Follow up to Kicked out of the CPOACAD....

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I'd keep it in house.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Stu...before I answer I want to ensure I understand your question. Are you asking about someone who has already been kicked out of the CPO Academy? Or, are you asking about anyone?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Yes, those kicked out for disciplinary reasons. I tried to make that the question of the poll but was limited by space. I changed the name of the thread hoping people would draw the connection. But yes for clarification,

Should those people who have been sent back from the CPOACAD for disciplinary issues be allowed to attend a sister service school to meet the requirement?

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

My vote was No, but then I realized that we were talking about them still being able to attend. My No was meant for a "one and done" approach. By the time you make E-7 you should not be having discipline issue while TDY.

[BMC Nicholas George]

So far I am the only one that voted "yes." The reason for this is you have to have a written recommendation from your CO/OIC that is forwarded through your District Gold Badge. At least that is the way it was when i applied to the AFSNCO Academy this past summer. That should be enough to weed out those who try to get over on the system.

The only reason i would vote "NO" is if the CPO academy enforced some kind of time restriction on returning to the CPO Academy. Therefore i wouldn't think a person would be allowed to attend another services school before they would be eligible to return to the CPO Academy.

I think once a person has paid the price for getting sent home, they should be as eligible to do whatever they like as anyone else.

[YNC Tim Mooney]

I concur with Kevin.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

With "One and done", are you saying discharge/retire, or back to E-6?

[MSTCS Damara Oos]

Absolutely not! I feel sister service academies area priveledge not a right. That's why there is an application/endorsement process in place. These schools are where we should send our best and brightest to "represent" rather than some one with previous disciplinary issues at our own school.

However, once that member returns & completes the CPO Academy and gets squared away (as determined by the application process), then I feel they could attend another academy.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Stu,
I was referring to "one opportunity to attend" when I said, "one and done". I am less forgiving the more senior the offender.

It would be great to see the CG adopt the AF's policy for PME attendance. Roughly speaking, if you are an E-7 and have not gone to the CPOACAD by 20 years and 6 months, you go home.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

It would be great to see the CG adopt the AF's policy for PME attendance. Roughly speaking, if you are an E-7 and have not gone to the CPOACAD by 20 years and 6 months, you go home.

Isn't HYT E-5 at 20? E-6 at 22?

So E-6 at 22 advances to CPO. Should we just tell E-6 @22 he's not being advanced?

[HSC Chris Fly]

Unless you kick someone out of the CG for what hapened at the CPOACAD, you HAVE to give them the opportunity to attend something... since we give an E7 the opportunity to attend the other services schools in the beginning, why not after as long as their CMC/Command endorses them? As far as the comment about we should reserve the other services schools for our "best and brightest"...that's about the biggest load of BS I've heard in a while! Why should do that and let our own Academy "settle for the rest"? If you are wearing an Anchor, you are the best and brightest...otherwise, take the Anchor! While I agree an E7 should be able to go TDY without getting in trouble, either kick the offended out of the CG/take the Anchor or allow them to attend whichever school they can get in (with CMC endorsement...) If you don't want to do any of those, don't require the Academy...

Just my .02

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Isn't HYT E-5 at 20? E-6 at 22?

So E-6 at 22 advances to CPO. Should we just tell E-6 @22 he's not being advanced?
Joe you know HYT is a "selective" policy.. Needs of both the CG and those at HQ.

The CG was much better off before they came out with that policy.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, I think Damaras' comments were right on the money. We SHOULD take a closer look at who we send out there to represent our service, and I don't like the thought of us sending someone who already demonstrated how they wanted to spend that time.
What do you think would happen to a member of the Air Force if the CPOACAD sent them packing?

[HSC Chris Fly]

As I said, if you wear an Anchor...you're qualified. If not, take the Anchor. There's also a reason the Air Force students in my class loved the CPOACAD, they were estatic they wern't in the AF school...Hmmm, maybe the other service schools aren't all that...

[YNCM Doug Squires (Ret)]

Why do we have two threads on the same topic?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Two different topics. I was wondering in the first thread, after a recent rash of dismissals from the CPOACAD for disciplinary reasons, if people thought those discharged should be reduced, or if it should be left up to their individual commands. After the majority of the people answering the poll responded that it should be left up to the command, I wondered if they felt the member should be allowed to try a sister school, or have to return to the CPOACAD.
My concern being, we have a limited number of seats..... they've already show the desire to attend, for advancement reasons or ....whatever..., they've already shown they can't act right,....... is all forgive? Have they demonstrated an ability to return to the school of their choice, or must they return to the scene of the crime?
If your kids don't play right in your house, do you let them go over to the neighbors?

Chris, did you talk to the Air Force members in your class. I roomed with one. The Air Force Academy is cut throat. Everyone is trying to "grab wood". If you graduate without getting some type of recognition, you get passed over for future advancements. The CPOACAD, much like the Coast Guard itself, is much more laid back. Kinda like New York, only if you CAN'T make it there, you can't make it anywhere.
You want to see those Air Force guys' jaws drop? Tell them that you pass study guides around from old SWEs that you've taken. Tell them you get together with other people you're taking the test with, and study together. Tell them that you can go on the Internet and get study guides for our SWE.
And back to Damara's point, it isn't a question of being qualified, it's who should be recommended to go. Why did we add that extra step?

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

Not to hijack, but Stu my room mate was also Air Force, I agree 100% with what you said. I was stunned at some of the stories they talked about, about how thier life is and their advancement process. I think I was as stunned as he was about ours.

Sorry about the hijack

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Not a hijack, I think that goes to the point of the thread, who do we want out there representing our service.
Not to throw Deane under the bus, but he attended the Air Force Academy, and can tell you about the requirements. He has also lead the efforts to get some of his younger POs into two different Air Force courses. Does he send just anyone who meets the paygrade requirements, or the people he thinks will best represent his unit and our service?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Not to throw Deane under the bus, but he attended the Air Force Academy, and can tell you about the requirements. He has also lead the efforts to get some of his younger POs into two different Air Force courses. Does he send just anyone who meets the paygrade requirements, or the people he thinks will best represent his unit and our service?

When I attended the AFSNCOA (Class 00-A) in 1999, I didn't have time to drink or get a DUI or whatever other misconduct issues are out there. I was spending most of my "Off" time in study groups ensuring that I didn't fail out of the class. I had to maintain my grades or I would be in front of an admin review board. When I wasn't studying with my flight, we were involved in activities in the community. We worked 2 weekends at a local school for Partnership in Education. I also worked in a soup kitchen on Thanksgiving day with my fellow classmates (and my wife who flew in to spend the holiday with me). Again, I didn't have time to get into trouble. I knew that I was representing the CG at the SNCOA and I didn't want to shed an unfavorable light...not that Bob Brayman would have let any of us do that.

As far as Airman Leadership School goes...you're right Stu. Only the best E-4 get the endorsement. If they're marginal, they don't go. We have to set the standard and raise the standard when we attend sister service schools. We should leave them with the most positive perspective on the Coast Guard we can and we can't do that by sending just anybody. It's a privilege.

[HSC Chris Fly]

Why do we have to have a higher standard for other services schools than our own? The standard is the standard regardles of which school it is... To day we have send the "best" to the AF school and leave the rest for the CG school is a kick in the teeth to ourselves and I, as a Coastie, take offense to that. If a member is qualified to go to a CG school/course then he/she is qualified to go to a corresponding AF/Navy/Army course, period. A leadership school is a privallage to go to regardless of where it taught... let's quit coddling people and stop stroking thier egos and just teach what they need to know/do! If your a fatbody, change it...if you're a dirtbag, change it...if you don't want to be in my CG, get out! Just don't say "Well, you can go to the CPOACAD but not the AF because you're not the example we want to show...", that's a load of crap. :mad:

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

If someone screws up at a Coast Guard school, the option of going to another services comparable school should be off the table. Anyone eligible for the CPO Academy should be equally eligible for the other service academy. But it is AFTER the screw up, IF someone is given a second chance, I don't think the opportunity for that second chance should be outside of our own backyard.

[BMC Nicholas George]

Why do we have to have a higher standard for other services schools than our own? The standard is the standard regardles of which school it is... To day we have send the "best" to the AF school and leave the rest for the CG school is a kick in the teeth to ourselves and I, as a Coastie, take offense to that. If a member is qualified to go to a CG school/course then he/she is qualified to go to a corresponding AF/Navy/Army course, period. A leadership school is a privallage to go to regardless of where it taught... let's quit coddling people and stop stroking thier egos and just teach what they need to know/do! If your a fatbody, change it...if you're a dirtbag, change it...if you don't want to be in my CG, get out! Just don't say "Well, you can go to the CPOACAD but not the AF because you're not the example we want to show...", that's a load of crap. :mad:



I concur with Chris... We can argue all day on what type of Chief should represent our service. The root of the problem is the type of people that are being advanced to Chief in the first place.

The CPO Academy teaches in one of it's leadership classes to solve the root of a problem that exists or the problem will keep coming back.

Once a person has earned the title of "Chief" that person should be good enough to represent the Coast Guard anytime, anywhere.

Perhaps offering a CG course equivalent to the AF Junior NCO Academy to Junior Petty Officers. A young GM3 went to the AF course at Scott AFB while I attended the CPO Academy in November. He described that course to me and the curriculum was very similar to what Chief's were being taught at the CPO Academy.

I know its the duty of a Chief to mentor, mold, and polish our junior shipmates. However, I find it funny that out sister services offer USCG CPO Academy like courses to their E-4's and we offer LAMS.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

The root of the problem is the type of people that are being advanced to Chief in the first place.

Once a person has earned the title of "Chief" that person should be good enough to represent the Coast Guard anytime, anywhere.

Nick...you seem to contradict yourself with these two sentences. You say that the problem is the type of people that are advanced to Chief. Then, you say once someone is a Chief they should be good enough to represent the CG anywhere. If you're saying that there are people that make Chief that shouldn't...wouldn't it stand to reason that those people shouldn't represent the CG at sister schools?

Chris & Nick...Don't you think it's a privilege to attend one of the sister academies? If not, why? If so, why shouldn't that privilege be given to those truly deserving.

[BMC Nicholas George]

Nick...you seem to contradict yourself with these two sentences. You say that the problem is the type of people that are advanced to Chief. Then, you say once someone is a Chief they should be good enough to represent the CG anywhere. If you're saying that there are people that make Chief that shouldn't...wouldn't it stand to reason that those people shouldn't represent the CG at sister schools?

Chris & Nick...Don't you think it's a privilege to attend one of the sister academies? If not, why? If so, why shouldn't that privilege be given to those truly deserving.

I never said its not a privilege. I agree with your point that "those people" shouldn't attend sister schools and that in todays reality there are Chiefs out there that are an embarrassment. What i am trying to say is that we should strive to make the CG better in that when you think of a Chief, you think best and brightest and don't have to worry about how your service is being represented at a sister school.

Maybe I am just unrealistic, because i thought when i became a Chief, thats when i would get the privilege of not having to prove myself. I like to think that i was advanced to Chief, because i am one of the Coast Guard's best and brightest.

[BMC Nicholas George]

Why is there not an endorsement/recommendation required for a Coastie to attend the CPO Academy?

[HSC Chris Fly]

Chris & Nick...Don't you think it's a privilege to attend one of the sister academies? If not, why? If so, why shouldn't that privilege be given to those truly deserving.

While it's very gracious for the AF to allow us to attend their school, I wouldn't call it a privilege...otherwise, I would have asked to go.

The school is there for those that choose to utilize it for whatever reason they want to...prestige, knowledge, see how the other half live, etc. Everyone keeps talking about the "best and brightest" and "truley deserving"...well, I bet any Chief going to the CPOACAD would get these tags as well, until they slept with an "A" school student. I guess my point is this...when you put on the Anchor, you are expected to act accordingly ALWAYS. If you don't meet that standard, you don't deserve to wear the Anchor. So, in that regard, anyone wearing an Anchor is "truly derserving" to go to the school... I say this knowing full well that there are those that fly under the radar and don't they properly punished, but again why should just accept that OUR CPOACAD will get the dregs? We need to do something in our service to get these people out...

[HSC Chris Fly]

Why is there not an endorsement/recommendation required for a Coastie to attend the CPO Academy?


Great Question! IF we made our Academy a privilege/honor to attend, we may value it a bit more. I guess it really bugs me that we dump on ourselves while putting the AF on a pedestal...even when the AF people want to come to ours because their own world is so cut throat...why are we envying that?

[AMTCM John Long]

Great Question! IF we made our Academy a privilege/honor to attend, we may value it a bit more.

It sort of used to be that way when we had to put in a package to attend. I didn't get picked up the first time but was picked up for a last minute opening on the second attempt. After that, you no longer had to submit a package as it became an semi-open gangway. If you asked, you eventually went.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, I'm not putting the AF on a pedestal. I'm not saying its a better course. I'm not saying someone is going to get more out of it.

I'm saying it's harder. You can actually flunk out.

I'm saying anyone can go,...... unless of course you were already thrown out of a course,.... then you have to play in our yard.

There should be no question as to which is the better service. If you're in doubt, walk around any base, ask for a show of hands from the people in uniform...... "Who's prior service?"
The only time you're finding prior service Guardians on other service bases is when we're using their exchanges or commissaries.

( I was going to add.... or dating their dependants.... but I didn't want to go there)

I don't think we should send just any non-rate to one of our A schools. I don't think we should send just anyone who is eligible to one of our C Schools. I don't think we should send just any CPO to the CPOACAD. But when we recognize someone who isn't worthy of attending, we should recognize that they aren't worthy to wear the Anchors. The Anchors should represent a little more than that grade school "Participant" Ribbon.

[HSC Chris Fly]

But when we recognize someone who isn't worthy of attending, we should recognize that they aren't worthy to wear the Anchors. The Anchors should represent a little more than that grade school "Participant" Ribbon.

This was my point all along... If they get kicked out of our Academy for discipline (won't go into weight), they should have thier Anchors taken by their command. (I realize I may have sounded like I had a different take on this in the other thread...)

If this was the case, we wouldn't have to have the conversation about a sister school...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Chris, let's say they were busted down. They wait their time and advance again. Second time around is it a level playing field? Do we forgive and forget, or forgive and keep an eye on them?

[HSC Chris Fly]

If they are busted down, do thier time and then get recommended for advancement...they have earned the chance to attend any school any other Chief is allowed to. They have paid their price for what they did...if you punish them twice, isn't that kind of double jeopardy?

It's just like marks...you can't hold an offense against someone in a subsiquent (sp) marking period for something that happend the last period.

[BMC Nicholas George]

Second time around is it a level playing field?

YES... Everyone in the CG, to some extent, has recieved a second chance. Maybe the second chancer is watched a little more closely, but they should have the same chance as any other Chief when competing for Academy classes.

An RFC'ed OIC can recertify after 2 yrs and start over. Why not a disciplined CPO removed from the Academy?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

....and I'm not preventing them from attending a school, I'm just keeping it in house. Those RFC'd OinC might re-certify and never successfully screen. Someone might have gone to Mast for wrecking my GV, that doesn't mean I have to let them drive it again. I Mast a guy for bouncing checks around the Base, can't I impose a cash only policy just on that member? Finishing awarded punishment doesn't restore trust.

Screw me once shame on you, ......do I have to give them the opportunity to shame me twice? If I do, can't I limit where that shame comes from?

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

I will offer, by the time someone advances to Chief, throughout their career they have already had more than their share of "second chances". When you wear the anchor, you set the example, not be the example!!

Second chances are for kids.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I Mast a guy for bouncing checks around the Base, can't I impose a cash only policy just on that member?

No, I don't think you have that authority. (to tell people how they can spent their money) ... You could however, put him in for a discharge (indebetedness)...

Wray...:cool:

[HSC Chris Fly]

When you wear the anchor, you set the example, not be the example!!



I kind of read them as being the same thing... if you set the example, aren't you being the example? Unless, of course, by "setting" the example you are just telling someone what to do...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Wray, I'm talking about how I accept money from him, be it at a base exchange, buying unit shirts, collecting for a morale event........ a guy gets a DUI, I can't revoke his drivers licenses, but I can revoke his right to drive on the base....

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

HSC,
To me "setting the example" is good, "being made the example" is bad. I inadvertently left out a word. It must have been the jet lag, contrary to the time stamp, it was 5am where I was posting from.

The quote should have read;
"When you wear the anchor, you set the example, not be made the example!!"

2nd chances are for kids.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Wray, I'm talking about how I accept money from him, be it at a base exchange, buying unit shirts, collecting for a morale event........ a guy gets a DUI, I can't revoke his drivers licenses, but I can revoke his right to drive on the base....

As an OIC I do not believe you have that authority... of course it would be very stupid of him to continue down that same path, after attending a mast for it, but ......


Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Actually I do have that authority. I can insist on cash or money order, same as when we collected money for the galley. Paying by check is a priveledge, not a right. If you were questioning the base driving, I can revoke that for a year after a DUI.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

be it at a base exchange,

That is what I was questioning.. Are you an exchange manager as well ?...

Wray.. :cool:

[HSC Chris Fly]

HSC,
To me "setting the example" is good, "being made the example" is bad. I inadvertently left out a word. It must have been the jet lag, contrary to the time stamp, it was 5am where I was posting from.

The quote should have read;
"When you wear the anchor, you set the example, not be made the example!!"

2nd chances are for kids.

That makes more sense. :)

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I don't have a base, let alone an exchange...... but yes, I've been at units that had a unit exchange, and the OinC could say who could pay by check or buy on credit, and who couldn't. On the 180' the MAA (MKC) could make that call. At Quillayute the ET1 had that authority, he ran the exchange.

[MKCM Bob Brayman]

In order to attend the USASMA, USN SEA and AFSNCOA...you have to apply and have the CO's endorsement. The applicaton goes through CG 133 for screening where one would think that stuff like that would get picked up. Also, USASMA and USN SEA (double check) packages usually get seen by the MCPOCG.

Also, the other courses actually have evaluations throughout the courses and one can easily "flunk" out after the first week or the very last day before graduation. Ours doesn't do evaluation which is why the AF folks that come through it.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bob, my question would be,
What makes you think that a CO who does nothing to a member who was kicked out of the CPOACAD, would do anything to prevent them from going to another course?

[HSC Chris Fly]

In order to attend the USASMA, USN SEA and AFSNCOA...you have to apply and have the CO's endorsement. The applicaton goes through CG 133 for screening where one would think that stuff like that would get picked up. Also, USASMA and USN SEA (double check) packages usually get seen by the MCPOCG.

Also, the other courses actually have evaluations throughout the courses and one can easily "flunk" out after the first week or the very last day before graduation. Ours doesn't do evaluation which is why the AF folks that come through it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but E9s and senior E8s are the ones that attend these two Academys, correct?

I think that's a whole different paradigm than what we are talking about with the CPOACAD. Not saying an E9 can't be stupid (I've seen it as a CDAR), but once you pin on Master Chief....

[MKCM Bob Brayman]

actually they've opened up their courses to a wider audience. The USN SEA was exclusively for E9's with senior E8's, they have since shortened their course and now allow very high performing E7's to go.

The AFSNCOA is required to advance to E9, therefore all E8's must go and they take E7's above the cut to go. Also, remember the AF has no CWO's and have a requirement to go or no advancement. Additionally, the NCOA is a requirement to advance to E6 and their Airman Leadership School is required for all E4's wishing to advance to E5.

Nick asked earlier why the ALS and NCOA teach the same things as our CPOAcad? They don't though it may seem to...what they actually do is get this...it's too simple and makes sense...they use the same curriculum topics but taught for the level of school audience. ALS is for E4's--first line supervisors, NCOA is for E5's to E6 who are now entering mid mgmt and the AFSNCOA is for E8's who are now senior/executive leadership. Same topics...just a different level of instruction.

The US Army Sergeant's Major Academy is for all E9's and E8's advancing to E9 plus all those CSM's too.

As for Stu's question...I would hope that the endorser would consider all the issues prior to positively endorsing a person for a sister service course. I've been asked a few times for input on such requests and each time they've listened to my points and made their decision...so far I've batted a cool .1000.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Bob, I think if you asked around, most people would agree that you aren't the typical Silver Badge,.......and that your word carries more weight than most. I doubt all Silver Badges are allowed to be as involved in these decisions.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

so far I've batted a cool .1000.

Bob, you missed it by an order of magnitude. Your batting 1.000

Keep up the good work.

