo of an individual who does not deserve his 15 minutes of fame, let alone the immortalization that having his mug shot placed on the cover of such a well-read publication will bring him.

Randall Moneymaker should issue a public apology to all of the service members whose selfless service has been accurately documented and recorded forever in history. Anyone that falsely claims to be a hero should be prosecuted for their crime.

However, do their stories need to be made into such a public display?

On the same cover, there was a headline that read, in part, “Bravery Under Fire,” which was accompanied by a head shot of Master Sgt. Brendan O’Conner. O’Conner was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for gallantry in action, but his story was relegated to what would amount to a “below-the-fold” story in most other major newspaper publications.

The Army Times is a great resource for news about our military that cannot be matched by the daily newspapers in the country. But this time you got it wrong.

What I remember about leadership is that you should always lead with a positive when making corrective action on a soldier. These stories of fraudulent heroes need to be presented, if for no other reason, than to show that if you want to engage in such activity, you will be caught and be required to account for your actions. But next time, put the real hero stories up front.

I leave this final thought for those who may think wearing an unearned award will make them into someone they are not: It is not what you wear on your chest that makes you a hero; it is the heart and character inside your chest that defines who you are.

Sgt. 1st Class Henry Millward Jr. (ret.)

Callao, Va.

DISINGENOUS REMARK

How could the Army Times allow Brig. Gen. Dennis Rogers of Army Installation Command get away with the disingenuous remark, “[W]e believe … [commanders] … have the appropriate amount of money to maintain their facilities.” [“ ‘We let our soldiers down’: YouTube posting reveals barracks squalor,” May 12]?

Surely you must remember that AIC was created several years ago for the specific purpose of taking installation commanders out of the housing facilities budget loop so they could no longer divert housing money to build a bigger officers club or a better marksmanship range.

Housing facilities (for both single soldiers and families) on Army installations are no longer under the financial purview of the installation commander.

The entire AIC chain of command should be held accountable in print for their egregious failure to provide our soldiers decent housing.

Command Sgt. Maj. Peter Pallesen (ret.)

Arlington, Va.

INDECENT LEGISLATION

Rep. Paul Broun Jr., R-Ga., says he uses the four-way test — 1) moral/right, 2) constitutional, 3) necessary, 4) affordable — when voting on proposed legislation [“Bill would boot Penthouse, Playboy out of exchanges,” May 5]. By his own standards, his Military Honor and Decency Act fails on all counts.

Evidently, Broun feels it is entirely appropriate for an 18-year-old to view a dismembered body, but not female breasts. This religious right-wing view on what is morally correct is becoming tiresome and wacky.

Back in the 1950s, the Bible thumpers demanded that our service members not drink, and were defeated. Now these groups, led by Broun, demand that service members not become overly excited by viewing naked women.

How many readers of this publication have looked at, read, viewed or purchased a Playboy or Penthouse magazine? I am advocating a return to common sense. Our service members are not 8-year-old children who need to be protected from certain things. They are adults doing the work of adults in the most awful manner, yet these same military service members are not allowed to drink or even think about sex.

If Broun wishes to remain celibate, more power to him, but to force his views on the rest of us is 1) not right, 2) unconstitutional, 3) unnecessary and 4) lacks common sense.

There’s no use trying to convert this man, as he is set in his ways. All we can do is let the other members of Congress know this wacky bill needs to be defeated — soundly.

Sgt. Alan Griggs (ret.)

Buckeye, Ariz.

BAH EQUALITY

I could not possibly disagree with Sgt. 1st Class Harold K. Lewis more [“Raising single soldiers’ BAH may leave married ones behind,” Back Talk, May 5].

Why does a married person deserve more? Sgt. 1st Class Lewis made a choice to get married and have five children. I, on the other hand, have made a choice to be single. I should not be penalized for that choice, and Sgt. 1st Class Lewis should not be rewarded for his. Your basic allowance for housing rate should reflect your rank and nothing else.

The argument that BAH should somehow be tied to time-in-service is way off the mark. They do that with our base pay, and that is how we end up with a high-speed E-5 with three years in service being in charge of — but getting paid less than — a low-speed E-4 with eight years in service.

The military is not a social welfare system in which you get paid more the more kids you have. We need to move to performance-based pay that does not allow subordinates to make more than their superiors, and a single BAH rate for each rank — regardless of marital status — that is only dependent on location.

Staff Sgt. Mathew Carson

Manhattan, Kan.