Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

nitpicker

(7,153 posts)
Mon Oct 23, 2017, 04:38 AM Oct 2017

Early numbers show the Armys new fitness test is reducing injuries in basic training

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/10/18/early-numbers-show-the-armys-new-fitness-test-is-reducing-injuries-in-basic-training-3/

Early numbers show the Army’s new fitness test is reducing injuries in basic training

By: Meghann Myers ?  4 days ago

In the 10 months since the Army implemented an occupational fitness test for potential recruits, injury and drop-out rates are down at basic training, officials said. The Occupational Physical Assessment Test has four events, and a soldier’s score determines which jobs he or she is qualified for. The idea behind it is that if soldiers are tested and categorized based on their Army-related physical abilities before basic training, they are less at risk of getting hurt once they’ve enlisted.
(snip)

Those reductions in injuries translate into more soldiers who not only make it through basic, but who make it through on their first try, saving the time and money it takes to rehabilitate and recycle them. According to Army statistics, since the beginning of this year, injuries in basic combat training have dropped by 17 percent, while injuries in one station unit training — a combination of basic and advanced individual training done by infantry, armor, military police and other specialties — saw a 10 percent drop. On-time graduation rates are also up, statistics found. In basic training. they jumped from about 85 percent to about 93 percent, and at OSUT from 78 percent to 87 percent.

Not only does OPAT weed out potential recruits and officer candidates who aren’t up to occupational physical standards, it also can redirect prospective soldiers who don’t meet the bar for their dream MOS but could still have a career in another field.
(snip)

As of the end of September, according to statistics from U.S. Army Recruiting Command, 68,425 recruits passed the OPAT at the necessary level and shipped to training. Another 84 had to renegotiate their contracts to accommodate a lower OPAT bar, and 14 decided to cancel their contracts altogether after failing to meet their desired MOS standard.

Despite rigid scoring requirements, the OPAT is not a one-time-only test. “They can take the OPAT each month leading up to shipping, but no matter what, they must have a passing score on record within a 90-day window of shipping to show they are ready,” USAREC spokeswoman Kelli Bland told Army Times. With that rule, 72 percent of potential soldiers met their desired OPAT standard on the first try, while 92 percent passed within their first three attempts.
(snip)







2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Early numbers show the Armys new fitness test is reducing injuries in basic training (Original Post) nitpicker Oct 2017 OP
So they pre-test now? underpants Oct 2017 #1
Revisiting history and calling it invention. JayhawkSD Oct 2017 #2

underpants

(186,617 posts)
1. So they pre-test now?
Mon Oct 23, 2017, 05:35 AM
Oct 2017

Interesting. I was so out of shape I could barely do the 13 push-ups required to get into basic.

Every recruiting office has to have access to a 4 1/2 pound medicine ball and a squat rack? I guess they use a local gym or high school facility.

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
2. Revisiting history and calling it invention.
Mon Oct 23, 2017, 09:50 AM
Oct 2017

Some years ago I read an article about a company who had come up with a brilliant idea of having the manufacturing division participate in the design of products, finding that doing so greatly reduced the cost of production. They cited an instance where, in making a control panel, seven different fasteners were used, requiring the worker to lay down and pick up five different tools in the course of assembling the panel. The production manager pointed out that the fasteners could all be the same, thereby allowing the assembler to do all the work with one tool, saving a ton of time by not having to pick up and put down tools for each panel.

My reaction was astonishment. When, I wondered, did they stop considering production costs when designing new items? Rather than praising someone for redesigning the panel to get rid of the seven different fasteners, I would hunt down and fire the idiot who specified them in the first place.

In my day, production cost considerations were always part of design. So they stop doing it, probably because some bean counter thought it saved a few bucks in the design phase, and when they rediscover it they think they are brilliant. No, they were stupid to stop doing it to begin with.

In 1959 the first phase of boot camp was, "Okay, lets run you through some physical tests to see what you are capable of," after which they told us what career paths we could sign up for.

Now, 58 years later, some REMF comes up with "Lets run them through some physical tests to see what they are capable of before we tell them what career paths they can sign up for," and thinks he deserves a fucking medal for his brilliance.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»National Security & Defense»Early numbers show the Ar...