[MKCM Bob Brayman]

darn decimal always kicked my behind:D

[SKC Raymond Kurtz (Ret)]

Master Chief Bowen indicated in his latest all hands (all Chiefs?) e-mail that "This weekend, nine Chiefs were disenrolled and sent back to their units because they were over their maximum allowed body weight/body fat. Their numbers ranged from 6 pounds/4% body fat excess, to 45 pounds/6% body fat excess. THIS IS A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP AT ALL LEVELS."

Would someone please explain to me how a Chief Petty Officer could be 45 pounds over his/her MAW and still be allowed by the command to depart the unit for the CPOA?

Master Chief Bowen also writes that "Last year, over 80 Coast Guardsmen were discharged from the service for failure to comply with weight standards. This includes members within a year of their 20-year retirement."

Holy Cow! Getting discharged within one year of retirement because the member failed to maintain the MAW!

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I guess the word IS NOT getting out...you WILL be weighed when you get to the CPO Academy.

Nine (9) Chiefs were disenrolled from the class that started last weekend. Their numbers ranged from 6lbs/4%BF to 45lbs/6%BF. These nine (9) were from all type of units...Cutters/Support/Stations/Training.

This is really getting ridiculous...

[BMC Seth Tomas]

Would someone please explain to me how a Chief Petty Officer could be 45 pounds over his/her MAW and still be allowed by the command to depart the unit for the CPOA?

Not just allowed to depart for the CPO Acad, but how could they let them be this far overweight at all?? Something needs to be done about this...

[BMCS Burt Ford]

So again what needs to be done? Is it time to implement a mandatory PT test? Weigh-ins quaterly? What? He also included that his new blog is up. Offer suggestions. As Chiefs it is a problem at our level and we should to have a solution. Send them in!

[BMCM Deane Smith]

PT isn't the answer, people can pass a PT test and still be over MAW.

For starters...the member AND the responsible unit HAS to be held accountable. It has to hurt for it to become important enough.

District/HQ Admirals need to start making personal phone calls to the CO's...that might drive the importance factor home. Maybe not, but I would think it would.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I agree with everything Deane.

Phone calls? how about message traffic?

[CWO Shad Hudgins (MSTC)]

Master Chief Bowen indicated in his latest all hands (all Chiefs?) e-mail that "This weekend, nine Chiefs were disenrolled and sent back to their units because they were over their maximum allowed body weight/body fat. Their numbers ranged from 6 pounds/4% body fat excess, to 45 pounds/6% body fat excess. THIS IS A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP AT ALL LEVELS."

Would someone please explain to me how a Chief Petty Officer could be 45 pounds over his/her MAW and still be allowed by the command to depart the unit for the CPOA?


That's exactly what I was thinking! 6 lbs, I can see, a healthy bathroom visit could cut that in half! But 45 lbs! My biggest issue is that this is absolutely horrible stewardship of the taxpayer dollar! Sending someone that is obviously above standard is just unacceptable and not sure how this happens as the word of the weigh-ins is clearly out.

[HSC Chris Fly]

I posted on MCPOCG's blog that one solution might be to have "pop quiz" weigh ins. (and actually do them) If we, as members, never know when we might get weighed, I would think we may take a better look at staying within regs. My question is this, Does the current manual have much teeth to put someone on the program if they are overweight outside of the normal April/October timeframe and will people do it?

My other suggestion is actually have a civillian wellness person (with proper training) at each major unit (maybe units with <50 people?) and have them administer the program to include measuring, education, workouts.

Chris

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I posted on MCPOCG's blog that one solution might be to have "pop quiz" weigh ins.

That was done with random uranalysis.... Wonder why they got away from that... (I'm guessing because it wasn't done as required) Random kept you on your toes.. for everything.

Wray... :cool:

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

You guys are getting hung up on a number when it comes to pounds. 45 pounds over is just a number if they are within BF% and are healthy. When the new system is installed my MAW will drop from 230ish to something like 205. I weigh 270 and am down from almost 300 due to injuries keeping me out of the weight room seriously. I am pretty sure that anyone that knows me will vouch that I am not over BF%, not even close. But I am considerably over on weight. Over on weight is not a hard thing to accomplish, but it certainly does not make me or anyone else fat. BF% and unhealthy are the problems, not a weight number.

Brett

[HSC Chris Fly]

Wray,
You were supposed to be weighed on your birthday as well, but that hardly ever got done either...

[HSC Chris Fly]

You guys are getting hung up on a number when it comes to pounds. 45 pounds over is just a number if they are within BF% and are healthy. When the new system is installed my MAW will drop from 230ish to something like 205. I weigh 270 and am down from almost 300 due to injuries keeping me out of the weight room seriously. I am pretty sure that anyone that knows me will vouch that I am not over BF%, not even close. But I am considerably over on weight. Over on weight is not a hard thing to accomplish, but it certainly does not make me or anyone else fat. BF% and unhealthy are the problems, not a weight number.

Brett

Brett,
That's why I've always said that if you're sitting at a desk and can look down and see a roll or two, you are overweight (healthy wise). I understand bodybuilders are bigger than your average Coastie, but still should have a pretty tight stomach if in shape as most say they are.... (not saying this is you, I wouldn't know you if I bumped into you)

I agree that 45# means nothing....BF is the standard that MUST be met, regardless of how you do it. At least until something changes, that is what we are charged with enforcing AND setting the example for.
My .02

[CWO Shad Hudgins (MSTC)]

I get the difference. Guess should have included 45lb/6% which is significant.

PT or gym time is not necessary for weight loss. Does it help? Sure but not necessary. I've watched a member of my unit lose a crapload of weight and not enter the gym once. It boils down to eating habits and discipline. If you can't get a handle on what you ingest, perhaps your Coast Guard career really isn't that important to you. (Mind you, not directed at anybody here.) But I keep seeing how mandatory PT is the answer that will solve this issue and I disagree.

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

I agree Chris, I am all about being healthy. I do everything I can to make sure I am around along time for my family and the Gov't cheese. Am I a little over on BF%, sure I am as are most. I am also 46 years old and beat to hell. I simply can't do the things I once could. But I still maintain a healthy lifestyle, and stay WELL within % guidlines. But for my MAW to drop to near 205 is rediculous to say the least. I was heavier than that in high school, and was in wow shape.

BTW, if you bumped into me you would know me, cause I would tell you. I'm friendly that way....LOL

[HSC Chris Fly]

But for my MAW to drop to near 205 is rediculous to say the least. I was heavier than that in high school, and was in wow shape.

BTW, if you bumped into me you would know me, cause I would tell you. I'm friendly that way....LOL

I'd say hi to you Brett! :)

I agree, and that's why MAW or even BMI really doesn't mean much other than you get measured if you're over those. I do think BMI means we'll have a LOT more people getting measured...

BTW- I agree with those that say the taping method is rediculous, even if done correctly...however, we are also allowed quite a bit in the way of max BF to help account for that. At 35 years old, I'm allowed to be 24% BF (in the new standards)...24%! That's almost a quarter of my body is FAT! So, while the taping is inaccurate, the maximums are generous.

Chris

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Wray,
You were supposed to be weighed on your birthday as well, but that hardly ever got done either...

Chris, I did....

And.... if it didn't happen, it was not the fault of the program, but, that of those that were to administer it. Oh, that gets us back to the leadership issue.

Funny how it keeps coming back to that....

Wray... :cool:

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

While this all may be based on numbers and %, Wray you and all others that have said leadership are correct. In my order of accountability I see it this way.

1. Member, if you can't read a reg and obey it get the hell out, especially at this level. Has nothing to do with eating or not, it's personal accountability. How can you enforce regulation you youreself are not willing to follow.

2. Command, your members do not slowely slip away to an airplane to wisk them off to school. They don't leave under the cover of darkness. I have known several individuals that went and were returned. It didn't take a scale or tape measure reading to show the reason. Most of the time the member said, hey the command weighed and measured me.

4. Coast Guard, they don't hold commands or members accountable. Or at least it seems that way

4. Member, look at yourself and stop blamming it on the command for faulty weighing/measuring. Or stop saying that the academy must have read the tape wrong.

It just bugs me that people want to wear an anchor and assume that leadership position and authority, but they don't want to hold themselves accountable for their own actions. I don't know, maybe we are turning into a chief's corps that puts more pride in their paycheck than they do in their leadership/mentorship. Maybe this is why you see so much b...ing and moaning and cussing the system and the CG when advancement lists come out, or when they don't make the cut. Again, what kind of example are we setting.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Each and every person in a members chain of command (from the members direct supervisor to the CO/OIC, if they positively endorsed the members orders) that allows said member to go to any “C” school, not only the CPOA but BTM school, Steel welding school, tower climbing school or what have you, where it clearly states on their orders members shall be IAW COMDINST so and so and shall be within MAW/BF% prior to execution of orders should be held accountable by a higher power when they are sent home or removed from the class for not meeting the requirements set forth on their orders.

How many times have you seen members who work the system and are on the program and miraculously make it within standards when they need to and are able to maintain until they are out of danger only to slide back into the overweight over fat category again until the last minute again and again. We should come up with a system like we do with AI’s. If you have a member who develops a pattern of over/ under for a certain period of time they are discharged at a certain point.

It all boils down to accountability and making sure each and every command is running the program as written and consistently.

Todd

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

It all boils down to accountability and making sure each and every command is running the program as written and consistently.

Todd, that has been said for years.. problem is.. it is too tough for people to follow...

Do you blame the YN's? They should they be the ones to ask if the member is in compliance when the orders are cut? The random urinalysis was an ADMIN function, not an HS as many thought....

They probably have the most direct contact with members.. BUT, lets not leave the CO out of this.... they are ultimately responsible for all actions under their command.. So if they have an Admin officer not doing his/her job.. what are THEY doing about it.

The really funny part is this has been going on FOREVER.... I fail to understand why it has not been fixed.. the only logical answer is no one really wants to fix it.

Wray... :cool:

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Todd, that has been said for years.. problem is.. it is too tough for people to follow...

Wray... :cool:

Not to tough to follow, it's just not uniformly enforced. Some, not all, supervisors just get so out of touch or disengage themselves to the point that they are not aware until it's to late.

That's what I like about the military, there is somewhere in writing an instruction, notice, memo or whatever that tells us what we can and can't do, what is expected of us and the consequences of our actions. Again, ACCOUNTABILITY!



I blame the member first and foremost, then the person charged with carrying out that particular program and the chain of command.

In this day and age we all are counseled on everything under the sun so there is no reason for a member not to be at least aware. I'm sure by now, most have heard something about the MAW/BF standards yet there are still those who don't cut it.

I would like to know how many Pg-7's our new recruits are signing acknowledging that they have been informed about XXXX policy in boot camp? Sure they have a lot on their minds but at some point they can review everything they initialed or signed and maybe, just maybe stop and say crap, I better keep my finances in order, or I better not get over my MAW/BF, or Drink or drive, or do drugs, you get the point.

Todd

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

We even candy coat the numbers....... let's stop saying 6% over their body fat, and just put their actual body fat down 31% body fat....33% body fat.... these people are OBESE....... not fat, OBESE. They should take a picture of the person as they tape them out in Petaluma, send the photo back to their Command, and ask the CO if they've ever seen that person walking around their base? Have the District inform them that not only is this one of your people, this is what you sent to Petaluma to represent your Command. Then do a 3307 or a letter of reprimand for the person who signed off on that person's weigh-in before they left for school, and the member should be reduced to E-6 before they get on that plane ride home........ AND IF WE AREN'T WILLING TO DO THAT, we should just keep mumbling to ourself, seems like a problem, seems like a problem, seems like a problem......

Numbers....... the class holds 70? students.....9.....that's a little more than 1 in 8 of the people who flew out there are OBESE, and apparently oblivious to their own weight issues, the Coast Guard's Policy, and the service's expectations of a Chief Petty Officer. The only thing that's going to turn things around is if it starts costing people money, their position, or their job.

I guarantee you if you looked up any of those nine you would see that they've been carrying that weight for a looooong time. I'd be willing to bet you that at least half of them weighed the same today as they did the day they first put those anchors on.

This is going on because as much as we complain about it, we as a service still allow it to happen. Because we have overweight people in positions of authority who can't really hold others accountable without someone testing that theory that they themselves might be allergic to a scale. Ask yourself this, if a couple of us decided that we weren't going to cut our hair or shave anymore, how long do you think we'd get away with it? What do you think would happen if I showed up at a school sporting a ponytail and a goatee? I swear man, I just look at a peice of cheesecake,... and my hair grows three inches.......

Oh wait, here's my prediction...... you know what's going to happen to those 9 guys? Probably the same thing that happened to the guys who were sent home from the last class, or the one before that, or the one.... well you know.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Stu, I think you are correct... "we as a service still allow it to happen. Because we have overweight people in positions of authority who can't really hold others accountable without someone testing that theory that they themselves might be allergic to a scale"

So, If you have a chubby Sector Commander, or Admin officer they will over look things? How about a chubby RADM..?? Who holds them accountable?

To carry this to the top, who tells the ADM to step on the scale?

Wray... :cool:

[MSTC Andrew Grow]

I don't even know where to begin with this, and I wasn't sure I should reply to it. But I will.

I'll start with - I am one of the 9 that were dis-enrolled from Class 157.

Second, I am ultimately responsible.

A few talking points.

I weigh 13# less than I did in October (last CG weigh in).

I am only 2% over on body fat. I am, however, 8# over my MAW. Of course, that was before my height measurement lowered 1/2" at CPOA - so now am 12# over.

Before you accuse me of blaming anyone else for my dis-enrollment, please refer to my second point. Then continue reading.

I now know, for a fact, that many units (mine) are not taping people correctly. I had been taped numerous times over the past few months, prior to receiving orders for C schools (CPOAcad and other), from three different people.

Each measurement was the same. By three different people at three different times.

The CPOAcad instructors are nothing but professional. And they obviously know what they are doing, and how to do it correctly (taping/weigh in).

I haven't been under my MAW for many years. I try - doG knows I try - but it is difficult for me.

I returned back home today, go back to work tomorrow to face the music, whatever that may be.

Master Chief Slesh, I guarantee you I know what will happen to me at a minimum. I will be put on the weight program. I will lose the weight and body fat. And I will return to the CPOAcad in better shape than before.

I was confident that I was under body fat when I left. I know what my measurements are. I was taped on the Tuesday prior to my departure. And I was sure I wouldn't be sent home.

I was wrong.

Do I know that I am walking the line? Ayup. Will never deny that. Will I change? Damn right I will.

[BMC Tim Woody]

Andrew,

I applaud your honesty and courage for your post. We can all agree that we have to hold ourselves accountable first and foremost and we are all individually responsible for our own actions. You were sent home because you exceeded the standard and it ultimately falls on your shoulders. Thanks again for sharing your story....I'm sure most wouldn't.

To my next point which I also briefly mentioned on the new All Hands Blog. Until we fix the "system" and get to the "root" of this problem we will continue to discharge members and send people home from the Chief's Academy. We can change how we weigh members, how we measure body fat, BMI, etc. etc, the list goes on and on and we keep having this same tired argument, dealing with the same issues. My stance is not a popular one as I believe we should incorporate physical fitness tests into the advancement process and make fitness tests MANDATORY FOR EVERYONE in the Coast Guard.

Most dont like that idea and even more will have an excuse or argument as to why we can't. So be it but I will end with an excerpt from The Leader's Handbook. Some of you may remember receiving this book from none other than the Chief's Academy. Some may not or may have even dismissed its teachings which revolve around "Sytem's Thinking" also taught at the Chief's Academy.

The excerpt is as follows:

In the old organization we asked "who" questions: "Who is accountable? Who screwed up?" In the new organization we ask "why" or "how" questions: "Why has the problem occurred? How can we improve the system and eliminate the cause of the problem?" The old managers gave orders or advice and exercised control. The new managers ask questions and promote communication, knowledge, and understanding.

Thanks for the time to opine,

Tim

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

In the old organization we asked "who" questions: "Who is accountable? Who screwed up?" In the new organization we ask "why" or "how" questions: "Why has the problem occurred? How can we improve the system and eliminate the cause of the problem?" The old managers gave orders or advice and exercised control. The new managers ask questions and promote communication, knowledge, and understanding.

Nice quote. It begs the question, with the CPOACAD older than twenty years, why is there still a problem with all the "new" managers asking questions?

Nevermind, I found the answer.

The book's precept is you leading your charges not you questioning your superiors as illustrated by the cover.

Asking questions of your charges is nothing new. It's been in my leadership toolbox since 1974. I've also had open communications with my CPOs and Officers as a junior PO. Sometimes they too, didn't like what I said, but they got over it.

I don't see this book on the reading list or part of the curiculum at the CGA.

[HSC Chris Fly]

Andrew,
Bravo to you for having the stones to post that! Most on here and elsewhere would never have owned up because of the fear of humiliation...

I believe you will lose the weight and return to the CPOACAD and be a better Chief for it!

Good Luck Brother,
Chris

[SKC Raymond Kurtz (Ret)]

Andrew, I went to CPOA East in February of 2003. As far as I knew my MAW was 193. During the initial weigh in the staff of the CPOA stated that my MAW was 205. I was okay because I weighed around 190. My problem is what if my perceived MAW was 205 and the CPOA's was 193? I would have been sent home.

Something has got to be done about this, the way things are right now leads to misinterpreted results. With all of the science we have now a better way of determining MAW should not be that difficult.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Andrew, echoing with the bravo for posting, because you did, we start to see the problem.
The last time you were weighed was back in October. Your unit is supposed to weigh you within 30 days of you executing your orders. They didn't do that. If they had, we probably wouldn't be having this converstion with you, we'd be wondering what happened with the other 8 guys. Someone should have to answer for that.
You lost 13 pounds since October, and you were still 8 pounds over your MAW, well 12 pounds..... why weren't you already on the weight program?
Your weight is your responsibilty,........ but ensuring the weight program is properly administered and followed falls back on the other people that signed those papers. Their signature means that everything was done according to the standard. It wasn't, you're not on the weight program, someone should have to answer for that.
Their signature? Three different people all getting the same wrong information. We know the CPOACAD is right, they follow the program. The people at your unit must be wrong....... how many other people at your unit are they doing wrong by? Someone should have to answer for that.
You've been battling your weight for a long time........ go back to when that battle started. If someone had held you accountable way back then, and you would have adopted that healthier lifestyle, .... how much easier would your life be right now?

[MSTC Andrew Grow]

Master Chief Slesh,

I may have misspoken/typed. I was actually weighed in 3 seperate times over the past month. I have PCS orders that I received, then CPOA orders, and another check prior to departing for the CPOA. Each time I was above my MAW, but below on body fat @ 24% each time. Three seperate people did the measurements.

So, technically, I was within weight standards.

To answer your other question..."You've been battling your weight for a long time........ go back to when that battle started. If someone had held you accountable way back then, and you would have adopted that healthier lifestyle, .... how much easier would your life be right now?"

That is a VERY good question. Back then in the pre-measurement days, back in the day when your wrist measurement could/would fluctuate one size up or down for no apparent reasons...I should have been on the weight program. When taping came along I was a ligitimate 22-24% and was then in standards.

I DO ADMIT - I walk the line. There is no doubt about that. As a Chief, I should not be at 24%, or even above my MAW. I know that and take full responsibility for that. What the numbers show is that prior to my departure to CPOA, I was within CG standards.

Andy

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

So, technically, I was within weight standards.

I DO ADMIT - I walk the line. There is no doubt about that. As a Chief, I should not be at 24%, or even above my MAW. I know that and take full responsibility for that. What the numbers show is that prior to my departure to CPOA, I was within CG standards.

Andy

Andy, just wondering if your measurements that were in DA were the same as those you got at the CPO Academy? There seems to be a lot of "inflated" things in DA that have happened over time.

[MSTC Andrew Grow]

Andy, just wondering if your measurements that were in DA were the same as those you got at the CPO Academy? There seems to be a lot of "inflated" things in DA that have happened over time.


Master Chief,

My wrist measurements were the same. My height in DA is 76", my measured height at the CPOA was 75.5 (actually lower, but that's the rounded-up figure). Being remeasured multiple times after my return, both here and at D17, the 76" number is still my height.

[AMTCM John Long]

Master Chief,

My wrist measurements were the same. My height in DA is 76", my measured height at the CPOA was 75.5 (actually lower, but that's the rounded-up figure). Being remeasured multiple times after my return, both here and at D17, the 76" number is still my height.


