Wednesday lawmakers support and plan to overhaul the military's military fitness standards in combat. Adopted by Senator last week This could overturn the way the army is tested to make sure it is prepared for the rigors of the battlefield. There is sex.
Annual Defense Authorization Bill House Armed Services Commission The proposal included in the markup is to "establish gender-neutral fitness" to the Secretary of the Army. I am seeking. A standard for combat military feats that is higher than the standard for non-combat MOS.
Members of the Senate Military Committee last week approved a similar wording in a draft approval bill. Despite opposition from some Democratic leaders, the votes of both committees were approved with bipartisan support.
"It's clear that a 100-pound shell or a 150-pound rucksack or a 200-pound soldier who has to move to the top of a hill is different than using a keyboard," the amendment said. I am saying. During a committee discussion on Wednesday, sponsor Mike Waltz, R-Fla.
"After all, this is about all standards in this country Americans who want to serve need to meet to win the war. They have different jobs, so the standards should be different. "
This provision is the second criticism of military leaders in a week. Means Army leaders have coordinated fitness tests for the past few years in response to previous criticisms that the event was overly intense for supportive military personnel.
Army officials launched a revised version of the Army Combat Fitness Test in March after Congress ordered an independent review of the shortcomings of the test. did. All active and full-time reservists will have a new test count this fall, and part-time reservists and guards will be tested for record from April next year.
The current ACFT is a predecessor specially designed as an age- and gender-independent test, depending on whether a soldier's job requires "heavy," "important," or "moderate." Has been lowered from. Physical effort.
After a large number of women failed to meet these minimum requirements, the Army modified the event, created a new scoring system with different age and gender criteria, and modified the message. I described ACFT as a high fitness test, not a preparatory evaluation.
But lawmakers say the result is a fitness test. It states. It is too wide to properly prepare soldiers for potential battlefield demands.
The wording contained in the approval bill should not only be the development of new tests for "combat MOS", but also what service personnel are doing in those jobs, and who should be bound by higher fitness standards. I need both to make it clearer. ..
The wording of the report accompanying the draft Senate Approval Bill goes beyond the Army's physical fitness test and includes further inspections by all services as a requirement. Senators included words requiring the Pentagon to produce a list of close-quarters combat jobs and briefings for Congress on their physical requirements.
This may force changes across the service in the future, but the current proposal applies only to controversial Army testing.
This move is DoD Seems to support Guidance from March ensures that fitness programs "meet occupation-specific, operational-related physical requirements in physically demanding career areas." Is instructing the service.
The Army currently has job-specific fitness standards on the Occupational Physical Assessment Test (OPAT), which are considered the minimum for the first entry into the career arena.
Adam Smith, Chairman of the House Armed Services Commission, D-Wash, said Army officials "know more than our Commission about the criteria needed to meet the requirements." He opposed this move, claiming that.
"This basically deprives us of that flexibility in every way," he said.
But for now, both chambers seem to be heading in the direction of forcing test changes.
Both houses must adopt separate versions of the approval bill before they can begin negotiations on a compromise. The work is expected to continue until autumn.