I know this sounds slightly far-fetched....are the same type height measuring devices being used at your unit, D17 and the Academy? Also...how about your posture? Mine is not that great and I have to force myself to stand up straight. I'm at 75" when I stand up straight to get measured.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Andrew, again, I can't say enough about the fact that you're here to talk about this, but I want to be clear.....

So, technically, I was within weight standards. No,....you weren't. Those people were measuring you wrong. You may have met their standard,....but not the Coast Guard's.

What the numbers show is that prior to my departure to CPOA, I was within CG standards. What the results of that shows, is that too many people are still doing things the wrong way. I can't even begin to imagine how hard the change is going to be for them when we go to the BMI. But, when someone is "walking the line", their unit should make sure they have both feet on the right side of it,....because the CPOACAD doesn't play. They don't have a "what a guy" waiver. They don't even care if you actually met the standard at the airport and it was notarized by a Supreme Court Justice. If you don't make weight when they tape you, you're heading home.

Andrew, I'm not trying to pick on you, really I'm not,..... but you're not "walking the line", the line's not that wide. If you were truely on the line, you'd still be in Petaluma right now,.... they allow for that. They put the line in the sand at 5 pounds or 1% body fat. I'm sure that they had people who just got by last Saturday.
I've known people who would never make the MAW, really never come close to their BMI, they never even tried or worried about it. But they were never even close to reaching that 20+% body fat.
The people that we have that exceed their body fat are OBESE. I'm not making that up. And before they go on the Coast Guard Weight Program they've already had a Licensed Medical Professional attest to the fact that there is absolutley no medical reason that they needed to weigh that much.

And this is what gets me,..... we've been talking about weight issues for how long now? How many people do we see on the Good Order and Discipline getting booted out every quarter for weight? Lots and Lots of talk about how the BMI is so much stricter and people need to have started taking the appropriate steps months ago to get ahead of it. Lots and Lots of talk about how we were averaging three CPOs a class being sent home from the CPOACAD for weight.............. After all of this, where are we? Three times the average get sent home.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

They put the line in the sand at 5 pounds or 1% body fat.

My question is, with the rounding up to the nearest inch in DA and the body fat requires rounding to the nearest half-inch ... does a half-inch change exceed 1% body fat?

If the CPOACAD put the line in the sand at 5 lbs over the MAW or 1 % over the body fat maximum, I guess that means a 30-39 year old can have up to 26% body fat and still be acceptable at the CPOACAD.

[HSC Chris Fly]

So, technically, I was within weight standards. No,....you weren't. Those people were measuring you wrong. You may have met their standard,....but not the Coast Guard's.


Stu,
While I agree it appears someone (or three) were measuing wrong, you really can't say Andy wasn't in standards.... The technical experts of the program (used loosely) measured and found him in regs, so as far as the Coast Guard was concerned, he was in regs when measured...regardless if he was measured wrong. You have to trust the system when when you are the subject. Now, as I said, it appears a lot of people must not know how to do their job correctly. I was one that go measured at the Academy as well (made BF) and can attest to the fact that they are very professional and thorough....the problem is we have a lot off people in the field that get throw the weight program book and told "you're doing the weigh ins this time..."

I put in the MCPOCG blog that each large unit (<50 people?) should have a civillian wellness professional that runs the weight/fitness program in all aspects. Then, we might actually look like we're serious about this!

Chris

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

I put in the MCPOCG blog that each large unit (<50 people?) should have a civillian wellness professional that runs the weight/fitness program in all aspects. Then, we might actually look like we're serious about this!

And what makes you think that a civilian can follow the regulations better than a military member?

We know that TRACEN Petaluma is > 50 (greater than 50). Why are the Chief's at the CPOACAD measuring anyone if there is a civilian that is suppose to, to quote your quote of the MCPOCG ... run the weight/fitness program in all aspects.

Are the CPOs at the CPOACAD doing it correctly? Obviously if one out of four shows someone out of standards, why should I believe the one?

Stuart is doubting the integrity of those three that measured a brother CPO as within standards prior to and returning from the CPOACAD, but has full faith and confidence in the measurement from the CPOACAD. Why do you believe the one and doubt the other three Stuart?

Why does MAW rounds to the inch and the body fat instruction rounds it to the half-inch? WTFO. One would think there would be some consistency in the reporting. Too much room for error.

Pick one standard ... live and die by it. Forget the MAW and go straight to body fat.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, I'm not doubting their intergrity,....I'm saying they're measuring people the wrong way. Why pick one over the other three? Because that ONE is the CPOACAD. Our Academy. They weight 60 plus CPOs ever month except December. No one to date has proven their measurements wrong. It's not their mistakes that are leaving empty seats in that class.

As for rounding...... everything in the weight program gives the advantage to the member. It's very giving.

Chris, yes.... as far as the Coast Guard was concerned, he was within standards......... but he still wasn't. It took the CPOACAD, a lost seat, and a plane ticket to find that out.

[HSC Chris Fly]

First, I hope everyone realized I meant units with greater than 50 people...

A civillian wellness professional would have the degree and expertise to manage a weight/fitness program. A few of the advantages would be there would be continuity (sp?) with measuring and you'd hopefully have someone that actually cares about the program (thier passion) rather than someone that was just thrown the regs and told "get to measuring and don't mess it up"... This may as well lead to a better way to measure BF, at least maybe using a set of calipers instead of the tape. I know we had a wellness lady come up from Alameda when I was on the Steadfast and she used calipers, which proved to more accurate. The only caveat here is be careful of what you ask for... a more accurate method leads to stricter standards... Just look at the alternative BF measurement that can be requested through HQ, the max BF% goes down significantly. (not sure of numbers, no manual in front of me).

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Continuity is the excuse everytime they talk about civilian billets.

You might as well say the military member can't follow directions.

Stuart ... the CPOACAD isn't infallible, on this issue or any other issue.

[AMTCM John Long]

Joe, I'm not doubting their intergrity,....I'm saying they're measuring people the wrong way. Why pick one over the other three? Because that ONE is the CPOACAD. Our Academy. They weight 60 plus CPOs ever month except December. No one to date has proven their measurements wrong. It's not their mistakes that are leaving empty seats in that class.

As for rounding...... everything in the weight program gives the advantage to the member. It's very giving.

Chris, yes.... as far as the Coast Guard was concerned, he was within standards......... but he still wasn't. It took the CPOACAD, a lost seat, and a plane ticket to find that out.


Stu,

I don't know if you have reviewed MC Bowen and MC Smith's blog but there is at least one post on there that would conflict with what you're saying. If I have the story correct.....there is a poster who states he was weighed/measured immediately prior to departing for the CPO Academy and was compliant. Upon reporting to the Academy, I believe he stated within 24 - 72 hrs later, he was weighed/measured out of standards and sent home. Immediately upon reporting back, the member was weighed/measured again by D17 AND his unit AND found to be compliant.

Something is not right here. I give credibility to the fact that someone at D17(not just his unit) weighed/measured the member upon RTB and he was compliant (and had room to spare!!). This is an independant source that found him compliant, not just his unit. That raises some hard, thought provoking questions that need to be asked. Consider this:

1. If the member's story is accurate, the member was weighed/measured 4 times (2X @ Unit, CPOACAD, D17). Who is doing it wrong/right? The unit, CPOACAD or D17?

2. The D17 weighin raises the concern the CPOACAD sometimes does suspect weighin/measurements. If that is the case and we're going to start recouping lost travel costs, should the CPOACAD also be held to account and subject to paying for the lost travel costs if they are found to have done a bad weighin by an independant source?

3. How many other people had the same thing happen to them?

4.a. Is our current policy of sending students back home the correct path?
b. Is there a better approach that still holds all students/units/TRACENS accountable while not wasting money?

Normally I would not have given much thought to this member's story. I would have thought like you and say the unit likely did a bad weighin. However, when the member states D17 did a weighin upon RTB and found him compliant, my confidence in our approach is now waivering.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, everyone is infallible,...... until that first failure. Show me where the CPOACAD failed.

John, ?????? The member said he was screwed over? WOW! That would be a first. I thought it was only people who went to Mast that got framed.
IF,..... and in this case, that if is a HUGE word...... if his story is right, Joe would have his case, and several people out at the CPOACAD would have screwed up,..... wait for it,....including the member, who was pushing the envelop on his own weight, but not willing to push back and stay. It isn't one person out there that looks at these things and they aren't out to get people.

The same unit that measured him wrong the first time, measured him wrong again. I'm devastated. How is that possible? No, wait, because they measured him the same wrong way twice. No one out there wants to admit that they're wrong. Here's what we could do,..... get his name and look him up in Direct Access. If his unit is giving him a 3 or a 4 in health and well being, I'll allow for the possibility that they MAY have measured him correctly. If you're telling me, that someone who is that close to their MAW and Body Fat Max is getting something higher than a 4, I'm telling you their unit reads things the wrong way,... from the EERs to the Weight Program.
Very simple solution, if his unit is saying 3, doesn't present a physically trim appearance in unit,..... then maybe they are holding people accountable. Again, you're talking about someone who is around 23% Body Fat. If he's getting a 5 or a 6, and they're saying....Wellllllll, he really tries and he has implemented a wellness program for his people....... they're trying to justify why they do the wrong thing.

As for questioning if sending them home is the right path? What have the units done to the people who were already sent home? If your answer is NOTHING....... then what options do we have? How many of the people sent back actually get put on the weight program when they get back to their unit? How many were actually re-weighed when they returned? If they aren't sent home, then they will continue to erroniously(sp?) meet the standard and can continue to advance. The same unit that isn't holding them accountable for their weight, isn't going to be the bad guy when it comes to advancing them, and the cycle continues.

[BMCM Kevin Leask]

Actually one of the members sent back is from HQ and the member was measured again and again and they are within their body fat standards and were before they went.

I cannot believe the number of people on this site, and other sites recently started, so willing to just throw our members under the bus. Did you ever think for one minute that maybe Petaluma might make mistakes?

Wow, have some more kool-aid.

Kevin

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

I did not read the member's post as claiming he was screwed/framed. I read it more as laying out what transpired to both MCPO's Bowen and Smith. That was my take on it.

I suspect you're being flippant with going thru people's DA info for eval checks??

Before you go too far, I would suggest you go to the site and check it out. IMO it is a good medium for the troops to share viewpoints with both MCPO's. There are other topics on there also, not just the weight program.


John

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Actually one of the members sent back is from HQ and the member was measured again and again and they are within their body fat standards and were before they went.

Kevin, this certainly points out the human error factors... be it at HQ or Petaluma. Even when measured across the "bones" in your wrist, measurements seemed to vary.

If everyone was to use the same "doctor's office" type scale, wouldn't that help? It's pretty easy to zero one of those out. Not sure what could be done about the body fat... that is something I don't worry about any more.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Kevin Leask]

Wray,

I hope they figure it out soon because I believe BMI will increase the number of people being taped, not a bad thing, just a thing.

I always get taped, about 21% body fat, 210-215 lbs. I'm not too worried because I monitor my body fat, getting older so it can increase before you know it if your not careful thanks to miller lite.

I guess my point in my post was it is not always the member that is wrong. There may not be many times but how many do we need. What does getting sent home from the academy do to someone, especially one that should not have been sent back? Who is accountable to them? I would lose 1% in body fat just by giving someone a good ole' fashioned wood shed whippin.

If I had the answer that had no flaws I would retire and sell the idea to the CG.

Kevin

[BMC Ralph Williams]

Actually one of the members sent back is from HQ and the member was measured again and again and they are within their body fat standards and were before they went.

I cannot believe the number of people on this site, and other sites recently started, so willing to just throw our members under the bus. Did you ever think for one minute that maybe Petaluma might make mistakes?

Wow, have some more kool-aid.

Kevin

Was the member afforded the opportunity to be re-enrolled in the class?

[BMCM Kevin Leask]

I'm sure at some point they will.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Kevin,
It is NOWHERE near as cut and dry as you presented the HQs issue. The CPOACAD measures and weighs 600 Chiefs per year and have done so for more than 5 years, I am confident that they got it down. Chiefs weighing Chiefs gets my vote over any other current CG alternative.

The point that I think we are missing here is, when a Chief is that "close" the CPOACAD just may have saved their life. What about a simple thank you to the CPOACAD for the professional treatment of the situation.

[MSTC Andrew Grow]

First, I did not post on the MCPO-CG's website.

I was taped/weighed on Tuesday after I returned from CPOAcad. I was taped by my Command - the Deputy (CDR) and our Command Senior Chief. That weigh in reveals I am within CG standards.

Then I went upstairs to D17 and had them measure/tape me. Again...found to be within CG standards. My height (which was one of the issues) was even verified at Medical.

The CGMS message that is sent is seen by everyone at the units and districts. Including the Junior personnel that work for me. The unit cannot put me on the weight program due to being outside of CG standards, because I am within CG standards. What do I tell my crew? "Hey, I'm back because I'm not within CG standards - but hey wait a minute, yes I am!"?

I wish there were an easy answer for all this. I'm glad my Chief's Mess here at Sector and D17 have my back, because I see many that seem to want to bus chuck me and the others.

I'm now known here locally as "Heavy G" - thanks to a LCDR for coming up with some comic :D relief to a situation that at the very least has been highly stressful for myself and my family.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Actually one of the members sent back is from HQ and the member was measured again and again and they are within their body fat standards and were before they went.

I cannot believe the number of people on this site, and other sites recently started, so willing to just throw our members under the bus. Did you ever think for one minute that maybe Petaluma might make mistakes?

Wow, have some more kool-aid.

Kevin

And I had one sent home also, but there were no mistakes, nor do I believe that any others were made. They pretty much have it down to a science out at the CPO Academy and set the standard for compliance in the program. And sorry Kevin you are a little over the top and way off the mark with this post.

Kevin,
It is NOWHERE near as cut and dry as you presented the HQs issue. The CPOACAD measures and weighs 600 Chiefs per year and have done so for more than 5 years, I am confident that they got it down. Chiefs weighing Chiefs gets my vote over any other current CG alternative.

The point that I think we are missing here is, when a Chief is that "close" the CPOACAD just may have saved their life. What about a simple thank you to the CPOACAD for the professional treatment of the situation.

And I totally agree with what this Kevin posted. These aren't the first Chiefs sent home. It's an ugly mess that has been going on for longer than we'd like to admit and it is a total embarrassment to The Mess. That fine line that some walk on is very easy to trip over.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Kevin, which Chiefs do you want us the throw under the bus, the ones being taped, or the ones doing the taping? Because somebody has got to go.

Andrew, of course your Chief's Mess has your back, they're supposed to. But.... in fairness, they know you,...... and,they're getting taped the same way. I only base my staements on your posts, which if you'll remember,...praised the CPOACAD and put you 12 pounds over your MAW and 2% over your body fat. It is completely possible that those measurements have changed since last week.

Are you now saying the measurements done out at the CPOACAD were not done correctly?

[MSTC Andrew Grow]

Master Chief Slesh,

My numbers BEFORE and AFTER the CPOAcad are the same. The CPOAcad are the only different numbers.

All I have are the facts laid out in front of me.

Can a person be 76" tall one day, then lose 3/4" the next, and then go back to 76" tall the day after that? Because that's what apparently happened to me. My neck did the same thing...18"...then down to 17 3/8"...then back to 18".

My waist and wrist were actually the two things that remained the same. My waist was about 1/2" more than I had been measured at before. My wrist was exactly the same. As was my weight.

I can come to three conclusions...
#1 - EVERYONE that's measured and weighed me in the past is doing it wrong
or
#2 - The CPOAcad made a mistake
or
#3 - I'm a freak that shrinks and grows overnight.

I have not changed my "stance" on this at all...I have numbers that back up what I am saying.

[BMCM Kevin Leask]

Bruce,

Really?

What do you and Kevin say to Andrew?

Oh, and back at ya.

Kevin

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Master Chief,

My wrist measurements were the same. My height in DA is 76", my measured height at the CPOA was 75.5 (actually lower, but that's the rounded-up figure). Being remeasured multiple times after my return, both here and at D17, the 76" number is still my height.

Master Chief Slesh,

My numbers BEFORE and AFTER the CPOAcad are the same. The CPOAcad are the only different numbers.

All I have are the facts laid out in front of me.

Can a person be 76" tall one day, then lose 3/4" the next, and then go back to 76" tall the day after that? Because that's what apparently happened to me. My neck did the same thing...18"...then down to 17 3/8"...then back to 18".

My waist and wrist were actually the two things that remained the same. My waist was about 1/2" more than I had been measured at before. My wrist was exactly the same. As was my weight.

I can come to three conclusions...
#1 - EVERYONE that's measured and weighed me in the past is doing it wrong
or
#2 - The CPOAcad made a mistake
or
#3 - I'm a freak that shrinks and grows overnight.

I have not changed my "stance" on this at all...I have numbers that back up what I am saying.

Looking at what you wrote Andrew, it's different measurements. So which is it? Are you really a legit 76" of less than that?

And Kevin, sorry but I still have to go with the CPO Academy. They do hundreds of these every year. How many do a Sector Deputy and CSC do? But it is good to finally see our RFMC champion something, we were wondering where you were and what you were doing.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

So what I am hearing is because the CPO Academy does 600 weight and measurements per year, they are likely to be perfect and never make a mistake. Where as the folks that only do a few, if any, and probably have the manual (directions) opened in front of them and are reading it as they go are more likely to do it wrong.

I don't think the CPO Academy should be afforded the opportunity to make a mistake if it results in sending someone home. If it effects someones career, there is no room for error in my opinion. I don't know what happens to those that don't make their body fat %, but is that double checked by someone else prior to sending the Chief's home? If not, I would say there is a system problem that is easily fixed. If the Chief was indeed double checked by someone else, then there should not be an issue.

[AMTCM John Long]

First, I did not post on the MCPO-CG's website.

I was taped/weighed on Tuesday after I returned from CPOAcad. I was taped by my Command - the Deputy (CDR) and our Command Senior Chief. That weigh in reveals I am within CG standards.

Then I went upstairs to D17 and had them measure/tape me. Again...found to be within CG standards. My height (which was one of the issues) was even verified at Medical.

The CGMS message that is sent is seen by everyone at the units and districts. Including the Junior personnel that work for me. The unit cannot put me on the weight program due to being outside of CG standards, because I am within CG standards. What do I tell my crew? "Hey, I'm back because I'm not within CG standards - but hey wait a minute, yes I am!"?

I wish there were an easy answer for all this. I'm glad my Chief's Mess here at Sector and D17 have my back, because I see many that seem to want to bus chuck me and the others.

I'm now known here locally as "Heavy G" - thanks to a LCDR for coming up with some comic :D relief to a situation that at the very least has been highly stressful for myself and my family.

Andrew,

Apologies for putting you on the wrong forum. My error.



Now back on topic......

I've been thinking about this today since reading the various threads/blogs.

What I think everyone can agree on is:

1. Not everyone has the same body composition/makeup.
2. Our weight program is not perfect, but until a better program is developed, this is what we have to work with.
3. Not every unit measures the exact same way or with the same measuring devices.
4. It doesn't take much to be off by 1/2" up or down. Under the current program, thats the way it is...get over it and move on.

Here's an idea to play with.

When reporting to the Academy, the member must be 1% or lower than their max BF. For example, if their max is 27%, they must be 26% or lower. If under, they're good to go. If not, no libo till 1% under.

What that does is....

1. Accounts for the variations in #3 above
2. Penalizes fence riders coming in right at the max
3. Maintains accountability and integrity in the program and at the Academy
4. Save some travel dollars

If a student wants to gamble on being at the max, be prepared to spend 30+ days in a "BE-NO" status or loose all together and get sent home. That's what you get for gambling.

Thoughts either way????

John

[BMC Russell Miller]

Andrew,
I had a problem with my arms and legs swelling, mild at first, I just blow it off, this happened when the Doctors changes some meds on me. The problem got bad within a couple of months, seems the different combo of meds caused a major problem for me. It taken almost a year to get it under control, Go get check out, rule out any med conditions. Might rule out the change in wrist size,

Oh they also say you shrink with age. Boy it fun getting old.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Master Chief,

My wrist measurements were the same. My height in DA is 76", my measured height at the CPOA was 75.5 (actually lower, but that's the rounded-up figure). Being remeasured multiple times after my return, both here and at D17, the 76" number is still my height.

Andrew...I'm confused. I've looked at the chart and I don't see any difference in BF for 1/2" in height. There were a few times when there was a 1% difference between 75 & 76 inches, but that's it. If you were only 1% over, you should have stayed at the academy.

Maybe you can clarify...the 1/2" height difference doesn't add up.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Andrew, yes to everything you said,..except of course, that the CPOACAD might have made a mistake, I'm still with you from post #74 on that one. ....And for Jim, practice does make perfect, doesn't it?

If you have a big neck, you could change measurements just by shrugging your shoulders. Posture has already been brought up. How much taller were you standing when you're trying to be under? People have already brought up that you're taller in the morning than you are at the end of the day. What was your appetite and eating habits like during those first few days back? Lots of things could have changed.

Now, speaking of change, and again I don't know you, only what you've posted here, let's take a trip back down memory lane and I just what to make an observation here.......
from post #74...... you had spent about a day at the CPOACAD, not even enough time to see the Kool-Ade let alone drink any of it, and you had already observed....
....I am ultimately responsible.
I now know, for a fact, that many units (mine) are not taping people correctly.......
The CPOAcad instructors are nothing but professional. And they obviously know what they are doing, and how to do it correctly (taping/weigh in).......
I guarantee you I know what will happen to me at a minimum. I will be put on the weight program. I will lose the weight and body fat. And I will return to the CPOAcad in better shape than before......
Will I change? Damn right I will.

...in about a day.
You've been back at your unit less than a week, surrounded by people that are telling you you're good to go, and you're questioning what you saw out there. Your unit has you questioning what you should tell the people who work for you about what happened.
Tell them what you would have told them four days ago..... I will return to the CPOAcad in better shape than before...... tell them that when it comes to your health, you shouldn't try to meet the minimum standards.

John, the problem with what you're saying still lies in the units sending people out there. It the past two classes several people have been 6% over their max body fat. Do you think that same unit could get it right if you wanted those guys to weigh less than they already do? We've seen where someone was three inches shorter, and two wrist sizes smaller in Petaluma, than they were when they left their unit. We're not arguing fractions of an inch with most of these people.
With the looking things up in DA, I'm not suggesting people violate the policy with that. I'm saying that the people who are looking for a solution to this problem should look at the whole picture, they'd see these units aren't as by the book as they are pretending to be. Their Badges for one could start looking there......

[AMTCM John Long]

John, the problem with what you're saying still lies in the units sending people out there. It the past two classes several people have been 6% over their max body fat. Do you think that same unit could get it right if you wanted those guys to weigh less than they already do? We've seen where someone was three inches shorter, and two wrist sizes smaller in Petaluma, than they were when they left their unit. We're not arguing fractions of an inch with most of these people.
With the looking things up in DA, I'm not suggesting people violate the policy with that. I'm saying that the people who are looking for a solution to this problem should look at the whole picture, they'd see these units aren't as by the book as they are pretending to be. Their Badges for one could start looking there......

Stu,

IMO....as long as we have the program we have, there will always be people showing up over. Anytime the student is over upon reporting, the same policy applies...send them home. The idea in raising the bar (lowering the BF%) for the Academy is to get the member to go above and beyond the minimum compliance prior to showing up. I haven't heard of any other TRACENS doing this. Let the Academy do it as a pilot program for a bit and see what happens. It might be useful servicewide.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, why does there always have to be people who are over? Why are we so willing to just accept that as inevitible? Why do we take this attitude with weight? We are the fattest nation on the planet. We, the Coast Guard, allow our people to weigh more than any other service. Noboby, and I mean NOBODY, who is qualified to serve, needs to exceed their max body fat. Why are we so willing to make allowances for them?
Smoking is an addiction. Alcoholism is a disease. Those poor people can't help themselves. Should we allow them to smoke and drink in class? Those smoking areas are all the way out there ..... shouldn't we put them right next to the door so the smokers don't have to walk as far, they're already out of breath.

I have to ask, if these were "A" school students we were talking about, would we be as forgiving? Ah, he's already here, let him finish the course and we'll advance him if his next unit recommends it.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

It is NOWHERE near as cut and dry as you presented the HQs issue. The CPOACAD measures and weighs 600 Chiefs per year and have done so for more than 5 years, I am confident that they got it down.

Kevin Ish ... are you saying the same person measured all 600 Chiefs per year for the last 5 years?

How does the the rotation work out there, I'm betting the same person doesn't tape each and every time.

If they don't, the CPOACAD is no different than any large unit. It is interesting that three of four times, a member was found within standards, yet everyone wants to put full faith and confidence in the one who found the member out of standards.

Yep, the only place on the planet that does the taping correct is on the left coast at the CPOACAD. Even those in HQ are too stupid to follow directions.

I recommend the next CPO attending the CPOACAD from HQ is taped by the four star and the MCPOCG. Maybe they too will be measured differently at the CPOACAD so Stuart can say the top two ... officer and enlisted ... can't follow directions. Commandant Instructions produces incorrect results ... ergo ... people can't follow directions.

Of course, a byproduct of stating 6% have been sent home only increases the competition to make it 7%.

[AMTCM John Long]

John, why does there always have to be people who are over? Why are we so willing to just accept that as inevitible? Why do we take this attitude with weight? We are the fattest nation on the planet. We, the Coast Guard, allow our people to weigh more than any other service. Noboby, and I mean NOBODY, who is qualified to serve, needs to exceed their max body fat. Why are we so willing to make allowances for them?
Smoking is an addiction. Alcoholism is a disease. Those poor people can't help themselves. Should we allow them to smoke and drink in class? Those smoking areas are all the way out there ..... shouldn't we put them right next to the door so the smokers don't have to walk as far, they're already out of breath.

I have to ask, if these were "A" school students we were talking about, would we be as forgiving? Ah, he's already here, let him finish the course and we'll advance him if his next unit recommends it.

Stu,

The short answer is we're dealing with humans and an imperfect program. Your zero tolerence approach is not realistic when humans are involved. No weight program (or fitness program) can eliminate the human factor whether you're the measurer or measuree. Maybe that's why allowances are built into it? If we followed your zero tolerence philosophy...no one should ever fail a boat crew PT test should they? Is that realistic? Is it inevitable?

John

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

John,
From what I have read, Stu has a "zero tolerence approach" on everthing in life ;)

Wray... :cool:

[MSTC Andrew Grow]

Master Chief Slesh,

"Tell them what you would have told them four days ago..... I will return to the CPOAcad in better shape than before...... tell them that when it comes to your health, you shouldn't try to meet the minimum standards."

Believe me...I am doing that. Heck I was doing it before. Working out during the workday is not an issue for myself or my crew. It's what we do. And I will continue to encourage them to do so.

As for myself, I AM the example, especially now. As I told Master Chief, when I return they will NOT recognize me. That is a promise I made to myself.

[BMC Tim Woody]

Does the Air Force Senior NCO Academy deal with members being consistently sent home , class after class? Just curious if anyone has access to that information?

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Hmm, if only the Coast Guard Liaison to the SNCOA was here! ;)

The Air Force has gotten rid of their weight program - and rolled it in with their PT program. The program is now made up of push-ups, crunches a mile and a half run, and a WAIST MEASUREMENT. If you can't pass the PT test with a score of 75.00, you can't get a "Senior Rater Endorsement" on your marks. For us, that would be no final validator signature on the marks form... and without that signature, Air Force Folks can't get promoted or get special assignment jobs.

I've attached a zip file - download it and extract the excel file. Once it's open, look for the sheet with your gender and age on it - and enter your info on the left hand side in the dark blue boxes. It will auto-calculate your PT score.

Be warned - if you have over a 40" waist, you can NOT pass the test... even if you do 1,000 push-ups, 1,000 crunches and run the mile and a half in fifteen seconds... you CAN'T pass.

Now for the bad news.

They are in the process of making it mandatory to have a passing score on file prior to attending the course. What we've seen in the last year and a half (and before), is that many units are gun-decking the PT scores. On day 2 or 3 we have a PT test (assessment that is not mandatory to pass), and we've had people that run six and eight minutes slower than what they allegedly did just a month or so prior. We've also had people that increased in weight by upwards of 60 pounds - and one gained just over NINE inches around his middle... assuming that the prior measurement was done correctly and honestly.

Yes, it's a leadership issue.

The sister-service Liaisons (to include me) are lobbying to get a PT test done on the first morning on Day One - and if you can't pass, you are sent home. There is a LOT of resistance to this plan... as the Air Force is much more reluctant to upset people, and telling them to go home would make them feel bad... :rolleyes: (yeah, it would cost a lot of money as well, but they don't care about money!)

The only time the SNCOA sends people home for something physical is when they have a medical profile that isn't coordinated prior to arrival. Those people are sent home left and right, usually three or so per class. Other than that, people are only sent home for UCMJ violations.

Thus far I haven't had too much of a problem with weight of the Guardians we bring in. I did have one that made weight and when I taped him, he TAPED well over the limit. After seeking guidance, I was told that since he made weight he should stay. After that situation, I've been a lot more diligent about pre-screening. Since then, no problems.

[BMC Tim Woody]

Jerald,

That was outstanding information. Thanks for sharing!

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Joe,
I re-read my post, nowhere did I say the CPOACAD was infallible but, given the alternatives, I would take the CPOACAD results over others. You already know the answer to the "same person" comment. A difference between the two processes may be, the CPOACAD weighs/measures approximately 70 Chiefs every 30 days, the unit weighs/measures their folks every 180 days. Practice makes pretty good.

Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on your perspective) I cannot go into the individual details of the MAW cases that I have looked into. Some of the details do not paint a pretty picture.

We can go into some of the facts though;
** The CPOACAD weighs and measures more than 600 Chiefs per year.
** At the CPOACAD, Chiefs are weighing Chiefs.
** At the CPOACAD, the process is conducted in front of a full length mirror, the book is open, page by page and step by step of the process is fully explained to the Chief being weighed/measured, and there is a third person validator (ensures tape placement, level, posture, etc..)
** Being close to or above your max BF% puts you at a higher health risk.

As I said earlier, our PRIMARY focus should be on the health of our shipmates. We owe a great big THANK YOU to the CPOACAD for stepping up and being a positive influence on the personal health of our Chiefs Mess.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Kevin,

While I may agree with your logic, it still becomes the issue of sending someone home who was within standards prior to executing the orders. The law of exercise (doing things over and over) is a double edge sword. One side can improve the accuracy of the data and the other side could be a tedious repetition to reduce the accuracy of the data. It depends on the due dilligence of the person performing the task.

I contend the CPOs at the CPOACAD need to have a 4910 filed on them because they have failed in their duty IAW CIM 5000.3B 9-1-1 and 9-1-2.

Their failure to do their duty to report the fraudulent attempts by various people concerning the MAW and/or BF% and failure to follow Commandant Instructions on measuring the MAW and BF% on those CPOs that they have returned to their respective units.

We already have heard of three people who they should have filed a CG-4910 against for both Failure to obey an order or regulation and Uttering False Official statements.

Stuart likes to talk about the unit's failure and praises the efforts of the CPOACAD. I contend they too have failed miserable to set the example by addressing those two violations of the UCMJ.

There is a failure of leadership, it resides with the CPOs at the CPOACAD.

Now for a reality check ... the common Commander for the CPOACAD and the three members who performed the weighin's and found the member within standards is The Commandant. The CG-4910 should be filed with the common Commander for action. I think if a 4910 were filed, this issue and Stuart's bragging would come to a swift end.

Will the CPOACAD file a CG-4910? I doubt it.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, you've officially jumped the shark......

John, accountability is acccountability. Why should one person be held to a standard while another is allowed to slide on it? If someone fails that PT test, they lose their quals,....that's zero tolerance, and I'm not the one who implemented it. And yes, I think that expecting anyone who is part of a boat crew to be able to meet that minimum standard of physical fitness, is very reasonable, and everyone should be able to pass it. Here's something else...If you can't meet your minimum required hours for that platform.....you lose your quals, yet another program I did not start. You don't even get to argue that the person was "this close" to making it.
Why should someone who has not met the minimum requirements, be allowed to participate in the event?

Now, you didn't answer my other question the first time around, let me rephrase it........ If AMT "A" school was sending three E-3s home every class because they showed up exceeding their allowed body fat measurements, do you think anyone would be arguing to let them stay and finish out the course?

Andrew, I'm glad to hear it. Let me give you something to shoot for while you're out there. I know a guy who was sent back for being overweight, lost the weight, went back won the fitness award for his class. Heard about a woman today, similar story, showed up, overweight, long history of the wrong measurements being used during her career, sent home, lost the weight, went back, won the Altus Tendo Award for her class.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Joe,
This is a tough subject to write about because I spend hours talking about it. During my last three unit Chiefs Calls, MAW at the CPOACAD was discussed for more than 50% of the time.

There is no doubt in my mind that every Chief that is over or close to their MAW knows it, regardless of what is written down in DA. Honesty and responsibility are the keys to this conundrum. If the initial weigh-in/measurement #s are what they are, if the CPOACAD weigh-in/measurement #s are what they are, and if the post CPOACAD returns weigh-in/measurement #s are what they are. There is only one common thread in the situation, it's the Chief....only they know ALL of the facts.

Lets say leading up to 01Oct, I barely ate, dehydrated myself, consumed laxatives, exercised vigorously, sat in the sauna daily, and successfully weighed in. Then, after that successful weigh-in, I went back to my normal routine. 15 days later when I report to the CPOACAD my weight/measurements could be different from the 01Oct #s. Following, my disenrollment from the CPOACAD, I might be tempted to take drastic measures to once again get back within standards.

It is POSSIBLE for someone to be within standards on the 1st of Oct, over standards on the 15th of Oct, then within standards again on the 18th. Unhealthy diet, exercise practices and stress are likely culprits.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Kevin,

While I may agree with your logic, it still becomes the issue of sending someone home who was within standards prior to executing the orders. The law of exercise (doing things over and over) is a double edge sword. One side can improve the accuracy of the data and the other side could be a tedious repetition to reduce the accuracy of the data. It depends on the due dilligence of the person performing the task.

I contend the CPOs at the CPOACAD need to have a 4910 filed on them because they have failed in their duty IAW CIM 5000.3B 9-1-1 and 9-1-2.

Their failure to do their duty to report the fraudulent attempts by various people concerning the MAW and/or BF% and failure to follow Commandant Instructions on measuring the MAW and BF% on those CPOs that they have returned to their respective units.

We already have heard of three people who they should have filed a CG-4910 against for both Failure to obey an order or regulation and Uttering False Official statements.

Stuart likes to talk about the unit's failure and praises the efforts of the CPOACAD. I contend they too have failed miserable to set the example by addressing those two violations of the UCMJ.

There is a failure of leadership, it resides with the CPOs at the CPOACAD.

Now for a reality check ... the common Commander for the CPOACAD and the three members who performed the weighin's and found the member within standards is The Commandant. The CG-4910 should be filed with the common Commander for action. I think if a 4910 were filed, this issue and Stuart's bragging would come to a swift end.

Will the CPOACAD file a CG-4910? I doubt it.

WOW Joe talk about jumping to conclusions after having only heard one side of issue. And that the side of the member you believed wronged.

What is truly amazing is that this problem has been happening for several years an no one short of the CPO Academy and the GB community were pushing for a fix. Well now that those 2 groups have the attention of the flags and those flags are asking questions back to commands and commands are rightly feeling the heat the fingers are pointing in any direction away from them. That is the true failure of leadership in all of this.

[HSC Chris Fly]

Joe,
Lets say leading up to 01Oct, I barely ate, dehydrated myself, consumed laxatives, exercised vigorously, sat in the sauna daily, and successfully weighed in. Then, after that successful weigh-in, I went back to my normal routine. 15 days later when I report to the CPOACAD my weight/measurements could be different from the 01Oct #s. Following, my disenrollment from the CPOACAD, I might be tempted to take drastic measures to once again get back within standards.

It is POSSIBLE for someone to be within standards on the 1st of Oct, over standards on the 15th of Oct, then within standards again on the 18th. Unhealthy diet, exercise practices and stress are likely culprits.

You know what Kevin, this is the exact reason we should have "pop quiz" weigh ins throught the year, just like the whiz quiz... We are actually doing a dis-service to our people by allowing them to take these drastic, unhealthy measures to make weight only to go back to the same unhealthy lifestyle they've been living the rest of the year...

If we, as a service, never know when we'll be weighed/measured, we are more likely to make more of an effort to stay within regs all year long. Either that or we, as a service, get rid of a lot of dead weight (pun intended)...

[SKC Raymond Kurtz (Ret)]

Here's a thought that just occurred to me. Instead of having the units measure the member, why not have the experts at medical do it? That way if the member is close on weight and/or BF, further investigation could be made into whether or not the member is truly over the MAW standards.

Sure it might cost some $$$$$ to do that for each member, but it seems to me that it would be cheaper than sending a member to CPOAcad just to have them sent back due to being out of compliance.

[HSC Chris Fly]

Here's a thought that just occurred to me. Instead of having the units measure the member, why not have the experts at medical do it? .

Raymond,
What makes you think the HS3 or HS2 at medical is any more of an expert than the YN3 or YN2 at the SPO? I can guarentee that the Medical Officer is not going to sit there and measure each person that's over thier BMI...

Medical sees the member when they are over and screens them to make sure there is no underlying reasons...

Now, if we want to get serious, I'll say again how we need to hire civillian wellness experts to manage our weight/fitness programs...

[BMCM Deane Smith]

As far as random weigh-ins...commands can already do that...they just choose not to. If we did go to random weigh-ins, it's still up to the command to do it or not.

We don't need to hire a civilian to conduct the measurements, they are already working for the CG. Each worklife staff has a health promotions person. They could measure each unit when they do their training. Then, the units just have to weigh the member and do the BF is over MAW.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

The manual sets the minimum standards. Paraphrasing here, "units shall weigh their members in Oct and Apr", a little deeper the manual says, "COs can weigh anyone in their command any time they want to". Reading that, it seems that only initiative prevents a unit from conducting random weigh-ins. And...no current instruction prevents a unit from mandating PT or conducting fitness assessments. Some units do it others don't.

Proactive prevention should be the units posture to ensure the health and well beign of our workforce. It sure beats the alternative!!

I have to agree with the HSC, ADMIN processes should not become medical functions.

Workforce health should be the focus of this discussion.

[HSC Chris Fly]

I guess what I was saying with the random weigh-ins is even though I know a CO can weigh anyone at any time, I'm pretty sure our members know that's NOT going to happen...

If we actually had it written somewhere that commands shall conduct a random weigh-in at least once a quarter, people might start to pay attention.

Look at the urinalysis program...no one knows when we'll do a whiz quiz and we still have stupid people who do drugs....imagine if they knew exactly what month, every six months we were going to do a whiz quiz.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

HSC,
You say, "our mbrs know it's not going to happen". I was stationed at a unit that conducted random weigh-ins. There are/were units out there.

I have visited units that have had very progressive approaches to their weight management programs and others that had "not so much". Guess which units NEVER had any of their Chiefs sent home from the CPOACAD.

If a unit's Chiefs Mess met, agreed on a weight management plan, laid out the detailed way ahead, presented the fleshed out idea to the Command Cadre for consideration and then answered cost/benefit, WIIFMs and other such questions satisfactorily. It is hard to imgaine the plan not being adopted.

[HSC Chris Fly]

agree, it could definetly be doable....

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Stuart and Bruce,

I've already addressed your concerns on the 4910 when I responded to Bill Well's post on this subject.

Kevin, that may verywell be true. Unhealthy weight swings are not unheard of. Doesn't the CPOACAD talk about healthy diets in their curriculum?

You need find out the why this most recent member was in and out of standards within days ...

Bruce, are you doubting the Chief's word on the measurements done by his unit, medical, and the CPOACAD? Were the numbers in DA gundecked? ... Gundecking is fraud and is punishable under the UCMJ, as you very well know.

The reality of the situation is, this issue is taking 50% of Kevin's time. Put the topic to rest by forcing an investigation. A 4910 will do just that. You won't need to form a committee to commission a work group to assign someone to figure this out. Quit wasting Kevin's time, and whom ever else ... probably the MCPOCG's and Admiral's. One 4910 will put the issue to rest.

Hire a retired MCPO to do the investigation. Hell, I'd do it for cost plus the hourly wage the CG charges for a CPO doing a FOIA request. Of course my services aren't available till after April 15th.

And for the record ... I do believe the 4910 is the last resort. Sending people home is the last resort. Stuart talks of accountablility. The 4910 will ensure accountability.

[AMTCM John Long]

Joe, you've officially jumped the shark......

John, accountability is acccountability. Why should one person be held to a standard while another is allowed to slide on it? If someone fails that PT test, they lose their quals,....that's zero tolerance, and I'm not the one who implemented it. And yes, I think that expecting anyone who is part of a boat crew to be able to meet that minimum standard of physical fitness, is very reasonable, and everyone should be able to pass it. Here's something else...If you can't meet your minimum required hours for that platform.....you lose your quals, yet another program I did not start. You don't even get to argue that the person was "this close" to making it.
Why should someone who has not met the minimum requirements, be allowed to participate in the event?

Now, you didn't answer my other question the first time around, let me rephrase it........ If AMT "A" school was sending three E-3s home every class because they showed up exceeding their allowed body fat measurements, do you think anyone would be arguing to let them stay and finish out the course?


Stu,

You missing the point altogether. Accountability, health or appearance have nothing to do with what I'm getting at. It's easy to sit here and finger point at all the players (student, unit, Acadmy, manual). That fact is we're dealing with humans and an imperfect program. As I said earlier...it is the program on the table right now so we will roger up and go with it. We have to move forward. What is a possible solution to help keep folks from getting sent home? Well...one possible solution is the idea I suggested on an earlier post. It provides students (CPO's and if adopted servicewide...everyone else) a margin for any human or equipment errors at the unit or the Academy and still keeps the program's integrity.

IMO it's a good thing to talk about Andrew's situation and he should be thanked for discussing it and bringing to light an ongoing issue. Maybe one of the AMT's in your scenerio above could have the same experience Andrew did. What do you do? Tell that one person he/she is SOL? Who's going to look out for the member, the unit or the Academy when this happens? I don't see situations like his as cut and dry as you do. I have no problem standing up and saying we might need to look at this particular situation a little more and see if there is a smarter way to approach it.

John

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Joe,
I’ll take a swing at each of your points

I re-looked through this entire thread and found NO posts from Bill Wells. I thought he was kicked off this site, so I do not understand the reference. Did I miss something?

I think the CPOACAD curriculum covers diet, fitness and other healthy mind, body and soul type topics.

It is already known where and why there are differences between the measurements.

Knowingly falsifying documents and records is punishable.

Not 50% of my time, 50% of the time of the last 3 Chiefs Call. But, I will agree that time could be better spent.

A 4910 is not required to conduct an ADMIN investigation. An ADMIN investigation is probably a better first step, your hammer could follow if warranted.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Kevin,

Bill Wells' comments are in The Room. He was exiled there a long time ago.

The CG is wasting time and money sending people to any school and sending them back to their unit because of the weight issue. This last event is unique in that multiple measurements were accomplished and only one set had the Chief out of standards causing the return from the CPOACAD.

If you believe the CPOACAD is correct, then the others must be incorrect or the member is having fluxuating weight (more than 5 lbs).

Personally I don't believe the CPOACAD is infalible. I don't believe the other players are infaliable either. If one is correct, the others must be wrong. I must go with the majority on this one.

In this specific case, if the CPO was weighed daily for a week, you might find the fluxuations to correlate with the various measurements. You could weigh someone hourly and find some fluxuations. You might also find smaller fluxuation leading you back to the inquiry ... Why is the CPOACAD the only entity stating the member was out of standards?

I'm all for finding an answer. Complaining that the units are doing it wrong is not the answer. If the units are doing it wrong, there is alot of uttering false statements in the CG. I don't belive that for one minute, but there are some here who think that is the case.

An investigation needs to happen. It will come from the common Commander because self-investigations will be tainted with the perception that one can not investigation oneself. Whether the investigation is a result of an order or a 4910, it doesn't matter. Public disclosure is essential since its being played out in the public. Let the chips fall where ever.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, you're missing the point. If people followed the policies we already have in place, they wouldn't get sent home, they would have never left their unit. I think if you looked at the actual members, those that get sent home haven't had the DA info updated. I'd be willing to bet you that over half of the people sent home hadn't documented that required weigh in before they executed their orders. Their unit went with the Oct or the Apr weigh in. I'd be willing to bet you that the measurements the CPOACAD used weren't the same ones recorded in those members' records when they showed up there. I've still heard of units that ask the member how tall they are and record that. When it's actually checked, people get shocked.

IMO, I'm a simple guy, always have been, always will be. I think there's a simple answer to almost everything. I think Andrew already found his simple solution,.... he needs to lose weight. What would I do with the "A" school student in a similar situation, ....send them home. If you don't meet the standard when it's required, you don't get to play. If you can't qualify at the range, you can't go to Boarding Officer school. If you're color blind, we don't let you play with electricity. There's a cut-off date for participating in the SWE. If you're overweight, you can't go to school,.....you're not supposed to be advanced, ....... would it surprise you if I told you people show up at the Warrant Course overweight? People who just made Warrant....overweight? Who'd a thunk it?...... How about OCS? Would you be surprised if people were still showing up at OSC, overweight? How about just your unit? Does it still surprise you when someone shows up at your door, and you have to wonder when the last time they stepped on a scale would have been?

You know that mouse trap was a really cool invention....... so was the wheel. Sure we could spend some time and energy refining them, but at the day of the day, the most basic one still got the job done if you used it right.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Joe,
OK that explains it, I certainly am not going to pay to read about Bill or others complaining.

The CG is not wasting money, those that are testing policy are. This class is no different than the previous classes.

Both could be correct at the time of the weigh-in. Heck, I fluxuate more than 5 lbs per day depending on the time of day and my hydration level. If you are that close, it's better to play safe than sorry.

We agree, no one is infallible including the CPOACAD.

You know in some of these cases, especially the contentious ones, a simple picture may tell a thousand words. We won't be going there though.

I too would like to get to the bottom of it. I am just not so hard over on the doom and gloom. My experience has been that folks truly believe that they are doing it correctly. We don't know what we don't know. And there have been units where procedural errors were identified.

I do not think public disclosure will happen

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

I'm very well on point. You're making an assumption every member and his unit did not follow policy if he/she is sent home. That is wrong. I'll grant you some members and units are probably not doing weighins or weighins properly prior to departure. That's their fault....especially if the member is a CPO. However as we see by Andrew's example...some units are weighing the student before departure and by his account it was done correctly. Same on his RTB by the unit and a person in D17.

My solution is to lower the school/academy requirement to 1% under the member's max to allow for these variations in people and methods. I'm looking at this from a business case. We can send out a message tomorrow and say.....starting on XXXXXX date, all students arriving at the academy are required to be 1% under their max BF%. If at the max, they will be restricted to the TRACEN until they are 1% under. If over, don't bother unpacking your bags. Is that doable...absolutely. Does it make it harder for some...yes. Will it reduce RTB's at the academy....I'd bet on it.

As I said earlier, it's not about health or appearance. I have my business hat on....the primary goal to reduce the number of students being sent home from the TRACENS....in this case the academy.

John

[YNC Paulette Gough]

I can see all points in this argument. The weight program/weigh-in process is an administratively run progam, so at the unit level, the YN's are the ones that do the taping and weigh ins. It's easy if you have someone who meets weight. That's kind of difficult to misinterpret. It's a black and white number. Now, I can only speak from experience, but when I was a YN3/YN2 and a Chief had to be taped - it was uncomforatable to do. The measuring requires a "skin on tape" measurement which is embarrassing for both. Coupled with the rank difference, the process at times (for me) was downright hostile. It only makes it more embarrassing when you have the book open and go step by step, page by page with the E-7, E-8, or E-9. That takes longer, and when I did it, I just wanted to get out of there and get it over with, so I tried my best to memorize the process, but I tried to get the tape around the body as quickly as possible without staring at the members bare mid-section. I like the fact that now - the CMC or CSC has to witness the measurement before a member actually gets processed for discharge or at the half-way point of their weight probation. Maybe we should make it mandatory that the silver/gold badge witness all CPOA candidate tapings/weigh ins too. It gives another set of eyes to make sure the program is being administered correctly, and it gives the YN2/YN3 some support to do their job correctly. I also asked the RFMC (YN) if we could get a practical factor added on how to tape and weigh people. We'll see how that goes, but honestly - there's no training out there right now to teach the YN's how to do this correctly. At least the CPO Instructors have training and I believe most if not all are certified personal trainers (at least they were when I went through in 2006). Just my thoughts...

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

OK that explains it, I certainly am not going to pay to read about Bill or others complaining.

Kevin,

Off topic ...

The Room is not the CPO Mess. The CPO Mess is the only "subscription" room.

The Room is the other passworded room in the second grouping of this forum. It's the only passworded room with the password on the front page. Bill was exiled there, vice being banned because ... Once a Chief, always a Chief ... and this is a Chief's forum.

I've paid the dues here, because, it costs money to run a website ... not to gain access to the CPO Mess. It's like paying the dues to the CPOA.

Back on topic.

Stuart writes ... If people followed the policies we already have in place, they wouldn't get sent home, they would have never left their unit.

If the CPO's unit hadn't done it, three times, once before and twice after, there wouldn't be this discussion fodder. I might have even believed the statistics and assumed the units were ignoring the policies and some pencil whipping the pounds off. Explain why in four readings, the CPOACAD is the one entity stating the member was not within standards. Your simple answer isn't going to hold water. The instruction is clear on the procedure. Failure to do so is failing to obey an order or regulation. They are Commandant Instructions, not Commandant recommendations. Gundecking the observations is making false official statements as you are recording the information. If you want accountability you have to do what is necessary to accomplish accountability. Filing a 4910 will send a shockwave throughout the CG that you are serious about this topic. It will create that significant emotional event to grab the attention of everyone. If you don't believe me, think of how you received my posting concerning the 4910 ... I got your attention. I haven't changed your opinion of the CPOACAD, as you think they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Accountability will never happen in this issue.

The YNC writes of being intimated, because of rate, when she was a YN3 is justified as that certainly is within human nature. The CPO certainly could have requested another person do the taping as could the YN3. I know I've counseled my XPO who wanted to "shade the truth" on one of my weigh-ins and I told him to report what he observes ... period. If he didn't he would have been charged with making false official statements.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

However as we see by Andrew's example...some units are weighing the student before departure and by his account it was done correctly. Same on his RTB by the unit and a person in D17.

John, by his account, they WEREN'T doing it correctly. Go back to his post number 74. By his account, he knew ....for a fact..... many units weren't doing it right, including his own. By his account, the people out at the CPOACAD really knew what they were doing, and were very professional. Seems pretty easy to take a side on this one.

John, I don't think your plan will reduce the number of people returned, I think it will increase it. First of all, Andrew would have been 2% over at the CPOACAD, even if his unit has him at his limit, he's now 3% over your new requirement. Some of these people were 6% over out in Petaluma. We already have people out there that are over the line but within the 5 pounds/ 1% threshold and stay. We're already giving them a 1% Body Fat buffer to allow them to stay. Your plan would put a greater restriction on all of the units that already follow the policy. Where does it address those that don't?
I'll jump on board with you if we can add one little item.
That CPO sent to the CPOACAD remains there until they complete the course, or are discharged, first ever comes first. We don't return anyone who is overweight. If they are sent there overweight, the CPOACAD staff will put them on a workout plan until they are under their MAW or 1% from their body fat max, and at that point, they can start the next available class. For the units that follow our weight program, their CPOS will be out in Petaluma recieving professional development for about 34 days. For the units that don't, your CPO might never return.
I've heard from a little bird,...that once we go to BMI, 15% more people will be getting taped. It's kinda like the discussion on gun control. The units that are within the law will continue to support and enforce the new law, those out there that don't , will continue to not follow the new one.

Joe, the procedure is clear. If the unit isn't updating the information in Direct Access, what makes you think they're following the rest of the procedure correctly. The job isn't over until the paperwork is done. If you want to prove you're in compliance, that's where the documentation comes in. If the member's last measurements are from Oct, it's hard to say they're following the policy.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Filing a 4910 will send a shockwave throughout the CG that you are serious about this topic. It will create that significant emotional event to grab the attention of everyone. If you don't believe me, think of how you received my posting concerning the 4910 ... I got your attention. I haven't changed your opinion of the CPOACAD, as you think they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Accountability will never happen in this issue.



Joe, I was just wondering if when you are filing a booking chit on the CPO Academy if you were also planning on filing one of every other Chief that was sent home and their commands that sent them?

[BMC Seth Tomas]

I've heard from a little bird,...that once we go to BMI, 15% more people will be getting taped.

If I remember correctly (sometimes I have a hard time doing this), when I was at the Academy they were also taking measurements/weights based on the BMI system for information and tracking purposes only to see how this will truly effect the CG once we actually go to it. Does anyone have access to these numbers or statistics? How many more people would have to be taped and considered overweight or their BMI?

I have been following this thread for a while and fully agree that, yes, there is a problem with the system. The problem is with the taping/measuring of the person. I can tell you this...any time that I've had to tape someone I've had the manual open and read line by line on where/how to place the tape, and I've had an assistance help in understanding the manual and making sure the tape is level and read properly.

Do I think people show up at the Academy overweight? Sure. But do I think that the Academy staff that do the measurements are the "pros"? Absolutely not! They may do a good job, but in hearing the story above, I tend to lean away from the Academy's measurements on this and lean towards the member's home unit measurements. This is not a slam on them at all, actually, I believe that they are probably the most accurate at the program. But what I'm trying to say is that mistakes CAN be made by ANYONE.

Solution? I think it starts with the program itself and the lack of understanding at the unit levels. A manual is published and sent out to the units telling us what to do, but no training follows suit. Personally, I don't have a problem understanding the measuring process, but maybe some do. How about some professional training from the Work Life staff and/or a District UHPC? Also, the way that measurements can easily be changed is DA might need to be looked at. Maybe we need to have medical personnel conduct measurements and they enter these into DA. The unit itself would not have the persmissions to change them. (Look at it this way, if the person entering the weight was buddy buddy with member X and member X just stepped on the scale and it read a little high, then the person with the DA authority could easily "adjust" the height in the system to make the MAW better for the member). I'm sure this happens. I don't know how many times I've noticed incorrect measurement in DA and they are ALWAYS in favor of the member. I make sure that I break out the tape and redo the measurements and enter them correctly.

Now I feel like I'm rambling, and my coffee cup is low....time for a refill! :D

[AMTCM John Long]

However as we see by Andrew's example...some units are weighing the student before departure and by his account it was done correctly. Same on his RTB by the unit and a person in D17.

John, by his account, they WEREN'T doing it correctly. Go back to his post number 74. By his account, he knew ....for a fact..... many units weren't doing it right, including his own. By his account, the people out at the CPOACAD really knew what they were doing, and were very professional. Seems pretty easy to take a side on this one.

John, I don't think your plan will reduce the number of people returned, I think it will increase it. First of all, Andrew would have been 2% over at the CPOACAD, even if his unit has him at his limit, he's now 3% over your new requirement. Some of these people were 6% over out in Petaluma. We already have people out there that are over the line but within the 5 pounds/ 1% threshold and stay. We're already giving them a 1% Body Fat buffer to allow them to stay. Your plan would put a greater restriction on all of the units that already follow the policy. Where does it address those that don't?
I'll jump on board with you if we can add one little item.
That CPO sent to the CPOACAD remains there until they complete the course, or are discharged, first ever comes first. We don't return anyone who is overweight. If they are sent there overweight, the CPOACAD staff will put them on a workout plan until they are under their MAW or 1% from their body fat max, and at that point, they can start the next available class. For the units that follow our weight program, their CPOS will be out in Petaluma recieving professional development for about 34 days. For the units that don't, your CPO might never return.
I've heard from a little bird,...that once we go to BMI, 15% more people will be getting taped. It's kinda like the discussion on gun control. The units that are within the law will continue to support and enforce the new law, those out there that don't , will continue to not follow the new one.

Joe, the procedure is clear. If the unit isn't updating the information in Direct Access, what makes you think they're following the rest of the procedure correctly. The job isn't over until the paperwork is done. If you want to prove you're in compliance, that's where the documentation comes in. If the member's last measurements are from Oct, it's hard to say they're following the policy.


Stu,

Reread this from Andrew's post.

I now know, for a fact, that many units (mine) are not taping people correctly. I had been taped numerous times over the past few months, prior to receiving orders for C schools (CPOAcad and other), from three different people.

Each measurement was the same. By three different people at three different times.

The CPOAcad instructors are nothing but professional. And they obviously know what they are doing, and how to do it correctly (taping/weigh in).

Maybe Andrew can clarify...but what I'm reading is Andrew feels his unit unit is not doing it correctly. I got that. However Andrew continues and states prior to receiving orders to the Academy and other schools, he was measured by 3 different people and got the same measurement each time. Where is the discrep?

John

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

I was timed out so I didn't get to edit the above post.

On post #80 Andrew states this:

Master Chief Slesh,

I may have misspoken/typed. I was actually weighed in 3 seperate times over the past month. I have PCS orders that I received, then CPOA orders, and another check prior to departing for the CPOA. Each time I was above my MAW, but below on body fat @ 24% each time. Three seperate people did the measurements.

So, technically, I was within weight standards.

He states in #74 he is now over by 2%...is that an Academy reading? In #82 he lost a 1/2" in height at the Academy, then got it back at the unit. On another post I believe he states he was under BF% on RTB back to unit. Don't you think his next measurers (and Andrew) back at the unit and D17 would ensure they are following the manual to the "T" when they did the tapings after getting sent home from the Academy??

John

[MSTC Andrew Grow]

Stu,

Reread this from Andrew's post.



Maybe Andrew can clarify...but what I'm reading is Andrew feels his unit unit is not doing it correctly. I got that. However Andrew continues and states prior to receiving orders to the Academy and other schools, he was measured by 3 different people and got the same measurement each time. Where is the discrep?

John

Let me clarify something that I posted...My statement SHOULD have read that I know that there are units out there that DO tape incorrectly, and that mine has been one of them. I believe that was my first post here, and it was somewhat of an emotionally charged post...so please bear with me.

The difference is that comparing how the taping was done at the CPOAcad and the taping at my unit (and D17) was minimal. My waist measurement was pretty much the same each time...the height (how do you screw up a height measurement???) and neck were the only ones to significantly change.

I think I've even confused myself now...:eek:

[MSTC Andrew Grow]

Stu,

I was timed out so I didn't get to edit the above post.

On post #80 Andrew states this:



He states in #74 he is now over by 2%...is that an Academy reading? In #82 he lost a 1/2" in height at the Academy, then got it back at the unit. On another post I believe he states he was under BF% on RTB back to unit. Don't you think his next measurers (and Andrew) back at the unit and D17 would ensure they are following the manual to the "T" when they did the tapings after getting sent home from the Academy??

John

Master Chief Long,

Yes, the 2% over is the CPOAcad number. I was never over by any % during ANY of my weigh/tape ins...ever. Except for the CPOAcad.

I can tell you that those that measured me upon my return had the manual out and were following it line by line as they did the measurements, just like the CPOAcad did. I made sure of that.

Which...going the long way 'round...leads me to believe that since my measurements after my return and prior to my departure are all the same... that they were, in fact, ALL done CORRECTLY.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Since it appears that no matter what a command, Sector, ISC, District, etc’s. measurements are, the CPOA program seems to be the defacto correct process and our brothers and sisters who believe they are in compliance aren’t , according to the CPOA, which doesn’t jibe with the other mentioned units in some cases. So how about have the person in charge of the weight and measurement program at the CPOA make a CG wide road show to districts and show the “correct” procedure to the field level units program mgrs. This may be cheaper in the long run than sending people home from the CPOA consistently. At least this would let Chief’s who are about to go to the CPOA know exactly what is expected, since it seems that we are having different people read the same instructions and yet seem to come up with different results.

Just a thought, Todd

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

YNC Gough has hit “a” nail on the head. It must be EXTREMELY uncomfortable for the YN3 to be on the deck next to someone’s sweaty belly. I know when I was a 3rd class, I would have been out of there as quickly as possible. And I certainly would not have argued with the senior mbr regarding my perception of their tighten abs or held breath. And… before all the tough guys/gals start chiming in with it wouldn’t happen that way to me if I were taking measurements.

Consider a likely training scenario. “The Chief, ADMIN Officer, or XO walks into the office and says to the brand new YN3 it’s OCT and you are in charge of the unit weight program. Then, if the YN3 was lucky, the manual was shoved in their direction. But, it is not beyond the realm of possible for the supervisor to just tell the YN3 to figure it out.

Far fetched…..I think not. There have been factual cases like the above paragraph that I know about. I am sure my peers and some of you here can recall your own like experiences.

Ironic that you should mention training, there is NO such thing as weight program training. There are no weight program PBQs. At many units the weight program is purely personality driven and sometimes it does not rise to the top of the priority list. Don’t get me wrong, there are units where the YNs are “certified” for lack of a better term to conduct weigh-ins and the weight program is at least on the priority list in between May and Sep and again between Nov and Mar.

As a point of information and future reference, the CPOACAD has produced a comprehensive “How To” DVD of the entire process.

At many units, the CMCs do personally verify weigh-ins especially for the Chiefs going to the CPOACAD and those at risk of separation. For the health of our crews and the good of our mbrs we (Chiefs) need to care about this program.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Master Chief Long,

Yes, the 2% over is the CPOAcad number. I was never over by any % during ANY of my weigh/tape ins...ever. Except for the CPOAcad.

I can tell you that those that measured me upon my return had the manual out and were following it line by line as they did the measurements, just like the CPOAcad did. I made sure of that.

Which...going the long way 'round...leads me to believe that since my measurements after my return and prior to my departure are all the same... that they were, in fact, ALL done CORRECTLY.

Andrew...something doesn't add up for me. I've looked at the chart and I don't see a 2% difference between 75" & 76" anywhere. The most I see is 1% difference. Am I missing soemthing or did more than your height change?

I'm trying to make sense of the difference.

[BMC Seth Tomas]

As a point of information and future reference, the CPOACAD has produced a comprehensive “How To” DVD of the entire process.


Wait a minute...you're saying that the CPO Acad has a "how to" DVD on this? Is this new? I haven't seen one......if it exists and they continue to send people home for being oveweight, don't you think that this info/DVD should be sent to ALL units? Maybe I misread your statement.....:confused:

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

As a point of information and future reference, the CPOACAD has produced a comprehensive “How To” DVD of the entire process.

And for your information, the CPOACAD is not the Commandant. That video is their interpetation of the promulgated Commandants Instruction. It may be correct and it may be the best training aid out there, but it's not the promulgated instruction. Once Commandant makes it a Commandants Instruction, it is no longer a CPOACAD "How to" DVD.

I'm wondering why this is the first time there has been public acknowledgement of a training video.

Bruce,

All it takes is one 4910. All the other units are witnesses and must be interviewed. A complete investigation would encompass every unit that had the discrepancy, or enough that a preliminary investigating officer can determine the causes of the error and recommend to the common Commander a cogent account of the errors. Any PIO can recommend additional charges against whoever they have sufficient evidence to charge. So, the end result could be clearing the CPOACAD and charging a whole lot of other people. You have to follow the evidence, and the preliminary evidence points to a failure at the CPOACAD, by three to one, so they get the privledge of being awarded the CG-4910. The original 4910 can be expunged from the record if it is proven to be incorrect.

Q.E.D.

[YNC Paulette Gough]

Thanks MCPO Isherwood. I will call the CPO Academy next week and see if I can get a copy of that DVD and use it to train my YN staff. The other thing is that the CPO ACademy will re-verify all measurements if you are overweight/overfat. Field YN's generally don't do that. I had a case where I tried and I ended up getting in an argument with an XPO about his height being off by 1/2 inch. I had him straight against the wall without shoes and I came up with 71 1/4 inches which I rounded down to 71. He had always been measured at 72 inches because previously his height had been recorded at 71 3/4 inches which was rounded up. It made quite the difference. I can promise you that as a YN3 I would never have second guessed a CHief on their height.:)

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

BMC,
This is not ice rescuing ducks with a professional news crew at your beck n’ call ;-) The DVD is a self start, self-help initiative run on NO budget. The video is in HQs working it’s way toward approval. You know, add this, take out that etc...

No budget for mass distribution exists but, I am pretty sure that as soon as the HQs green light is given, the file will make it to the web.

Joe,
I doubt the DVD will become a COMDTINST but it “might” be referred to in one in the future. On your other point, you have heard from folks that have ZERO personal or emotional involvement in ANY of the weigh-ins yet you choose sides.

Some of this reminds me of the disgruntled parent berating me for the horrible CG treatment that her son told her about. The Privacy Act prevented me from sharing the other side of her adult child’s situation with her. Once the 3 of us were sitting in the same room and little Billy consented to full disclosure of the situation. I was not long into the story before she recognized some of the same behaviors, she apologized and thanked me for my efforts.

Folks often provide their version in the best light possible, it’s just one side though and you know, there are at least 3 sides to every story!!

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Kevin,

I have no dogs in this hunt. I do however recognize when something is amiss when three out of four say one thing and the one in disagreement is taken with full faith and confidence as being correct.

Till someone can provide a cogent accounting of the error I will still stand with the majority on this. More has come out and the discrepancies has been cleared, illustrating the height and neck measurement as the source of the error.

One point was clearly made in the instruction is the rounding up of both the height and neck measurements to the nearest half-inch. It is always rounded up, yet we have a member who admitted to rounding down. Indenting the skin is not allowed for the neck measurement. You do round down the waist and hips to the nearest half-inch.

From the information available as of this post, the neck and height measurements are in contention. How much does one grow or shrink to cause such a discrepany? I certainly can imagine how errors are introduced into the height measurement, but it seems difficult since the instruction wants the member to take a deep breath and stretch tall. I would suspect the units doing it wrong if they failed to instruct the member to take that deep breath. Unfortunately, the CPOACAD had the member shorter. I'm at a loss for a congent accounting for the possible errors in the height measurement, assuming all concerned were following the promulgated instruction.

The neck measurement on the other hand would have errors based on how taunt the tape is as well as a level position on the neck. I can see where a slight angle could increase the size of the neck knowing that the instruction states to round up. Pinching the skin certainly can account for a lower neck reading. Even the "proper" method has a slight tilt to the tape where the bottom of the tape is brought across to the top of the tape to allow a decent reading of the numbers.

All in all, these discrepancies are not good for morale or the resultant tarnished reputations.

I hope the investigation can give a full cogent accounting of the errors.

The equipment used should also be checked for accuracy.

[BMC Seth Tomas]

BMC,
This is not ice rescuing ducks with a professional news crew at your beck n’ call ;-) The DVD is a self start, self-help initiative run on NO budget. The video is in HQs working it’s way toward approval. You know, add this, take out that etc...

No budget for mass distribution exists but, I am pretty sure that as soon as the HQs green light is given, the file will make it to the web.

Joe,
I doubt the DVD will become a COMDTINST but it “might” be referred to in one in the future. On your other point, you have heard from folks that have ZERO personal or emotional involvement in ANY of the weigh-ins yet you choose sides.

Some of this reminds me of the disgruntled parent berating me for the horrible CG treatment that her son told her about. The Privacy Act prevented me from sharing the other side of her adult child’s situation with her. Once the 3 of us were sitting in the same room and little Billy consented to full disclosure of the situation. I was not long into the story before she recognized some of the same behaviors, she apologized and thanked me for my efforts.

Folks often provide their version in the best light possible, it’s just one side though and you know, there are at least 3 sides to every story!!

If it's not a professional news crew quality film, then I don't need it.... ;)

....oh, and it was a swan, not a duck! :D

[MSTC Andrew Grow]

Andrew...something doesn't add up for me. I've looked at the chart and I don't see a 2% difference between 75" & 76" anywhere. The most I see is 1% difference. Am I missing soemthing or did more than your height change?

I'm trying to make sense of the difference.

My height @ CPOAcad was measured at 3/4" shorter...and my neck at 3/4" smaller (both rounded up to 75.5" and 17.5" respectively) than my before and after measurements.

[MSTC Andrew Grow]

...snip...The other thing is that the CPO ACademy will re-verify all measurements if you are overweight/overfat....snip...

They did NOT re-verify my measurements, nor any of the others who were dis-enrolled.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

That you know of......


John, we are each emphasizing a different part of the same post. I key in on where he said his unit wasn't doing the taping the right way. From there, it doesn't matter if they keep getting the same number. Three different people tell you 2+2=5,....doesn't make it right.
Are any of those three readings the current ones in his Direct Access info, or would that information be from October 08? What do his marks look like? Take this little bit of information...... he told us that he lost 12 pounds since October, which by the way is great. He wasn't on the weight program, but took it upon himself to get healthier. 12 pounds, in let's say 16 weeks, about a pound a week, over the winter months, during the holidays of Thanksgiving and Christmas,...... that's impressive. Now, I know you're all waiting for the but,.....but, he's at 24% body fat, even going by the best reading, after losing that 12 pounds, his allowed max would be 25%. Even if he isn't on the weight program, he's teetering right on the edge of it, what would his marks show?

From the EERs...

HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
The degree to which this member exercised moderation in the use of alcohol. The degree to which this member maintained weight standards and adhered to the Coast Guard Fitness Program.
___1
___2 Failed to meet minimum standards of sobriety or weight control. Did not adhere to the Coast Guard Fitness Program.
___3
___4 Maintained weight standards and adhered to the Coast Guard Fitness Program. Used alcohol discriminately or not at all; job performance not affected. Held self and subordinates accountable in meeting minimum standards, on and off duty.
___5
___6 Consistently demonstrated a significant commitment, beyond setting an example, on and off duty, to the well-being of self and subordinates. Actively followed a comprehensive fitness program.
___7

MILITARY BEARING
The extent to which this member appeared neat, smart, and well groomed in uniform; and set standards for subordinates.
___1
___2 Unable or unwilling to consistently appear net, smart, and well groomed. Failed to maintain uniform or grooming standards. Performance of subordinates was marginal or unacceptable.
___3
___4 Squared away member. Demonstrated great care in maintaining and wearing uniform. Excellent grooming; hair groomed to standards; if worn, beard or moustache also neat and properly trimmed. Presented a physically trim appearance.
___5
___6 Superlative member. Clearly set high standards for uniform and grooming excellence. Inspired similar standards in others. Performance of subordinates was exceptional.
___7

The bold text always gets to me. Can anyone argue that someone at their max body fat, meets or, better yet, exceeds those two marks?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

A quick search at CG-612 reveals that the Coast Guard Fitness Program does not exist.

Surely one would expect a CI, CIM, or CN on such a program.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Joe, this is an "even" month.. HYT may not be in effect... ;)

Wray...:cool:

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Joe, this is an "even" month.. HYT may not be in effect... ;)

Wray...:cool:

Wray, the HTY program is only "enforced" on an even year....the 30th anniversary of service with very few exceptions.

[BMCS Harley Matlock]

One of the biggest problems with our program, besides the members being overweight to begin with, is our system of measuring.
For instance, last year I received two brand new tape measures with tension gauges to ensure proper measurements were being taken, followed shortly by an alcoast that stated weigh-in measurements should be conducted with the tension gauge tape or standard cloth tape. Let me tell you, I can take and record ten different measurements with the standard cloth tape. Without the tension tape, there is no guidance as to how tight you pull the tape(ie if i pull really hard, i can get the measurement you need) with the tension gauge tape my readings are almost always spot on. I will continue to use the tension tape and always measure twice and cut once!!!!!

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Joe,
Chapter 4 of COMDTINST M6200.1A , Chapters 1.2, 5 and 7.6 of COMDTINST M1020.8G all discuss the required Fitness Plan/Program.

What follows is the exact verbiage contained in all three evaluation forms.

HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
The degree to which this member exercised moderation in the use of alcohol. The degree to which this member maintained weight standards and adhered to the Coast Guard Fitness Program.

The Two Block
Failed to meet minimum standards of sobriety or weight control. Did not adhere to the Coast Guard Fitness Program.

The Four Block
Maintained weight standards and adhered to the Coast Guard Fitness Program. Used alcohol discriminately or not at all; job performance not affected. Held self and subordinates accountable in meeting minimum standards, on and off duty.

See the attachement for a break down of those on the program as of Jan09 and what mark they rcvd in the Health and Wellness block.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Harley, Two questions....

Do they still measure across the bones in the wrist?

Why would a BMC be measuring anyone? That used to be an admin function, not that I think a YN could do a better job...but...

Wray... :cool:

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

I can only go on what Andrew is saying. Below is what Andrew stated on #148. I don't know what else to tell you. You keep repeating he intitial post where he stated he knew his unit was doing it wrong. His follow-on posts clarify what he is saying.

It's entirely up to him...maybe Andrew should restate his chain of events in one post to clarify.

Master Chief Long,

Yes, the 2% over is the CPOAcad number. I was never over by any % during ANY of my weigh/tape ins...ever. Except for the CPOAcad.

I can tell you that those that measured me upon my return had the manual out and were following it line by line as they did the measurements, just like the CPOAcad did. I made sure of that.

Which...going the long way 'round...leads me to believe that since my measurements after my return and prior to my departure are all the same... that they were, in fact, ALL done CORRECTLY.

Also...about your other comment.

John, I don't think your plan will reduce the number of people returned, I think it will increase it. First of all, Andrew would have been 2% over at the CPOACAD, even if his unit has him at his limit, he's now 3% over your new requirement. Some of these people were 6% over out in Petaluma. We already have people out there that are over the line but within the 5 pounds/ 1% threshold and stay. We're already giving them a 1% Body Fat buffer to allow them to stay. Your plan would put a greater restriction on all of the units that already follow the policy. Where does it address those that don't?
I'll jump on board with you if we can add one little item.
That CPO sent to the CPOACAD remains there until they complete the course, or are discharged, first ever comes first. We don't return anyone who is overweight. If they are sent there overweight, the CPOACAD staff will put them on a workout plan until they are under their MAW or 1% from their body fat max, and at that point, they can start the next available class. For the units that follow our weight program, their CPOS will be out in Petaluma recieving professional development for about 34 days. For the units that don't, your CPO might never return.
I've heard from a little bird,...that once we go to BMI, 15% more people will be getting taped. It's kinda like the discussion on gun control. The units that are within the law will continue to support and enforce the new law, those out there that don't , will continue to not follow the new one.

Stu...I think it would work. Of course if you look backwards people would be further over ther max BF. It needs to be advertised ahead of time. It will force students to report under a tighter standard, allow for variations and get students off the fence assuming they'll be ok. Remember...the idea is to reduce RTB's from the Academy for being over max BF%....nothing else.

Off the top of my head.....the idea of the Academy keeping overweight CPO's would run into several problems that would need to be addressed. The TAD costs would run up unless they were PCS'd there and it would be a nightmare for the detailers. The unit would have to gap it or someone would get forced to back fill the CPO's billet. Furthermore...is the Academy staffed to hold and run a permanent weight camp for the additional students? Would we also implement that for all TRACENS?

John

[BMC Seth Tomas]

Why would a BMC be measuring anyone? That used to be an admin function, not that I think a YN could do a better job...but...


Wray,

Any unit without an YN needs to do this. Myself for example, I cannot send everyone on a 4 hour road trip for a YN to do some measurements, and I cannot expect the YN to tour all the units within the Sector just to do measurements. The units themselves run the program. Larger units with YN's attached are the ones that have the YN's doing it. The majority of units out there do it on their own.

Seth

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

BMC,
I meant no slight to the swan:D

[BMC Seth Tomas]

BMC,
I meant no slight to the swan:D

None taken! Just messing with ya!

.....now back to the topic at hand.....

[HSC Chris Fly]

They did NOT re-verify my measurements, nor any of the others who were dis-enrolled.

Andy,
They must have re-verified your height and neck if you shrunk some, no? I think Paulette meant (correct me if I'm wrong) that the CPOACAD will actually verify your wrist and height instead of just going by what Direct Access says...

I'm not saying the ACAD could not have messed up on you Andy, but having been measured by them myself when I went I know the process they go through and it's more through than any other unit I've ever been measured at...

Maybe I just drank too much Kool Aid, but I have to defer to the CPOACAD on this one....

Chris

[BMCS Harley Matlock]

I see Seth answered the YN part, and yes you still measure across the wrist bone. This is used to determine MAW
The much debated measurements are when you are over MAW, you then have to measure the neck and the belly at the navel, subtract the difference and then use a chart based on height to determine BF%. The problem with this is when using a cloth tape, there is nothing in the regs that states you can't squeeze the crap out of them to make it work. When you use the tension tape you have to stop at a precise measurement.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Seth & Harley,
Thanks you have cleared that one up for me... As I said before, when people are involved... things become very complicated....

Do you know how the other services do it?

Wray... :cool:

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

More than a mile of views and less than 40 votes. Talk about the vocal minority ;-)

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I would suspect many of the "views" are made up of un-registered members... Actually 40 is a pretty high number here.. How many regulars do you think frequent this site?

Wray... :cool:

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Kevin,

Interesting histogram on the evaluations.

Unfortunately it does demonstrate a failure in leadership or ignorance on how the marking system is suppose to work, but, that is an entirely nother topic.

The problem remains without a cogent accounting of the error. The majority still rules and the CPOACAD isn't in the majority on this one. The results were replicated two times confirming the original statement of the member being within standards. The CPOACAD stands alone in the minority as stating the member is out of standards. No one to date has replicated the CPOACAD's numbers.

The problem still lies with the CPOACAD. They are wrong until proven correct. If they can't be proven correct, they wasted taxpayers monies sending people back that really didn't have to return to their unit. They humiliated people and as such the Chief of the School should be apologizing. But, that demand can wait till there is a cogent accounting of the errors.

Nice touch on illustrating a section of a different instruction talking about the CG Fitness Program. Must not be much of a program with just a byline in another instruction. :D

I'm sure Andrew could have the numbers from the CPOACAD replicated ... complete with video to see the results of a tape tightening the additional amount necessary to achieve the same number.

[BMC Seth Tomas]

My vote is in....never realized that I never voted! :D

[YNC Paulette Gough]

Andy,
They must have re-verified your height and neck if you shrunk some, no? I think Paulette meant (correct me if I'm wrong) that the CPOACAD will actually verify your wrist and height instead of just going by what Direct Access says...


Chris

Yes Chris - that's what I meant. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[YNC Paulette Gough]

This was just posted on the MCPOCG blog. It's from MCPO Thomas (Chief, CPO Academy) and it regards the way they do weight/bodyfat screening at CPO Academy:

"Before we begin the BF determination, we have the student step on a balance beam scale to crosscheck the weight they obtained from the Tanita scale. Page 2-7 of 1020.8G states that since wrist size and height do not change appreciably over time, it may not be necessary to re-measure a member’s height and frame size during each screening. On the same page, there is a note that goes on to say if a member screens as overweight, his or her measurements may be verified. The CPO Academy does this, and utilizes a Seca scale (height only scale) to measure height, and then IAW 1020.8G, rounding to the nearest inch for MAW, and nearest half-inch for BF. Additionally, the frame size is verified. We use a tape measure with a tension meter on it to ensure a consistent 4 oz. pull. In our experience, these two measurements often vary significantly from those listed in DA (up to two inches less on height and two frame sizes on the wrist); this often results in a significant reduction of the student’s MAW.

We then conduct the abdominal, neck, (and for women, buttocks) measurements. We have a minimum of two people verifying the proper placement of the tape and the measurements. Those conducting the taping are meticulous in their placement of the tape, following each step carefully in the manual. For example, for men, the abdominal circumference is measured with the tape across the navel, level to the deck, and with the member's arms at their sides; the measurement is then taken at the end of a normal, relaxed, exhalation. NOT taking this critical measurement at the end of the normal, relaxed, exhalation WILL result in a false reading and incorrect body fat calculation (in my opinion, this is the number one reason for different measurements between the CPO Academy and the field). Once the numbers are obtained, we utilize the charts in 1020.8G to determine BF, and make a status determination.

By the manual, anyone executing TDY orders MUST be in compliance; however, for anyone found not in compliance upon reporting, they can be retained if their probationary period would not exceed the course length (following the accepted weight/BF loss of 1 lb per week and 1% per month). Since the CPO Academy is approx 5 weeks, 1020.8G allows us to retain students that are no more than 5 lbs and/or 1 % BF in excess. Anyone exceeding those numbers must be returned to their unit. I don't set the policy; however, it is my duty to enforce it."

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Joe,
Your contrarian view on this surprises me. Typically, you are all about the, “what part of the standard in not clear?”

If an entity measures inaccurately and no one corrects their procedures, why would you expect the measurements taken by that same entity at a later date to be accurate? “They don’t know, what they don’t know”

I have seen where the supervised/scrutinized measurements conducted after early returns were far closer to the #s drawn by the CPOACAD than those of the original #s. In theses cases, the delta between the CPOACAD and the final #s were decimals that after the rounding made NO DIFFERENCE in the final calculations.

There is no doubt in my mind when folks get sent home, they are personally embarrassed, tax dollars are wasted and training quotas squandered!

It’s not a passing reference or by line:D, it’s a chapter in the Health Promotions Manual.

I bet you dollars to dimes, that if you actually observed the processes you would have a much different perspective. Again, no one is infallible, my money remains on the accuracy of the CPOACAD.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

This was just posted on the MCPOCG blog. It's from MCPO Thomas (Chief, CPO Academy) and it regards the way they do weight/bodyfat screening at CPO Academy:

"...On the same page, there is a note that goes on to say if a member screens as overweight, his or her measurements may be verified. The CPO Academy does this, and utilizes a Seca scale (height only scale) to measure height, and then IAW 1020.8G, rounding to the nearest inch for MAW, and nearest half-inch for BF. Additionally, the frame size is verified. We use a tape measure with a tension meter on it to ensure a consistent 4 oz. pull. In our experience, these two measurements often vary significantly from those listed in DA (up to two inches less on height and two frame sizes on the wrist); this often results in a significant reduction of the student’s MAW....

...I don't set the policy; however, it is my duty to enforce it."


Not being a Weight program guru myself, If there is that big of a difference "often", what does the standard say for equipment usage? If it states a "SECA" scale for height and "tension tape" for wrist then all units should have that equipment and be given proper training on it. Again I'm no expert and will peruse the regs as time permits over the next couple of days, but my question is if units are using equipment that is authorized but is not necessarily the same as the CPOA or other "C" schools and the program managers at each unit isn't given the same indepth training as the CPOA instructors and most "C" school weight program managers (not sure but I think most "C" school's utilize medical for this????) whose at fault? Especially if we are seeing, as MCPO Thomas said, two measurements that vary significantly between seperate units.

The scale and height measuring device we use is the one you step on, raise the bar to the top of members head, then slide the weights to get the height and weight. If other units are using this and it isn't the same as the CPOA well there in could lie part of the problem. Especially since there seems to be a big disconnect somewhere. I guess if I was close and headed to a "C" school I would request to know what equipment they would use on me and ask to be pre-screened on the same type of equipment just to avoid any mistakes.

If we are using twenty different or even two different scales and tapes at different units maybe we need to spend the money to all go to the same equipment and ensure someone at the unit is properly trained.

Master Chief, I agree, we don't set policy but must enforce it, but we must also ensure policy is consistently enforced across the board.

Todd

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

If an entity measures inaccurately and no one corrects their procedures, why would you expect the measurements taken by that same entity at a later date to be accurate? “They don’t know, what they don’t know”

Kevin,

If the same person did it each time I would concur with your conclusion. Different people performed the task, and the one from medical went strickly by the instruction ... according to the CPO and it was consistent with the pre-departure readings.

Typically, you are all about the, “what part of the standard in not clear?”

I am still about what part of the standard is not clear. Now we find out the CPOACAD's MCPO blog statement about using a tension tape with a 4 ounce pull.

They say "one picture is worth a thousand words." Does the 4 oz pull indent the skin? Hell, every cell phone has a camera these days. Post a picture of the CPOACAD in action. Does it dent the skin? Yes or No. If it does, then the CPOACAD is not congruent with the Commandant's Instruction and the MCPO has shaded the truth when they said ... "it is my duty to enforce it."

On a positive note, I applaud the CPOACAD's use of a device to ensure consistent readings. I won't applaud them for not following the Commandant's Instructions. The use of external devices to assist means some frequency of calibration and calibration standards. When your talking about shitcanning someone, your calibration should be up to date.

The picture is a little clearer now. The CPOACAD isn't following the Commandant's Instruction. I hope they have been authorized to do the field test on these tension tapes.

I guess the instruction needs to be updated to allow indenting the skin for the CPOACAD to be following the promulgated instructions. I realize there is an ALCOAST concerning using the tension tapes, but if it's causing an indentation of the skin, the instruction needs to change.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, leave the AOs out of the equation...... if you send someone to a school, and they are determined to be overweight, the unit goes without until that person loses the weight and completes the school, or they fail to meet the weight and they're discharged.
How many times do you think that would actually happen before word spread and these units started to ensure people met their weight before reporting? Isn't that what we want anyway?
We have units that say they can't afford to lose their CPO for the 34 days, how much harder would they check to make sure that Chief's stay isn't long?

MC Isherwood, where/which area/ which units are those numbers from? Interesting read, I'd like to see the person on the weight program that earned a 7,...... they must be amazing.......

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

In addition ... I want to thank MCPO Thomas for explaining the process.

"...On the same page, there is a note that goes on to say if a member screens as overweight, his or her measurements may be verified. The CPO Academy does this, and utilizes a Seca scale (height only scale) to measure height, and then IAW 1020.8G, rounding to the nearest inch for MAW, and nearest half-inch for BF. Additionally, the frame size is verified. We use a tape measure with a tension meter on it to ensure a consistent 4 oz. pull. In our experience, these two measurements often vary significantly from those listed in DA (up to two inches less on height and two frame sizes on the wrist); this often results in a significant reduction of the student’s MAW....

...I don't set the policy; however, it is my duty to enforce it."

These discrepancies In our experience, these two measurements often vary significantly from those listed in DA (up to two inches less on height and two frame sizes on the wrist); this often results in a significant reduction of the student’s MAW. need reconcilation.

How many students were sent home based on this known inconsistency? I realize all we know is the one who was remeasured. How many others? And for the record, I'm sure there were some who were out of standards by any measuring. Gundecking the results is still uttering false official statements.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

What is a SECA scale? Is that like the one at my unit and the one at most Dr.'s offices that I have been to where there is a bar that you raise over your head and weights that slide? If so, why use the Tanita scale as well? I bet all those scales are expensive and I could use some of that $$$ at my unit. I bet my DC friends could get a damn accurate height measurement with a framing square, a tape measure and a wall for nowhere near the same price. In fact, with a little training, I bet even I, a lowly BM could figure it out. So why the fancy scale to do that? Especially if there are often major discrepancies with it. I am quite sure that those at the CPO Academy do a fine job, but I cannot be convinced that they are accurate 100% of the time. When we have humans doing this and using various scales, I think it is statistically impossible to get it right 100% of the time. I would venture to guess that just maybe this time they got caught and it is not just embarassing to the member.

[BMC Seth Tomas]

As for scales, we use the standard Dr's office style that most others are mentioning. The one with the slide weights that you can zero out and it combines the height measurement onto the same scale.

As for the tension tapes...I believe all units have and should be using these. We got ours shipped to us prior to the October weigh ins and have been using it since. I'm sure most other units use this also to ensure an accurate measurement is taken.

I do believe that the scales should be standardized. I weighed one thing at home and then something totally different on the CPOACAD scale, then returned to my "normal" weight once I got back home fom Petaluma. Who's is most accurate?

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I think you all need to read this:

http://cgchiefs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=37446#post37446

Retirement is W O N D E R F U L

Wray... :cool:

[BMCS Terrill Malvesti]

About the height measurement: This is where I feel things get tricky. After verifying a few of our member’s measurements during the October weigh-in I noticed that the member’s height in DA was not what we were seeing when we verified their measurements.

In fact we had one crewmember “grow” a half an inch.. Why? According to the member, when he was measured for height at his previous unit he was ‘told’ to stand up straight with his arms by his side and feet flat on the ground. When we verified his height we read the procedure word for word out of the manual. “Stand with feet together flat on the deck - take a deep breath, and stretch tall”. He grew a ½ inch.

We went one step further. We measured him using the procedure that his previous unit had used and he was 70” (which is concurred with what was in DA). Using the procedure from the manual he was 70.5”. You could clearly see the increase in height when he took the deep breath.

This just goes to show that units are measuring people differently. I think (as stated in this thread) that we are doing a disservice to our crews if we’re not using a standardized procedure.

[AMTCM John Long]

John, leave the AOs out of the equation...... if you send someone to a school, and they are determined to be overweight, the unit goes without until that person loses the weight and completes the school, or they fail to meet the weight and they're discharged.
How many times do you think that would actually happen before word spread and these units started to ensure people met their weight before reporting? Isn't that what we want anyway?
We have units that say they can't afford to lose their CPO for the 34 days, how much harder would they check to make sure that Chief's stay isn't long?

MC Isherwood, where/which area/ which units are those numbers from? Interesting read, I'd like to see the person on the weight program that earned a 7,...... they must be amazing.......

Stu,

With any solution, we have to look at the total impact. We can't cherry pick out those affected. The idea is to prevent the student from ever reaching the TRACEN in the first place. Hence, if the students/units shoot for above and beyond what is required, that should reduce those out of compliance fence riders from ever leaving the unit.

I would sum it up and say do not make the unit/member's problem the TRACEN's problem. The goal is to keep it and fix it at the unit, not the TRACEN. I'm sure they have better things to work on.

John

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

This just goes to show that units are measuring people differently. I think (as stated in this thread) that we are doing a disservice to our crews if we’re not using a standardized procedure.

I agree.

The CIM is straight forward in the methodology to use.

I will go one point further, the quarter-pound pull on the tension tape may not indent the skin on someone well within weight standards, but I certainly can imagine those pushing the envelope ... the quarter-pound pull will indent the skin.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

John, are you at E-City?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

I bet you dollars to dimes, that if you actually observed the processes you would have a much different perspective. Again, no one is infallible, my money remains on the accuracy of the CPOACAD.

Kevin,

Based on MCPO Thomas' admission and the discrepancies he has reported, you can pay on that bet.

I won't know the dime or dollar amount, but the next time you take MCPO Dave and Mary Isherwood out to dinner or drinks, buy them a drink on me. You can tell me the dimes and dollar conversion later.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Originally Posted by YNC Paulette Gough
This was just posted on the MCPOCG blog. It's from MCPO Thomas (Chief, CPO Academy) and it regards the way they do weight/bodyfat screening at CPO Academy:

"...On the same page, there is a note that goes on to say if a member screens as overweight, his or her measurements may be verified. The CPO Academy does this, and utilizes a Seca scale (height only scale) to measure height, and then IAW 1020.8G, rounding to the nearest inch for MAW, and nearest half-inch for BF. Additionally, the frame size is verified. We use a tape measure with a tension meter on it to ensure a consistent 4 oz. pull. In our experience, these two measurements often vary significantly from those listed in DA (up to two inches less on height and two frame sizes on the wrist); this often results in a significant reduction of the student’s MAW....

...I don't set the policy; however, it is my duty to enforce it."

I'm real interested in hearing opinions of Kevin, Bruce, and Stuart on what MCPO Thomas stated.

Just so everyone is clear, I am arguing one case ... where D17 and a D17 unit apparently followed the promulgated instructions and the CPOACAD did not. All other cases of those who returned should be judged on their own merits and not lumped into this one.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Stu,
Those are the enlisted #s for the entire CG, a snap shot taken in Jan09.

BMCS,
The standardized procedures are there unfortunately, the application of those standards vary from some units to others. If folks read and followed what was written in the manual we would have consistency throughout the service.

Joe,
I am not quite ready to pay up yet my friend. MCPO Thomas refers to discrepancies between the CPOACAD and what sometimes is written in DA. When someone is listed as 74” in DA then measured at 72”, what is the explanation? When someone’s wrist is recorded in DA as a size H then measured at a size F, what is the explanation? I suspect the YN hook-up not CPOACAD errors. I have a different perspective on where to shine the spotlight because I have seen all kinds of shenanigans over the past 5 years related to the weight program.

How about the YN3 that called me to report that 3 mbrs never stepped on the scale yet were recorded as within standards? They did their weigh-ins in the bar with another unit YN. When I asked that unit’s CO about his program, he assured me that it was rock solid!! I asked if he would have his XO personally weigh the 3 mbrs. The CO was kind of pissy about it but said he would let me know the results. The CO was even more agitated when he reported that each of the 3 were over weight (19, 23 and 25 lbs each). The CO was STUNNED and could not understand how these mbrs had each been recorded as compliant within the previous 14 days. I then shared with the CO that a little birdie told me that NONE had ever stepped on the scale he was furious!!

And two other things, 1) how come I have never found measurements loaded in DA that go “against” the mbr? I am not saying there are none, I just haven’t found any. 2) ¼ lb of pull is a ¼lb of pull. If the skin was indented by the tape…would that not go in the mbr’s favor? The indents of concern have been when the tape is excessively tightened to achieve a smaller reading not ¼ lb of tension. Next we will be discussing the definition of indent…come on we can spend our efforts better elsewhere!!

[AMTCM John Long]

John, are you at E-City?

Wray,

No...HQ, CG-711.

When I say TRACENS I'm implying a future servicewide (TRACENS that is) application of the idea I suggested for all students. I would advocate a one rule for all TRACEN's approach.....CPO Academy, New London, ATTC, ATC, OCS, Petaluma, Yorktown, etc.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

So 449, for the entire enlisted workforce? Hmmmm, seems a bit low when you look around. Also, some of those EERs could have come from one unit, and the person actually didn't get put on the program until they transferred, and that unit hasn't marked them yet.... as of Jan 09 anyway.....

John, I think you share the burden more by having the unit losing the member until they make weight. .... and the TRACEN gains a full time watchstander/groundskeeper somewhere.....

[CWO Keith Wilbee (DCCS)]

Wray,

I fell for your posted link. Down at the bottom is what keeps me from going into that room. I don't care to associate myself with anyone who does as much bashing as Bill Wells against us current CG Chiefs. Please don't waste my time like that any more. Anything that could have been useful is lost when I or my brothers and sisters are being bashed.

Now back to our regular discussion. Sry for the interuption.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Kevin states I am not quite ready to pay up yet my friend. MCPO Thomas refers to discrepancies between the CPOACAD and what sometimes is written in DA. When someone is listed as 74” in DA then measured at 72”, what is the explanation? When someone’s wrist is recorded in DA as a size H then measured at a size F, what is the explanation? I suspect the YN hook-up not CPOACAD errors. I have a different perspective on where to shine the spotlight because I have seen all kinds of shenanigans over the past 5 years related to the weight program.

How about the YN3 that called me to report that 3 mbrs never stepped on the scale yet were recorded as within standards? They did their weigh-ins in the bar with another unit YN. When I asked that unit’s CO about his program, he assured me that it was rock solid!! I asked if he would have his XO personally weigh the 3 mbrs. The CO was kind of pissy about it but said he would let me know the results. The CO was even more agitated when he reported that each of the 3 were over weight (19, 23 and 25 lbs each). The CO was STUNNED and could not understand how these mbrs had each been recorded as compliant within the previous 14 days. I then shared with the CO that a little birdie told me that NONE had ever stepped on the scale he was furious!!

And two other things, 1) how come I have never found measurements loaded in DA that go “against” the mbr? I am not saying there are none, I just haven’t found any. 2) ¼ lb of pull is a ¼lb of pull. If the skin was indented by the tape…would that not go in the mbr’s favor? The indents of concern have been when the tape is excessively tightened to achieve a smaller reading not ¼ lb of tension. Next we will be discussing the definition of indent…come on we can spend our efforts better elsewhere!!

Kevin,

You and I both can question things. My arguements are for a single case, not solving all the problems. Those discrepancies need to be investigated and if necessary, punitive actions taken. I would not take the CPOACAD as the final word because the instance I am arguing is but one aspect. All the ancillary failures of leadership are not addressed.

Let me remind you of the Facts in evidence:


Member stated I may have misspoken/typed. I was actually weighed in 3 seperate times over the past month. I have PCS orders that I received, then CPOA orders, and another check prior to departing for the CPOA. Each time I was above my MAW, but below on body fat @ 24% each time. Three seperate people did the measurements.
Deputy Command and Command Master Chief tapes returning CPO and finds them within standards
D17 Medical tapes CPO and finds the CPO within standards
Command and D17 medical arrive at the same numbers.
Member is 76 inches tall as measured by Command and D17 Medical
Member is 75.5 inches tall as measured by CPOACAD
Wrist measurement was consistent by ALCON - CPOACAD, Command, and D17 Medical
Neck measurement measures 18 inches by Command and D17 Medical
Neck measurement measures 17 3/8 inches by CPOACAD
Weight measurement was consistent by ALCON - CPOACAD, Command, and D17 Medical
Member admits only neck and height significantly changed. This implies the abdomen was essentially the same.
MCPO Thomas on MCPOCGs Blog "Before we begin the BF determination, we have the student step on a balance beam scale to crosscheck the weight they obtained from the Tanita scale. Page 2-7 of 1020.8G states that since wrist size and height do not change appreciably over time, it may not be necessary to re-measure a member’s height and frame size during each screening. On the same page, there is a note that goes on to say if a member screens as overweight, his or her measurements may be verified. The CPO Academy does this, and utilizes a Seca scale (height only scale) to measure height, and then IAW 1020.8G, rounding to the nearest inch for MAW, and nearest half-inch for BF. Additionally, the frame size is verified. We use a tape measure with a tension meter on it to ensure a consistent 4 oz. pull. In our experience, these two measurements often vary significantly from those listed in DA (up to two inches less on height and two frame sizes on the wrist); this often results in a significant reduction of the student’s MAW.

We then conduct the abdominal, neck, (and for women, buttocks) measurements. We have a minimum of two people verifying the proper placement of the tape and the measurements. Those conducting the taping are meticulous in their placement of the tape, following each step carefully in the manual. For example, for men, the abdominal circumference is measured with the tape across the navel, level to the deck, and with the member's arms at their sides; the measurement is then taken at the end of a normal, relaxed, exhalation. NOT taking this critical measurement at the end of the normal, relaxed, exhalation WILL result in a false reading and incorrect body fat calculation (in my opinion, this is the number one reason for different measurements between the CPO Academy and the field). Once the numbers are obtained, we utilize the charts in 1020.8G to determine BF, and make a status determination.

By the manual, anyone executing TDY orders MUST be in compliance; however, for anyone found not in compliance upon reporting, they can be retained if their probationary period would not exceed the course length (following the accepted weight/BF loss of 1 lb per week and 1% per month). Since the CPO Academy is approx 5 weeks, 1020.8G allows us to retain students that are no more than 5 lbs and/or 1 % BF in excess. Anyone exceeding those numbers must be returned to their unit. I don't set the policy; however, it is my duty to enforce it."

Public statement by Stuart saying about the CPOACAD ... They put the line in the sand at 5 pounds or 1% body fat.
Member admits to being 22-24% body fat and 8 lbs over MAW using D17 numbers and 12 lbs over MAW using CPOACAD numbers


Kevin states ¼ lb of pull is a ¼lb of pull. If the skin was indented by the tape…would that not go in the mbr’s favor?

No. It is however a logical assumption that a quarter pound pull would effect the neck and the abdomen the same. The member stated the tensioned measurement and tailor tape measurement for the abdomen was "essentially" the same so the abdomen was a constant. It would be interesting to see the exact numbers.

According to CIM 1020.8G Circumference Value = abdomen circumference – neck circumference
A decrease in neck size increases the Circumference Value. The fact that the abdomen remained constant illustrates the 4 oz pull doesn't affect the abdmomen the way it affects the neck.

The promulgated instruction clearly states you do not indent the skin. I don't care if it's a quarter ounce pull, if the skin is indented, it violates the promulgated instruction.

I also believe every discrepancy should be investigated. The errors will be anywhere from incompetence on the part of the measurer to fraudulent behavior.

I'm not ready, nor willing, to call for reduction in rate or any other punitive action because the CPOACAD's numbers haven't passed an independent replication test. The tailor's tape certainly has been replicated in this case. Right now I trust the CPOACAD's tension tape measurement for wrists and abdomens from the facts in evidence.

If the chart was made for no indentation, then any tension device that indents should not be used.

I concluded the CPO in question is under 30 years old with a abdomen measurement of 42. That allows the maximum of 23% body fat.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

John, ok, I give up.. what is "CG-711" ?

The old staff symbols were much easier to understand..


Wray.. :cool:

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

John, ok, I give up.. what is "CG-711" ?

The old staff symbols were much easier to understand..


Wray.. :cool:


CG-711 Office of Aviation Forces in the Response Directorate. John is listed as the Aviation Training Program Manager

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Thanks Joe....

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Two pieces of information for general consumption.

First a quick preview of the CPOACAD website produced this. http://www.uscg.mil/petaluma/cpoa/Video/weighin.wmv Careful it's a BIG file.

And the other.., I have attached the instructions for the authorized tension tape measure.
Enjoy

[AMTCM John Long]

CG-711 Office of Aviation Forces in the Response Directorate. John is listed as the Aviation Training Program Manager


Thanks Joe....couldn't have said it better than myself.


However I prefer Enlisted Aircrew Program Manager. I found out the first week I was in HQ why I have to put "Enlisted...." in there. Someone (O type)tried to hand off some pilot training on me. Luckily I had another MCPO front load me about that possibility of getting someone else's projects "given" to me like that. I politely declined his generious offer. Enlisted also lines up with the AWR (Aviation Workforce Restructuring) study that created the job.

Sorry for the digress.....back on topic....

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Kevin,

I'm at 30% on the download of the video. I did review the tensiontape file. I am curious though, was that 3 inch foam rubber?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Kevin,

The first viewing showed a very good presentation. The intention of the video is very clear, to illustrate the correct way to conduct Weight and body fat assessments as outlined in the manual.

Weight Assessment

At two minutes and twenty-two seconds into the video, they make a wrist measurement. I may be suffering from parallex, but it appears the lower portion of the tape is indenting the skin. This becomes critical at the break-points of the body frame size. From the tape, the member in the video could be under 7 inches. Remember, there is no rounding of the wrist measurement.

The wrist is the exact measurement. 7.2.1 chart shows an error here changes the MAW by four pounds, except in the 7.25 to 7.5 range where it's only three pounds. There must be a story with that little quirk.

Body Fat Assessment

At five minutes and thirty-two seconds into the tape, the tension tape indents the skin when the member was having their neck measured.

At six minutes and eleven seconds, the tension tape indents the abdomenal area when using the tension tape. Also noted the tape wasn't parallel to the deck and had a slight angle.

From the instruction, Note: In cases where a member is subject to separation, visual verification of measurements shall be completed by a member of the command cadre (i.e. CO, XO, OIC, XPO, CMC). Should a command cadre member be present when the CPOACAD is seperating the member from the school. Should not the same standard be applied whenever punitive actions are applicable.

In the answer section of that video, at nine minutes and thirty-one seconds, it states Height is rounded down to the nearest half-inch. That is a false statement as 2.3.2.3 states Measure height to the nearest half-inch. Example, record 60.25 as 60.5. There is a world of difference between rounding and rounding down.

Sending someone home from the CPOACAD is a punitive measure, especially if the member was within the standards prior to going. Now, if the unit falsified the DA entry, the Command should be held accountable. At the very minimum, a negative entry should be made into the CO/OinC's evaluations and whoever did the actual measurements/data entry. It could escalate to a full fledge courts martial as it is uttering false offical statements.

It's apparent that a quarter-pound pull does indent the skin. The CIM needs to be changed if they are going to use tension tapes.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Joe,
You gotta find something to do ;-)

Weight Assessment
I can’t answer for the quirk in the table. Remember my earlier comment regarding the “definition” of indent. The intent is for those measuring not to reef so hard on the tape that the tape appreciably sinks in. Also, the manual was written prior to the advent of the tension tape. An updated manual is in the works, if you note problems with the current manual. Send me your thoughts and I will get them considered.

BF Assessment
Again, the instruction was before the tension tape. The camera angle might make it appear unlevel?

Instruction
There is a huge difference between separation and being sent home. However, there are two CMCs at the CPOACAD.

Rounding down,
I thought they were referring to the specific measurement # attained not always.

Sending Them Home
You and I may have to agree that we might never agree on where the real issue lies.

Again, if you have feedback for the new instruction I am willing to consider it with my review of the manual.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

You gotta find something to do ;-)

Kevin,

I have things to do. Between preparing taxes professionally, the American Legion, two other forums and here, my one irradiated brain cell is working just fine.

My whole discussion is about the inconsistency between the CPOACAD and the unit. Not every fault lies at the unit.

Accountability is grand, but, until they do an investigation of the discrepancy between the CPOACAD and Unit, there will never be reconcillation of the differences, nor assignment of fault. I will agree with you that the CPOACAD probably is doing it the best. The only blemish is the rounding. If they round down where they should round, that tarnishes the arguement they are doing it right.

It's easy to confuse the issue as some measurements round up, some round, and some round down.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

And then there were two ;-)

Joe,
Sound like a full boat to me, thanks for remaining involved in all that you do. You truly are one of the 10 percenters!! My Dad confirms that too, he passes along his regards.

I agree 100% with you (there… I said it) regarding the rounding up or rounding down differences. Pretty sure though, that if you read and follow the manual each side will be close. For me, if I were that close, I would Chief up and have my orders canceled long before I got sent back.

I follow the same routine every morning which includes weighing myself. My weight fluxuates between 5- 9 pounds during the week, I attribute this to hydration levels and consumption choices. I have never been measured so I do not know if there is swing in those #s too. I don’t obsess over the issue so I have never kept a consumption, exercise and environment log, it might be interesting for someone to do that though. The more detailed the better. If you eat a high salt content meal and drink lots of water, you just may weigh more in the morning.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Pretty sure though, that if you read and follow the manual each side will be close.

Normally I would agree, but we have this one instance here where the discrepancies were highlighted.

I would caution you that using a tension tape on someone with a higher body fat, the chances if indentation either on the neck or abdomen increases. That seems logical to me as fat is more plyable then muscle. Commandant has decided that indenting the skin is not allowed. We should at least follow what the four star wants.

I did find it interesting, that two previous CI's on maximum allowable weight were in the 6000 SSIC (Medical). Bill Wells has kindly posted them in pdf format in "The Room". They might provide you with some insight and background as your input is welcomed by the "Stars".

Every year when I went to the CGA to teach at the Loran-C Engineering course, a visit with your dad was always on the agenda.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Joe,
I don't know that my input is always welcome :D When I get a chance I will re-read the tension tape msg. I know you are aware that msgs sometimes change COMDTINSTs until the manuals are updated.

It is most likely true that the tape will more easily sink into fat. However, if EVERYONE is sinking the tape into the fat at a 1/4 # of pull we should be good to go. Yes...?

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

However, if EVERYONE is sinking the tape into the fat at a 1/4 # of pull we should be good to go. Yes...?

Kevin,

That does seem logical. It would be better to have some emperical data to correlate the numbers as measured with and without a tension tape.

This is where one time, those literally on the high end of the scale would be useful. I would go as far to say the higher the BF the further the indentation at a quarter-pound tension.

Even the three-inch square foam was indented with a quarter pound tension.

I agree messages (CNs) can and have changed CIs and CIMs. Every one I've ever saw clearly identified where to make the pen and ink corrections. With the advent of word processors, CNs changing a CIM or CI is outdated. All it would take is a message stating CIM xxxxx.x is changed. Download and comply with the new Instruction.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

I have the fool proof, indisputable measure of unhealthy BF but, no one wants to sign up for it.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Is it the autopsy?

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Yes, it is. Have you ever seen the gobs of fat scraped from organs?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

No I haven't, but I can understand why people aren't in a hurry to sign up for that plan.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Kevin,

Hydrostatic measurements are considered the best BF indicators. How does hydrostatic compare to the tension tape and the tailor's tape? All it would take is 30 samples to be statistically significant.

If there was a report comparing the three, it would shed some light on this topic.

I would recommend doing a blind test ... where the names of the individuals were not revealed.

[CMC Kevin Isherwood]

Joe,
Water tank "may" be the best method if you can get it. A note of caution for those that want to try it. First, outside of the water you blow out all the air in your lungs, the volume is measured. Next you sit in a sling under water, blow all the air out of your lungs, the volume is measured and wait 20 more seconds for the weight measurement. Two things to keep in mind, most people don't do well under water after blowing out all of their air, something about the survival instinct. And, every bit of the air that you involuntarily retained to "stay alive" will make you lighter under water ultimately counting against you.<O:p</O:p

[HSC Chris Fly]

Also, don't forget that using an "alternative" method of BF measurement, if approved by HQ, lowers your max allowable BF%....

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Chris,

I proposed justaposing the data from all three types of measurements in a blind test to have some emperical data on the accuracy of the preferred measurements used by the CG.

If the tailor tape error was greater than the tension tape, then arguments concerning the skin indentation becomes moot. Skin indentation violates the promulgated Commandant Instruction. It's been illustrated, at the CPOACAD, that the tension tape indents the skin. It's also been illustrated, by the CPOACAD, that they may be rounding down when they should be rounding.

You need to a common reference when comparing the two. Right now you have the CPOACAD sending people home.

Transparency is the name of the game here. Show me the figures. The tale of the two tapes with respect to hydrostatic testing would settle this in my mind. It only takes 30 people above their MAW for a blind test. They don't have to approach the high end of the BF calculations, well, maybe less than 5% of the max would be better.

[BMC Gene Daigle]

I know the policy but don't know the reasoning behind why using an "alternative means" to determine BF% has a much more strict threshold. Is the ultimate goal to find an accurate way of finding BF%? Why would being taped at 26% BF be any different if you were allowed the hydrostatic testing and being at 24% BF but then still considered outside of regs if you are over 30 yo and under 40yo? Look at the top of the chart when finding a members body fat. What does it say? "Estimated body fat".

Think about this. What do you think the percentage of people who are on the "Big Person" Program or should be on the program that can't pass the full battery of a PFT for their respective age group? I bet that number would be a pretty high percentage. Should the focus be on health and well-being, and making everyone from the Commandant to the new person out of boot camp have to pass the PFT on a regular basis and is tracked in TMT and not just those members who have boat crew, flight crew and LE type certifications? Is the goal we are setting is looking good in a uniform or being able to do the job?

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Is the goal we are setting is looking good in a uniform or being able to do the job?

It has nothing to do with being able to do your job, it totally appearance driven.

[PAC Sarah Foster]

As I asses it, based on MC Bradley's input, the priorities are:
(1) Appearance: exemplifying the integrity of the uniform
(2) Fit for Duty
(3) Health and well being

But the order of having to accomplish the list is in the reverse, because:
(1) if you are healthy, then,
(2) you are fit for duty, then
(3) you will appear good in uniform

There are arguments against this formula because you can have unhealthy people look good in uniform, but in reality, they carry the uniform well despite their being unhealthy. And you can have healthy-appearing people look crappy in uniform because they don't carry it well.

About ten years ago, I heard one Marine slam another who was slightly pudgy (that, he is was starting to grow love handles due to his late night imbibing), when he pointed to his gut, exclaiming: "Look at yourself-you are out of uniform!"

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

PAC, I wasn't trying to justify or agree with the intent of the policy, just make a point as to what it really is. Does it need work, Hell Yes.

[PAC Sarah Foster]

MC-I agree, the policy is what it is. To oversimplify the gist of my reply, a few of us see it as looking good in uniform is part of the job.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Well...5 more were sent home for being overweight.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

So are we patting ourselves on the back since its closer to 0 than that class that had 9?

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Except that the 5 is an upward trend from the last couple of classes.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Aren't the commands responsible for weighing these people before they execute their orders?

Seems like a waste of our taxpayer money.. of course that is not even a drop in the bucket...

Wray... :cool:

[AMTCM John Long]

Kevin sent out an email on this. He noted and I agree with him, it is not even 30 days since the end of normal weighin month (April 30th) and folks were over. Some were not even close.:confused:

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Ok, the e-mail got sent out.. but will anyone do anything about it?

Wray... :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Not to split hairs, but three others were close,.... close enough that they were allowed to stay for the course. So in reality, one month after the semi-annual weigh-ins, we had 8 CPOs show up for the course overweight. The silver lining here is that now everyone knows that the CPOACAD isn't playing, and this will never happen again.

[AMTCM John Long]

Not to split hairs, but three others were close,.... close enough that they were allowed to stay for the course. So in reality, one month after the semi-annual weigh-ins, we had 8 CPOs show up for the course overweight. The silver lining here is that now everyone knows that the CPOACAD isn't playing, and this will never happen again.

Stu,

It wasn't even one month. We're talking weeks.

John

[ASTCS Ronny German]

The silver lining here is that now everyone knows that the CPOACAD isn't playing, and this will never happen again.

I'm a glass is half full kind of guy as well, but the CPO Academy has been sending back overweight Chiefs for a long time now.....and they keep showing up.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

The silver lining here is that now everyone knows that the CPOACAD isn't playing, and this will never happen again.

Till the next time .....

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

There is no "silver lining" here...

I'd bet at least 2 will either go home or be "no shows" for the next class due to weight issues. Does anyone get to see the "no shows"?

In my opinion, this is an issue that won't go away.

Wray... :cool:

[PAC Sarah Foster]

Gents, if I may offer my alternative or rather radical point of view here:

The CMC's mass message also pointed out that we must address issues as we see it.

Aside from the member's personal responsibility to be within standards, we as chiefs need to be mindful do our part, to set our peers aside, tell or ask them what the problem may be, then be what you can be- supportive, realistic and tactfully direct. This isn't easy, but is all within our ability to execute and it may mean getting professional help or setting aside considerable amount of time to work with the member(s).

Even if staying healthy can be a struggle due to medical, aging and challenges to coping skills, it is critical that we intervene, not meddle, before these issues snowball into what we have how. Look at it this way, this isn't now about pointing fingers and saying "he or she has a problem," it is now OUR PROBLEM in the mess.

If I may re-emphasize and summarize: if it looks like a problem or going to be a problem, fix it before it worsens and becomes a national embarrassment.

[BMC Nicholas George]

Gents, if I may offer my alternative or rather radical point of view here:

The CMC's mass message also pointed out that we must address issues as we see it.

Aside from the member's personal responsibility to be within standards, we as chiefs need to be mindful do our part, to set our peers aside, tell or ask them what the problem may be, then be what you can be- supportive, realistic and tactfully direct. This isn't easy, but is all within our ability to execute and it may mean getting professional help or setting aside considerable amount of time to work with the member(s).

Even if staying healthy can be a struggle due to medical, aging and challenges to coping skills, it is critical that we intervene, not meddle, before these issues snowball into what we have how. Look at it this way, this isn't now about pointing fingers and saying "he or she has a problem," it is now OUR PROBLEM in the mess.

If I may re-emphasize and summarize: if it looks like a problem or going to be a problem, fix it before it worsens and becomes a national embarrassment.


...as Chiefs we are held to a higher standard! As Chiefs we should hold ourselves to a higher standard! There is NO excuse for reporting to the Academy overweight.

We can get wrapped around the axle on the "why's" and "whose fault it is" or who bears the responsibility, but at the end of the day its the Chief who is reporting over weight, Its the Chief that doesnt bother cracking the manual to see whethor or not he/she is compliant....

[PAC Sarah Foster]

Nick- I agree- it is the Chiefs who should be held to the higher standards. It is also the Chiefs who are in the business problem-solving- theirs and others. Remember the leadership competencies-
leading self/leading others, etc.

I also agree there are no excuses and my original post, as I edited it, did include no enabling or criticizing of the policy (ouch!). Between the lines my feeble effort is to briefly communicate where our peers may fall off the wagon in this issue, but ultimately this has become a collective problem of the mess, or we wouldn't be having an active dialogue.

However, there may be nothing to hold each of us to an ethical standard of problem solving or helping each other. We can again, simply point fingers and say - "You're on your own, buddy- your problem, not mine." After all, the legwork is the member's efforts, not anyone else's.

To clarify, I'm not taking about a bailout here, I'm talking about support and placing the member(s) in a mindset to help themselves even if it hurts.

[BMC Nicholas George]

Remember the leadership competencies-
leading self/leading others, etc.



Yes Sarah... I remember, I sat in CPOA class with you for five weeks. Don't patronize me.

"leading self/ leading others" to me means leading by example, as it applies to this subject, leading by example is showing up to CPO Academy fit for full duty and not wasting peoples time, effort, and money.

I fully support helping out a fellow Chief.... but you can lead horse to water...

[MSTC Steve Natale]

I fully support helping out a fellow Chief.... but you can lead horse to water...

Just like, "you can lead a Chief to a treadmill, but you cant make 'em run":D

[PAC Sarah Foster]

I appreciate the discussion here and would rather not be in a position to judge my peers who have fallen off the wagon. I also appreciate our opposing viewpoints as excellent platforms for healthy debate- that what makes us Chiefs.

For whatever it's worth and not to diminish anyone's feedback here, we can fall back to the frustrations of simply dismissing our thankless efforts by "leading horse to water...leading chunky chiefs to treadmill," or we can be the problem solvers our anchors deem us to be- it doesn't mean we'll be successful, it means we put in the effort. Ideally, everyone should be compliant, but the reality shows otherwise.

We already know it but it does bear repeating, I'm pointing out the CMC's mandate to be vigilant among our own- ourselves and our peers. We can judge and argue all we want, but we as a Mess (including those who don't have weight problems) are being asked to be proactive and do our part to avoid these issues at the Academy.

The challenge to each of us here is- what are you, me and everyone else doing (not saying) about it? If it does mean leading to the treadmill or what whatever contraption more than once, then it will be what it takes, then you've put in your effort.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

We already know it but it does bear repeating, I'm pointing out the CMC's mandate to be vigilant among our own- ourselves and our peers. We can judge and argue all we want, but we as a Mess (including those who don't have weight problems) are being asked to be proactive and do our part to avoid these issues at the Academy.

No Chief, I believe that our mandate (as you put it) was to work towards overcoming these issues everywhere.

[PAC Sarah Foster]

No Chief, I believe that our mandate (as you put it) was to work towards overcoming these issues everywhere.

MC- Enjoying the healthy debate here. 'Yup, solving issues begins in our backyard-and not only at the Academy. I'd like to think that we take every additional "mandate" seriously enough to take action.

I can get into a tirade- shoulda- coulda- woulda or I can risk being bashed for confronting my peers, superiors, subordinates by spending time, energy and thankless frustration to help them work out their issues. Perhaps it's not exactly the solution anyone wants to do, hear or take from me, but- however anyone sees it, I'm just one of many who are working toward overcoming this recurring issue.

[BMC Nicholas George]

I'm sorry.... i just can't get past your "holier than thou" attitude...

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Being an old retired guy, I'd say the real issues here are....

Responsibility
&
Accountability

It's just that simple...

Wray.... :cool:

[PAC Sarah Foster]

Wray- as an old boss also expressed, this could be an ability vs. willingness issue as well.

Nick- Sorry as well - I don't know you and it's unfortunate my alternative viewpoint may or do rub you the wrong way. I hope you agree we share an interest in supporting this forum for the benefit of Chiefs.

Bash me if you will for being a stick in the mud, but I don't subscribe to offering up same old cliches when our leadership asks for our active support as a mess. It hasn't worked, and as I see it, we are hurling down the slippery slope of self-preservation instead of setting up each other for excellence and success.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Wray- as an old boss also expressed, this could be an ability vs. willingness issue as well.

Sarah, those are two interesting words...

Ability --- power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc.

Willingness -- disposed or consenting; inclined

I would say 99% of the people have the ability to maitain a proper weight & body fat...

Being willing to change a lifestyle to do this usually doesn't rate as high, or there wouldn't be as many issues as there are.

However, since maintaining the proper weight is now a necessity (something necessary or indispensable) and condition of employment I would think many would be more willing to demonstrate the necessary ability to get it accomplished. Ya think?

Wray... :cool:

[HSC Chris Fly]

I would say 99% of the people have the ability to maitain a proper weight & body fat...

Being willing to change a lifestyle to do this usually doesn't rate as high, or there wouldn't be as many issues as there are.


exactly! My take is nothing will change until COs start getting held accountable for thier people... Once we start doing a message that states the person who was sent back AND their CO's name, then we might start seeing a change...

It's rediculous that there were 5 people sent back RIGHT after weigh ins... I'll say it again, having been weighed and measured at the Academy I'm certain it's not the Academy doing it wrong...

Easiest solution is for any Chief that has orders to the Academy to get weighed/measured by their XO/CO before they leave... that way the buck stops there!

Just a thought...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

There's no reason for anyone to be on the weight program in the CG. If you honestly can't help being that heavy, a doctor would have signed off on the medical reason and the member wouldn't go on.

It's all about willingness...... willingness to let themselves go, willingness on the part of others to look the other way, willingness to make excuses,......

These things continue to happen because we continue to allow them to happen. It's time we admitted that we don't really care enough to enforce this policy and move on.
You can't even say let's just hold people accountable to their own health. If your weight issues and weight related health issues prevent you from doing your job,....then we'll hold you accountable,.... yeah right.

These things happen because we have allowed them to happen. Stop making uniforms for these people to fit into. Take it out of the hands of individuals, you no longer fit into uniform, thanks for playing, time to go home.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Stu, I'll agree.. "It's all about willingness......" But, like I said it is accountability... If the CG were to start firing people with 10-15 years of service, or not let them continue regardless of years of service (usually the senior people, both enlisted & officers) things might be taken more seriously.

As it is now, many think they can (& will) BS their way out of it...

As for the accountability.. that is something many commands (not just individuals) fail to do...

Wray... :cool: