Still? Are we still sending people home for weight issues?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I know some of you might find this hard to believe, but apparently the CPOACAD is weighing people in when you show up and if you're overweight they send you home. This is obviously news to some. Here are the latest numbers, and there are no typos in the text.

Three Chiefs were sent home from the CPOACAD on Sunday for exceeding both MAW and BF. The specifics for the three Chiefs are; 50 lbs / 3%, 23 lbs / 4%, 23 lbs / 3%. According to the paper work, all three were weighed within the past 30 days. Unfortunately, none of the weigh-ins had been properly documented as required in DA. The last data entry for all three was Oct09.

The good news... an additional 25 Chiefs were taped; 10 were at their BF (this could have been disastrous)
4 were 1% under
2 were 2% under
2 were 4% under
1 was 5% under
2 were 6% under
1 was over by 1% and has been placed on probation

Lately, we have had a lot of CPOACAD cancellations within 10 days of class convening. The vast majority of those cancellations have been for non-compliance with weight/BF standards. As a point of awareness, when requesting to cnx, be prepared to answer some questions;
** Was the mbr compliant during the last semi-annual weigh-in? (provide stats)
** Is the mbr on probation?
** Are you proactively engaged in ensuring that the Chief is progressing?
** Did you weigh/measure the mbr when they rcvd orders? (is it in DA)
** Did you weigh/measure the mbr as required within 30 days of reporting? (is it in DA)

Seriously, how can this still be happening? People at their max BF at least have to appear husky, once you're 3 or 4 % beyond that, eyebrows have to be raised. Hasn't this been discussed enough that people have gotten the message?

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Its still happening becuase no one is holding anyone accountable for not doing the weigh-ins as directed. It wont change until we hold the commands accountable for not conducting the weigh-in IAW written requirements! People are still getting transferred TAD and PCS over thier MAW weight.

I weighed two people today that PCS out in May and June. Why? Because they both look like they may not meet weight. Plus they get weighed next month!

[ETCS John Zidek]

The specifics for the three Chiefs are; 50 lbs / 3%, 23 lbs / 4%, 23 lbs / 3%.

I just looked thru the manual to confirm the numbers, and if the member is more than 35 lbs AND 8% it's an automate ticket to civilian living.

Like you said MC this shouldn't have been a big surprise and I would think that 50lbs and 3% would be pretty obvious when you look in the mirror.

Unless these folks are living in the "Not Me" world where they think the Academy will just let them slide by.

I am so tired of these people not using any self accountability, period, not just when we are talking about lost seats.

Wake up people, You are grown a$$ men and women and you are making the rest of the Chiefs Corps look horrible. How can you hold your people accountable to the standard everyday (or for some folks twice a year, since obviously these people are invisible the rest of the year) and not see the same issues when your anchors are staring back from the mirror?

It's a life changing need and not just a Sept and Mar event.

It kills me to see the junior guys busting their butts to stay healthy and /or become compliant and then see the 7 and above just shoving more donuts down and not showing the same amount of dedication. Guess what, The time is coming, there are a lot of hungry E6 and below just waiting for the policies to be enforced and they will be more than happy to put your anchors on their collars. And with the level of fitness and drive to be fit these new guys are showing up with Cape May must have the Steve Austin mentality there. They are building them bigger, stronger and faster :D

my .02

"Z"

[MKCM Brett Ayer]

Like you said MC this shouldn't have been a big surprise and I would think that 50lbs and 3% would be pretty obvious when you look in the mirror.

I am not so sure. If you look at the charts, 3% is easily within the realm of error. For example if you are 35 your max body fat % is 24, and your height is 71 inches.

If you change the height 1/2 inch down, and up the waist by 1 inch and lower the neck by 1 inch you have a 3% change on the chart. Actually, that could be an 1/8 of an inch in height and .6 in waist and neck.

I am not making excuses for these people, if you have orders to the CPO Academy; you should work to be well below your body fat before you go (as you should be all the time).

However, we have a lack of consistent training and equipment in the field and I have seen people that were told one day they were not in compliance and the next day re-checked by another person and told they were in compliance, all because of small changes in the measurements. I have been told in the last year that I am 73”, 74” and 75” tall all by different people doing the measuring using different equipment.

The 3% could fall with in this area. Now the ones that are 4% or more over make me start to wonder. As far as the weight is concerned, I know some stocky short folks that can easily bust the 50 lbs. mark on BMI and are not over body fat. Short and wide blows up BMI every time.

My point is only that I do not believe anyone is sending Chief’s to the academy that they know are over body fat. Then the question that comes to mind is “if you believe that people are trying to get it right, but they’re not, what do you do”?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Brett, it's hard to make the arguement that these people were weighed or taped correctly if it wasn't documented correctly. Again, the last entry into DA was back in Oct 09 for them. You can't say that they're trying to get it right if they didn't take the time to put it in DA.
I'd question your height and how they're doing it, but it could also come down to how and where you're standing. Missing someone's neck measurements is a whole other issue.
And again, when someone is 50lbs over their BMI, maybe you should get a second person in there for the taping, before you fly the person across the country.
That same class had people over their BMI and 6% under their body fat. I get that you can be well over your BMI and still meet the Coast Guard Standard. Three of those people weren't even close. Those people over their BF% aren't short and stocky. They aren't big boned. They aren't pleasantly plump. They are obese.

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

Parts of your first post looks extremely familiar...almost as though I have seen parts of it recently in an email I have in my inbox???;)

Another E9 and I have swapped a couple of lengthy emails back and forth about this same topic the last two days. I thought a valid point was made.....under the BMI, the member's weight is just a screening for the BF. Saying someone is 1lb or 75lbs over just means they need to be taped. Other than that, the weight has no other purpose under this program.

John

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

It's a shame we can't do more like the Army does with their Sergeants Major Academy. The SMA is mandatory for E-9's, and if you are sent home for any reason outside of medical (broken legs, etc), you LOSE your E-9, and it's documented in such a way that you won't be seeing it again.

How long will the Chief's Academy be toyed with? How long will it be before it is actually MANDATED to keep the anchors?

I think they should have their Day-One weigh ins, and then have a mandatory all-hands - and take the anchors from the fatties and send them home as First Classes.

This messing around with this stuff just makes me sick.

[BMC Scott Adler]

Its still happening becuase no one is holding anyone accountable for not doing the weigh-ins as directed. It wont change until we hold the commands accountable for not conducting the weigh-in IAW written requirements! People are still getting transferred TAD and PCS over thier MAW weight.

I weighed two people today that PCS out in May and June. Why? Because they both look like they may not meet weight. Plus they get weighed next month!

Burt, I agree with holding the commands accountable..However, I do take offense when my Sector shows up for the weigh in to "observe". In fact it pisses me off that the Brass does not trust a Master Chief and Chief to do the job correctly.
We cant blanketly punish all units for the few who are not entering the info correctly.

An interesting follow up to this is the one time Sector came to "help", they royally screwed up our entries, lost paperwork, and caused me double the work.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, it's almost like we're on the same banglist somewhere. The BMI standard and weight still tells us something when you figure that someone 50lbs over their BMI means they are weighing almost 1/3 more than what a healthy body weight should be.
We're also kind to say that someone is 3% over the BF, instead of stating that their BF is 29%. It really doesn't sound bad when you're saying someone is 1% over or 2% over. Someone 2% over only missed the ability to stay on a probationary status by 1%. We're caught up in a cycle of making excusing or justifying bad behaviour. The bottom line is, people shouldn't be dancing on that line. Again, what kind of marks are these people getting in health and well being? Are we rewarding people because they meet the minimum standard?

Scott, I wish we started acknowledging where these people are being sent from. I for one wouldn't mind if the Sector was looking over my shoulder when we weighed people in. I would like to know who is looking over the Sector's should though. If they are going to send someone here to tape us, I should be able to tell if that person meets the standard by sight alone. Three of my guys shouldn't be able to find shade in their shadow.

[AMTCM John Long]

John, it's almost like we're on the same banglist somewhere. The BMI standard and weight still tells us something when you figure that someone 50lbs over their BMI means they are weighing almost 1/3 more than what a healthy body weight should be.
We're also kind to say that someone is 3% over the BF, instead of stating that their BF is 29%. It really doesn't sound bad when you're saying someone is 1% over or 2% over. Someone 2% over only missed the ability to stay on a probationary status by 1%. We're caught up in a cycle of making excusing or justifying bad behaviour. The bottom line is, people shouldn't be dancing on that line. Again, what kind of marks are these people getting in health and well being? Are we rewarding people because they meet the minimum standard?

Stu,

I'd caution on using the current system to define for us what is healthy and what isn't. There is "neccessary fat" and "unncessary fat" and that varies by frame construction, metabolism, etc. My officemate and I were taking about that this week. He is over the CG's BMI weight (I think he said something like 16 or 20lbs??). His body fat is in the single digits. On what I have read, if he gets much lower he could be considered under fat and in an "unhealthy" range. The guy is built like a brickhouse and resembles one of the guys you see on the bodybuilding mags....thick neck, huge biceps, legs, narrow waist, etc. Ironically, if we went to a true "tape only" system to define what is "healthy" BF, he could be in a position of having to put fat back on to enter a "healthy BF window". The current system only focuses on the upper end to define health and not the lower end. To steal Gerald's way of thought, we assume the "skinny's" are good to go on "health". To submit a balanced perspective......why don't we send the "skinny's" home from the Academy? I'll tell you....there is a presumption of health and fitness with being thin. We all know that is not true.

Aside from all the rambling....I'm sensing we're getting to the point of lost focus and using the weight program as a litmus test to define an individual's overall health, abilities and performance. It's only one dimension. IMO....from what I'm sensing, we're slipping into a halo effect? I mentioned this before on here and I'll do it again.....I'm in the camp of using the already established PT assessments as a measurement of health and performance.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, I've mentioned this before, and I'll say it again, our current PT standards are a poor assessment of health and performance.

The body does need fat. No man's body needs a percentage in the high 20s.

We don't send skinny people home because we don't have a standard for skinny people. We do have a standard for fat people. It is unfortunate that it takes a trip out to Petaluma to discovery who doesn't meet that standard.

[AMTCM John Long]

John, I've mentioned this before, and I'll say it again, our current PT standards are a poor assessment of health and performance.

The body does need fat. No man's body needs a percentage in the high 20s.

We don't send skinny people home because we don't have a standard for skinny people. We do have a standard for fat people. It is unfortunate that it takes a trip out to Petaluma to discovery who doesn't meet that standard.

Stu,

I agree with most of what you said. I would add that regardless of where one's BF number is, we can't use it a stand alone health indicator. I would add that our PHA's should ID any issues via the standard BP and blood testing. In my opinion, if a member's PHA test results do not indicate any high risk problems (High BP, cholesterol, etc), a reasonable BF is irrelavant in that regards. Regardless of the BF number, I suggest each person's system runs differently. Some could have healthy test results at 15% BF, some could have healthy test results at 26%....of course the converse would be true also.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, no one is saying BF alone is an indicator to state someone is healthy, the opposite is still true. No one can honestly claim that someone carrying around more than 26% BF is healthy. Find a doctor that is willing to state that high of a BF% is healthy. It's like smoking. You can find smokers who are in great shape and are currently very healthy. Smoking is still bad for your health.
And the member's health is only one factor in our weight standards,..... a standard these people aren't meeting, and probably haven't met in a long time.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I hear ya Scott! I notice we dont have anyone coming this go around!

[AMTCM John Long]

John, no one is saying BF alone is an indicator to state someone is healthy, the opposite is still true. No one can honestly claim that someone carrying around more than 26% BF is healthy. Find a doctor that is willing to state that high of a BF% is healthy. It's like smoking. You can find smokers who are in great shape and are currently very healthy. Smoking is still bad for your health.
And the member's health is only one factor in our weight standards,..... a standard these people aren't meeting, and probably haven't met in a long time.



Stu,

In the eyes of the CG, 27% was once acceptable. Other than raising the bar, nothing has changed. I wouldn't make a claim either way on who is/isn't healthy/fit without secondary indicators. Too many variables involved to make a blanket statement like that.

John

[BMC Matthew James]

Along the accountablilty line, consider this one:

The PCPO's (half of them) popped into my unit this morning. We were talking about this year's theme and I asked a reserve YNC what she thought it meant to "Lead with Chrarcter". She had some trouble articulating so I gave her a scenario:

"It's weigh-in day. I come in, step on the scale and am two pounds over. What would you do next?" She told me to go home, fast, work out and come back in the morning.

That is the accountability problem in a nutshell.

MJ

[BMC Nicholas George]

I hear ya Scott! I notice we dont have anyone coming this go around!

Burt, I tried to tell'em it was a bad idea! They wanted to make it part of the RFO!

[BMC Jason Olsen]

Along the accountablilty line, consider this one:

The PCPO's (half of them) popped into my unit this morning. We were talking about this year's theme and I asked a reserve YNC what she thought it meant to "Lead with Chrarcter". She had some trouble articulating so I gave her a scenario:

"It's weigh-in day. I come in, step on the scale and am two pounds over. What would you do next?" She told me to go home, fast, work out and come back in the morning.

That is the accountability problem in a nutshell.

MJ

Matt,
I see your point and that isn't a good answer. But that seems to be the common theme, as long as the members meets their weight standard by the end of the month, they are good to go. I have seen several people not make the weight in the beginning of the month but were told that they have until the end of the month to lose it. Don't necessarily agree with that method because it defeats the purpose of the process.

Jason

[BMC Nicholas George]

Along the accountablilty line, consider this one:

The PCPO's (half of them) popped into my unit this morning. We were talking about this year's theme and I asked a reserve YNC what she thought it meant to "Lead with Chrarcter". She had some trouble articulating so I gave her a scenario:

"It's weigh-in day. I come in, step on the scale and am two pounds over. What would you do next?" She told me to go home, fast, work out and come back in the morning.

That is the accountability problem in a nutshell.

MJ

I agree to a certain extent... it depends on the circumstances. If the YNC is weighing you on 15 Apr and you're two lbs over and the YNC says hit the gym and eat right for two weeks then i'll weigh you, then i think the YNC is being a good shipmate. But if you are being weighed IAW TAD/PCS orders than its a different story.

We slam the weighers/measurers all the time on here, but what about the fat bodies who cant make weight and dont have enough integrity and/or motivation to either lose the weight or cancel their own orders. Chiefs are accountable for themselves... aren't they?

[AMTCM John Long]

I suppose if one wants to stir the pot.......does the CPO Academy still do fitness testing as part of a health survey? If so, why are they (or any C School TRACEN) not sending folks home who can't meet a PT/fitness min? Just wondering out loud....

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, they do two physical fitness assessments at the CPOACAD, one shorty after you arrive, the other right before you depart, but you're talking apples and oranges.... There is no servicewide requirement for physical fitness. We don't send people home who can't pass a PT at their unit, they just can't qualify or certify for certain tasks. Everyone is supposed to meet the weight requirements. Kicking someone out of the CPOACAD for failing to meet a PT requirement would be the same as kicking them out for being colorblind.

[AMTCM John Long]

John, they do two physical fitness assessments at the CPOACAD, one shorty after you arrive, the other right before you depart, but you're talking apples and oranges.... There is no servicewide requirement for physical fitness. We don't send people home who can't pass a PT at their unit, they just can't qualify or certify for certain tasks. Everyone is supposed to meet the weight requirements. Kicking someone out of the CPOACAD for failing to meet a PT requirement would be the same as kicking them out for being colorblind.

Stu,

Actually we do have a fitness requirement related to SWE's. It's one of the E2 EPQ's that is rarely every checked for paygrade proficiency. Aren't we all responsible for every EPQ for one's paygrade and below?...otherwise it's a "NR" for the SWE??

To muddy the waters even further, "if" the Academy (or any Command) wanted to.....they/we could use the EPQ PT requirement as a cross-check for SWE eligibility (or job retention for E9's). Will it ever happen?.....who knows? I've always advocated a PT assessment over a weight program. IMO....I don't see anyone falling thru the cracks with a PT assessment like they are now with the current system.

As I recall, when I went thru the CPO Academy at New London around the 1998/99 timeframe, we just did the fitness assessment at the beginning and that was it.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, how big of a ladder do you need to complete that reach? It would be like me quizzing my BMC on the sewing machine knowledge he needed to make BM2, before he can compete for 8 next week.

And John, we still have urinalysis tests. If you think that the same people how are currently looking the other way when those fatties step on the scale, wouldn't be giving them the same considerations when it came to a PT standard,............. I'm thinking you might be high. If they can't currently see that they can't actually see if the member is wearing a belt in uniform, I wouldn't trust their eyesight to verify that stopwatch.
If you can find a policy that either makes people honest or removes them from the verification process, you'll have something.

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

No reaching needed. No policy will ever be perfect or capture 100% of the service due to various legit reasons. With that said, PT testing removes any bias of frame/body size and is a measurable indicator of fitness performance. To borrow one of your words.....our current programs and mindsets are fixated on the percieved "fatties" and neglects the percieved "skinnies". There are incorrect assumptions on both ends of the spectrum.

The idea of mentioning the E2 EPQ is to show we already have one of the mechanisms in place for a new program should we decide to embrace improvements and break out of the status quo. BTW....I've mentioned this before, I advocate combining a semi annual/annual PT assessment with the exisiting PHA for a new, improved program. That measures fitness performance and ID's current/future health issues regardless of being a percieved "fatty" or "skinny". It's probably not perfect, but I feel it's a first step up in the right direction.

And yes.....you being one for accountability....if we're going to follow the EPQ system as it's designed........if you think your BMC (or EMC or AMTC) can no longer perform one of his/her lower EPQ's, are you still going to recommend him/her for the next higher paygrade or are you going to re-check the EPQ proficiency? Otherwise....let's drop the accountability requirement for all of the lower EPQ's....or at least admit they're selectively used. On the big picture level, it gets old hearing the same ol' discussion's on "accountability" and then we do something different.

Stu....I don't have much time left as my days are numbered. I mention these prospective solutions because I think they make sense....even if they will no longer affect me.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

But John, you'd have to start from scratch. Our current PT standards are really no way to assess physical fitness. Many doctors would tell you that running and full sit-ups are bad for your body. Also, no assessment is going to be complete without the bloodwork that follows. The PHA doesn't work. We have too much of the Coast Guard inconvieniently located out in the sticks.
People being overweight costs us money, in the short and long term. We don't give people three hours a week to ensure they remain proficient with a Bosn pipe. No one lost work because the could no longer slice double braided nylon.
We're spending lots and lots of money on people who can't/won't maintain the weight standards. I'm not saying that weight standards alone ensure the member is in good health. I also don't pretend that we actually care about our members' health issue. We have ban trans fats but still allow the unit to purchase soda and people to smoke.
Weight issues are still getting the blame for all that money we have to spend on people with health issues. Do you remember when they were throwing that 2.2 billion dollar figure around?
And the arguement is old. The guy is overweight but he can still pass his PT. Yeaaaaa. It's two different things. My old arguement. If I meet the weight standard and can pass my PT, can I quit shaving and stop cutting my hair? Do you really think that a man would be allowed to walk around in uniform sporty a pony tail? I'll even drop the hair angle. A guy wants to pierce his ears, scratch that pierce his lip, nose or eyebrow. How many people would stop him on a given day and tell him to take that ring out? Yet we have people walking around everyday obviously outside the weight standards and no one says a thing.
Ask yourself, what has happened to any of those people sent back form the CPOACAD.

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

I won't argue with anything you said. We have to start somewhere if we want to get an objective program. In my opinion...we don't have it right now. What we do have is the basic framework to put something together that (1) provides measurable fitness capability and (2) health assessments on ALL members. If I was "king for the day", I would combine those two with some logical tweaking to produce what I'd view as an objective, practical program. Looking at it from an business point of view, what is the worst thing that will happen if it doesn't work?....We revert back to some form of the system we have now.

I have heard of the PHA/remote unit problem before.....I suppose I'd default to one of our HS types to explain why can't remote units get basic PHA support from the CG HS's within the Sector or area? There might be a logical reason right now like lack of travel funding, but that is a program problem that can be addressed higher up as part of a new comprehensive program upgrade. My idea would be to send a Doc/Corpman to the units without HS's to complete the PHA's. I'd do basic blood checks (BP/Cholesterol/cell counts, etc) too if the are not being done. I get mine checked often to monitor myself. I had a PSA scare a while back so maybe I'm a little gun shy about not getting blood work done??

Also.....my personal opinion again....anytime I hear the CG or govt talk about what something costs....I'd research it myself. I don't recall the $2.2 billion figure being given but I'll take your word on it. I think much of what makes up a "predictive cost" can be debated....kind of like the CBO numbers that are in the news right now.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, again you're assuming that some new program will work where the current systems have failed and I don't see what you're basing that on. I still say if we sent an honest group of individuals out to almost any Sector that has HSs permanently attached they could find several people well outside of their weight standards. We've had people on this board discussing this topic who said their HSs were the ones who weighed/taped them prior to the CPOACAD and they were still sent home. And I don't think some HS2 is going to be able to hold some O-4 accountable to a weight standard the O-6 is willing to overlook.
We have people at units with an assigned HS who still don't have their shots, dental, or PHA up to date. The HSs aren't to blame, and they don't have the authority or power to fix these issues. These commands, and individuals need to be held accountable for the systems we already have in place.
What we need to do is identify the units that keep sending people who are out of compliance to these schools. We need to find out why the people weren't in compliance in the first place, then ask what they are doing to get them into compliance now.
And John, weight standards aren't just about health. There is an appearance aspect of it as well. Like the length of your hair, facial hair, location of tatoos, authorized jewerly, the wearing of the uniform..... it's about presenting that military appearance. Overweight people want to make it just about their ability to do their job, or overall health,.... and it's not. The Coast Guard set a standard, these people are failing to meet it, and too many people are allowing it to continue.

If you want to start a new program to assess overall health, have at it, but again,...... the service doesn't really care. I'm not ensuring people eat a balanced meal, I just ensure the FS provides one. I don't tell people they can't smoke, I just tell them where they can't smoke. I don't slap donuts out of people's hands or follow them around after liberty is granted. I couldn't tell you the results of anyone at my units blood work, I just ensure they get it drawn.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Well I hope you're sitting down for this. Apparently there are still people who haven't gotten the word yet, but the CPOACAD weighs people in that first weekend, and if you're overweight, they send you home.

Once again...... three is the magic number....

. Three Chiefs were sent home from the CPOACAD on Sunday for exceeding both MAW and BF. The specifics for the three Chiefs are; 34 lbs / 3%, 15 lbs / 2%, 14 lbs / 2% over their max.

You know, on the bright side, those guys who were 2% over were only 1% over being allowed to stay on that probationary status. And again, there were lots of cancellations during the last ten days before the class concevened.
I know this is going to sound crazy, but I'm wondering how many of these people were overweight the day they were advanced?

[HSC Shannon Reck]

I know this is going to sound crazy, but I'm wondering how many of these people were overweight the day they were advanced?

I would be willing to bet that a vast majority were!

I am not a fan of the weight program. It has been the bain of my existance in the military since my time in the Marines, 20 years ago.

HOWEVER

Last year I sat down and stopped blaming the program and started looking at myself in the mirror. I saw that I was indeed overweight and lost over 50 lbs over the next year.

There comes a point to where a decision has to be made. The decision should be directed toward the things in life that can be changed:

1. Can I get the Commandant to change the weight/BMI requirements(which are less stringent than some of the other branches of service)? NO.
2. Can I get off of my butt and start a realistic daily PT regimine (not just a stroll around the block) as well as watch what I put into my mouth ? YES!

It all comes down to personal choices and actions. Another tip I have learned is that healthly living should not just take place a couple of weeks before each weigh in. It should be a complete and permanent lifestyle change. Just my take...

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

It amazes me that with the currnet state of the economy, the drawdown we are facing, and a members weight control being a condition of employment, that people still haven't gotten the clue.

That is a quick & surefire way to trim the top; start with the dis-enrollee's and go from there.

Todd

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Todd and Shannon, stick with me on this next line of questions. Hypothetically, 'cause you know it wil never actually happen, but,...... If those three people were actually sent home, not back to their unit, but sent home, and told they could be re-enlist if they lost the weight in the next six months....... and that became the standard, how many more classes would we go through before weight was no longer an issue?
How about if those people who canceled in the last ten days had to submit the proof that they were placed on the weight program along with the special set of marks the command did to reflect that prior to their orders being canceled?

Todd, with trimming the fat from the top, and again, I know it will never happen, but what if they sent letters to all of the E-8s and E-9s who still haven't even applied to attend and told them they needed to submit their retirement letter with a date prior to 01 Dec 2010. How fast would people be on the phones?

[HSC Chris Fly]

Todd and Shannon, stick with me on this next line of questions. Hypothetically, 'cause you know it wil never actually happen, but,...... If those three people were actually sent home, not back to their unit, but sent home, and told they could be re-enlist if they lost the weight in the next six months....... and that became the standard, how many more classes would we go through before weight was no longer an issue?
How about if those people who canceled in the last ten days had to submit the proof that they were placed on the weight program along with the special set of marks the command did to reflect that prior to their orders being canceled?

Todd, with trimming the fat from the top, and again, I know it will never happen, but what if they sent letters to all of the E-8s and E-9s who still haven't even applied to attend and told them they needed to submit their retirement letter with a date prior to 01 Dec 2010. How fast would people be on the phones?

Great points Stu (and everyone else, of course)

Since you will soon be a Gold Badge, maybe this program and the PHA/Readiness can be your calling... If a Gold Badge can't effect some change in the orginazation, who can?

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

OK, I assume you read the same email as I did concerning sending these three home, so if so.........What did you think of the question that was possed?


Stu, I have to agree with you on this one, send them HOME.

Now on to those that canxed within 10 day of going......How many of those received their orders to attend in those same 10 days? I understand that to execute those orders you must be in complience, but how about when you recieve those orders.....No wait, I bet they we over weight then also, and I suspect that someone looked and said well hell you got xxxx amount of time before you go to lose the weight. But to those that canx orders due to weight, are they being placed on the program, pg7...etc?

OK, how about instead of allowing the canx of orders in the last 10 days, which then pushes someone to go on a 10 day notice, we send those members and then let them be sent home, and charge the command that sent them and the $$ amount for the seat they wasted. If we are weighing these people 30 days out like we are supposed to be I really doubt that in the following two weeks they mysteriously gof fat. And if that is the case then they were on the boarder at the 30 day mark, so if the CPO allows themself to get bigger in the following two weeks they need the actaion taken. Why is it so hard to hold people accountable for their weight? I have seen much tougher accountability for MUCH LESS infractions.

Next question, why did we stop weighing people everytime they went to medical, oh maybe it's becasue we didn't want anyone to know that people were over weight all the time, not just twice a year. Maybe we are afraid that people will stop going to medical and their health would suffer. Why is the weight program not administered by medical to begin with. It is a health issue after all.

You know, I grew up on a farm with alot of cows, and I know that when you first start cracking the whip to get those cows to do something they jump. Then after awhile, they realize that it is only noise and it don't hurt, so they continue to mill about at their own pace only hearing the whip crack around them and the frustrated cusing of the farmer cracking the whip. It is not until you actually start making contact with the whip that action is seen.

Do we get rid of some people due to weight...yea we do. But for the most part it is only the noise of a cracking whip, and the frustrated cusing of the farmer becasue the cows won't do as their told. It is very hard to tell the younger troops to maintain weight, when every class of their leaders has multiple people sent home for being over weight. And this does not refer to ANY of the over weight officers we have running around. :mad:

[AMTCM John Long]

:1. Can I get the Commandant to change the weight/BMI requirements(which are less stringent than some of the other branches of service)? NO.

I would disagree on that. If you feel strong about it......

1. Identify what the CG's goals are WRT to it's people.
2. Do the research and collect the data on the current program...pro's and con's, costs, benefits, shortcomings, etc.
3. Do the research on what others have already done or are doing...pro's con's, would it meet the CG's goals, etc.
4. Organize your data and from that develop your proposal for an improved program. Let your local Chief's Mess peer review it.
5. Submit it thru the COC to the COMDT. Track it as it goes up the pole.

All too often we will complain about a program or policy (not you specifically) and not offer up a thought out solution. If you have a good idea, put it down on paper and submit it. Explain it in detail, especially the cost/benefit savings, what problems it will solve the current program is lacking in. By submitting a well thought out proposal, you do alot of the research work for the HQ Program Manager who owns the respective program. He/she is more acceptable for sponsoring your idea and guiding it thru the approval process. That's basically how a person can make a change to COMDT's policy!

2. Can I get off of my butt and start a realistic daily PT regimine (not just a stroll around the block) as well as watch what I put into my mouth ? YES!

I ask myself the same thing......I'm sure alot of other folks do too.

[HSC Shannon Reck]

[QUOTE=DCCS Brett Wickett;46355]If we are weighing these people 30 days out like we are supposed to be I really doubt that in the following two weeks they mysteriously gof fat. And if that is the case then they were on the boarder at the 30 day mark, so if the CPO allows themself to get bigger in the following two weeks they need the actaion taken. Why is it so hard to hold people accountable for their weight? I have seen much tougher accountability for MUCH LESS infractions.

I think that this would alleviate a majority of these issues. If someone is weighed in 30 days prior to excution of orders and is borderline, a second weigh in should be conducted two weeks later. You are right... in cases where people cannot hold themselves accountable to keeping within the Regulations, should have their commands do it for them.

Next question, why did we stop weighing people everytime they went to medical, oh maybe it's becasue we didn't want anyone to know that people were over weight all the time, not just twice a year. Maybe we are afraid that people will stop going to medical and their health would suffer. Why is the weight program not administered by medical to begin with. It is a health issue after all.

The reason for this is that if you have too many hands in the pot, things get messed up. I remember in 1998(est), when medical was ordered to stop doing official weigh ins. There are several reasons for this but the biggest was that a person would come down and get weighed at medical. The next day they would go in to Admin for a weight/BMI check and be told they were over- then started the argument of who's weightBMI should be accepted. This issue was remedied by mandating that Admin would do the semi annual weighins.

You know, I grew up on a farm with alot of cows, and I know that when you first start cracking the whip to get those cows to do something they jump. Then after awhile, they realize that it is only noise and it don't hurt, so they continue to mill about at their own pace only hearing the whip crack around them and the frustrated cusing of the farmer cracking the whip. It is not until you actually start making contact with the whip that action is seen.

Again, I agree with this statement completely. You can only threaten people so far. I think that this will come to a head very shortly, as a criteria the personel cutters is looking into are those who seem to be placed onto the weight program on a frequent basis. I also grew up on a farm with cows and etc. :D

Master Chief Long,

I hear what you are saying, but the weight issue has been up and down the chain so much that I seriously doubt that anything will change it. I dont think that anything could be brought up that has not been presented before.

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

...... If those three people were actually sent home, not back to their unit, but sent home, and told they could be re-enlist if they lost the weight in the next six months.......

If by sending them home you mean discharge (which I think you do), then they wouldn't re-enlist. Rather, they'd have to comply with an enlistment physical which is much more stringent. In fact, currently overweight members who are discharged have two years to come back in but it's not just a simple re-enlistment. Be forewarned! :eek:

Why is the weight program not administered by medical to begin with. It is a health issue after all.

HIPPA. What happens in the clinic stays in the clinic, as it should be.

If someone is weighed in 30 days prior to excution of orders and is borderline, a second weigh in should be conducted two weeks later.

It's all up to the member and the command. CPO Academy is doing their job by sending the member back (per COMDT instruction). In fact, PCO/PXO, BFCC and SELC follow the same regulation whether officer or enlisted member. Got heavy folks at your unit? You need some CO time to address this problem locally. Enforcing the Coast Guard weight standard is a leadership issue at the unit level. To be clear, that doesn't mean it's just the CO's problem.

Frank :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Since you will soon be a Gold Badge, maybe this program and the PHA/Readiness can be your calling... If a Gold Badge can't effect some change in the orginazation, who can?

Chris, I'll be Silver not Gold. I'll be able to continue with the great strides already taken at the Sector I'm going to. Belts have already been tightened down there. To answer you "who can?" question, the answer would be the unit CO/OinC. If they actually held people account, this would stop. People are allowed to get by. The Sector I'm heading to assigned one person to verify the weigh-ins and taping for Sector personnel. That one person was holding people accountable, and alot of them who were never on the weight oprogram before were placed on it. Funny thing happened....... people started working out and watching what they eat.

Brett, to bring others into the fold, the question was asked ... "What do you think about changing the program to allow people who are 2% over their max BF% to stay and complete the course?"
I said it was a move in the wrong direction. I think we would be rewarding bad behaviour and down the road people would be asking to change it again to allow people who are 3% over to stay. I think we should remove the buffer zone. If you can't make weight, send them home. Again we're averaging 3 people per class, give 'em an inch........

Frank, I'm talking about changing the policy. If your unit puts you on the weight program like they should have in the first place, you get the benefits offered by the weight program, i.e. time to lose the weight.... if however, you and your unit failed, and it was a school that identified you as being out of compliance, new game, new rules, you go home, suspended without pay, if you can lose the weight, welcome back, if not, you've made your choice.

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

hmmmmm...saying that a highly acclaimed leadership class that produces senior enlisted leaders should take the responsibility for the lack of leadership of the senior enlisted leaders it produces...sounds like something is broke to me.

These aren't the same few units that are sending overweight members...it is throught the service...and the response is to hold the member without this leadership training responsible but give a pass to those that should know better because they have had this advanced training...Yes, as an E-7 I do agree that the individual is responsible for their own actions, yet I also know that when shipmates are left alone...they fail alone...How about making it policy to suspend the SWE for all senior enlisted in a members chain of command when they get sent home for weight issues...That should be a simple memo from the CPO ACAD to EPM...lets get back to this fouled chain around the anchor...if we let one link break we are all screwed...

Strat sends...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Strat, suspending the SWE for those in the chain might work, if there are other senior enlisted members in the chain that can still advance. You'd have to include some impact to the OER or future assignments for those chains that your policy wouldn't affect.

I'd support a policy that said you couldn't have a follow on command if you have an E-7, 8, or 9 who doesn't meet their People Plans requirement in regards to the CPOACAD.

With all of our talks about cut backs, maybe it's time to review the weight program. Does allowing someone to go over their max by 36lbs and 8% BF add to the issues we've seen? If people who were, let's say, 4% BF over the max allowed were automatically processed for discharge, would that be incentive enough for some people to change their ways?

[LTJG Brian Strattard (ETC)]

Stu,

I was going to include OERs, but canex'd that due to the fact that it would still be up to the comand that apparently has leadership issues, and I would not hold my breath about anything negative going into those OERs...

Now a memo to OPM regarding one of the command's members failing weight standards from the CPO ACAD could easily go into a file for future officer assignment purposes...that may be the better way of going about it. That and docking unit funds for the whole debaccle would motivate the O side a little more.

I am still a suppoter to take the requirements out of the people plans and put them where they belong in the PERSMAN. Requiring leadership training with 3 regional policies that is in conflict with established COMDTINST policy doesn't make sense to me. To hold someone accountable when they are meeting minimum requirements for advancement is counter productive and does not show good senior leadership from the top down. We may be on the right path, but we need to get there the right way.

Strat sends...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I don't think putting the policy in the PERSMAN is going to fix anything. If the people aren't following the policy established by their three star, I don't hold out much hope in thinking they'll follow what the four star says. If they were going to follow what the four star said the CPOACAD wouldn't have any overweight people to send home.
I've always been taught that we used the minimum force neccessary to compel compliance. I'm just wondering when we're going to start applying that to this situation.

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

Why in the world would the Coast Guard take service-wide personnel management away from the operational commanders and move those organizational policies into the offices of Personnel Management :eek:

Strat- you're confusing the whole issue with logic and reason! :D

Frank :cool:

[FSC Timothy Paul]

I put a reply to this thread in the Chiefs only part of this site, as I didn't feel what I had to say should be open to "the Masses". Feel free to reply here, or there...:)

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

While the "Wray v. Stu" battle warms up on the other side, I'll add this thought.... "The Weight Issue" is not a Chiefs' issue. Rather it is a Coast Guard issue and a national or global issue as well. With regard to our little 45K workforce, I'd say the CPO should be on the front line addressing this matter. There is certainly no suggestion or proposal that should be withheld as this is a chronic health issue and a career issue for many of our peers. Those who "challenge the scale" also realize how personally stressful it is.

So, yes, we're still sending Chiefs home from the CPO Academy and, yes, many of our shipmates are placing their careers in this great organization in serious jeopardy because of their weight.

Now, how do we resolve the matter for the good of the service, Chief?

Frank :cool: :cool:

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

...Now, how do we resolve the matter for the good of the service, Chief?

Frank :cool: :cool:


Accountability!!! We have all the policies and protocols in place written down for all the world to see.

But the bottom line is, IMHO, it's the Chief who knowingly gets on a plane and heads to school knowing they are overweight/overfat. Let's say we measure a Chief 30 days out and they are at their max, what do you do? do you cancel the orders, do you reweigh every week and if they are still at but not over their max do you cancel their orders? That would have to be up to each individual command; but the orders saysomething to the effect of ...not exceed MAW/BF... being at the max but not over "IS" in compliance with that statement.

With that being said if a command knowingly sends someone who is 2,3,4% or 10-20lbs over but doesn't know that (how does that happen) then they are negligent and should be handled appropriately.

Todd

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

So, yes, we're still sending Chiefs home from the CPO Academy and, yes, many of our shipmates are placing their careers in this great organization in serious jeopardy because of their weight.

Now, how do we resolve the matter for the good of the service, Chief?

Frank :cool: :cool:

Frank, I don't think those same people are placing their careers in serious jeopardy. I don't think it's having any affect at all on some of them. Again, I know of one guy who was sent back to his unit, they took no action, they then wrote a recommendation, he retired and took a GS position. The people showing up to the CPOACAD overweight are coming from units that aren't enforcing the standard across the board.

How do we resolve this? I'd say following the instructions in the orders. Weigh the member within that 30 days of executing their orders, and properly document it. I think if we looked at the people being sent home, we'd see that it isn't being done. I think if we looked at the majority of people canceling their orders in those final few days, we'd see that it's not being done. I think very few people are determined to be overweight and placed on the weight program.

Todd, back to accountabilty, if they are at the max, they meet the standard, and I'd send them. But I wouldn't be giving them the 5s, 6s, or 7s that they've been recieving in Health and Well Being.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Todd, back to accountabilty, if they are at the max, they meet the standard, and I'd send them. But I wouldn't be giving them the 5s, 6s, or 7s that they've been recieving in Health and Well Being.

I agree, and that goes for anyone, if you are just towing the line you certainly aren't exceeding the criteria set forth on the marks form!!!

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

For members in receipt of resident training orders, Commands shall verify compliance with weight standards no later than 30 days before the convening date and update Direct Access with the member’s physical characteristics. If the member in receipt of resident training orders is found non-compliant with weight standards, he or she shall not attend resident training and the orders shall be cancelled.

Sending overweight members home is not a CPO Academy issue. Rather, it's a required component of COMDTINST 1020.8G (excerpt above).

Additonally, and equally important, several other resident schools follow the same process of ensuring compliance and disenrolling non-compliant members. If you report to the Boat Forces Command Cadre course, Prospective Commanding Officer/Officer-in-Charge course, or Senior Enlisted Leadership course, you can be assured that compliance will be verified. While not as visible as the CPO Academy, newly reported students who fail to meet the standard- whether officer or enlisted member- are quickly disenrolled and dismissed.

The CPO Academy falls under the Director of the Leadership Development Center and the policy is equally, fairly, and quickly enforced. And if you think it hurts for a CPO to lose his summer wine country tour, imagine the impact on a prospective Commanding Officer who is disenrolled. :eek:

Frank :cool: :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

What actually happens to them? Do they lose their orders/command? If that is the case, I wonder how long before they do a weigh in for those members taking Command Ashore?

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

What actually happens to them? Do they lose their orders/command? If that is the case, I wonder how long before they do a weigh in for those members taking Command Ashore?

Every 6 months, Stu. :rolleyes:

Every member of the Coast Guard must realize that by not enforcing the standard- right here and right now, they are hurting our service and our shipmates. For instance, our CPO Academy attendees must meet this "mid period" compliance check while those folks that don't apply enjoy a full 6 months of Krispy Kreme splendor. Where's the fairness? Officers and Chiefs selected for command- God bless 'em all- get "spot checked" at PCO/PXO while the rest do not. Why? Travel for training requires a compliance check while boondoggles do not. Madness!

Every TAD worksheet should require a compliance verification and blanket travel orders should require monthly verification. Every supervisor E-7 and above should feel free and fully supported to pull any member onto the scale to verify compliance just like checking a haircut or the shine on your shoes.

If none of that works, then we should hook a scale up to SW3 so you have to insert your CAC card, then stand on the scale before you get the red screen and access the new DHS web site. (Maybe they can change that red screen to green if you meet the weight standard) :D

Frank :cool:

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

That's real American comedy Frank. I can tell you if they started having scales at the ATON Conferences I've attended, people would stop going.

I have enough SW3 issues already and not all of us can access those CAC readers, but fear not, I do have a low tech solution. Stop making uniforms that big. Pick a max waist or neck size and say that's enough.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

That's real American comedy Frank. I can tell you if they started having scales at the ATON Conferences I've attended, people would stop going.


Gosh dang if that aint the truth Stu! Thats funny!

[MCPO Francis Jennings]

...if they started having scales at the ATON Conferences I've attended, people would stop going.

Overweight people would stop going. I think we're on to something!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

It seems like we may have made a move in the right direction as only one person was sent home over the weekend. Again someone who was not even close (41 lbs/3% BF over their max) tried to get by while many canceled within the last ten days of the class convening. 3 people were allowed to stay on weight probation.

[BMC Kevinn Smith]

It seems like we may have made a move in the right direction as only one person was sent home over the weekend. Again someone who was not even close (41 lbs/3% BF over their max) tried to get by while many canceled within the last ten days of the class convening. 3 people were allowed to stay on weight probation.


MC - The 3 others allowed to stay and are on weight probation, should be sent home also. We should be setting the example, while other schools are sending members home for being over weight, the CPOA is allowing them to stay. I understand they have 5 weeks to become in compliance, but they shouldn't have been sent in the first place.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Kevinn, I'm with ya! But we would be the cold hearted bastards in the minority on this issue. More and more people seem to want to let everyone stay, arguing that they're already there. I say letting them stay is rewarding bad behavior.
I'd like the policy to canceling orders at the last minute include proof that the member was placed on the weight program and marked accordingly. We were scrambling at the end of last month to fill something like eight seats that became vacant due to last minute cancelations. Take those cancelations, the member that was sent home, and the three on probation and ask how many of those "made weight" just a month ago in April.
We are setting an example, what kind of example we're setting is really the issue. And it doesn't stop at the weigh-ins. How much other sub-standard behavior is being overlooked by their superiors while their subordinates look on?

[AMTC Keith Lloyd]

"and marked accordingly"

Nice point but can you define it? Would they be a two or a three? One good question in the mess...

[BMC Seth Tomas]

"and marked accordingly"

Nice point but can you define it? Would they be a two or a three? One good question in the mess...

I don't see any question at all on this one. Being placed onto the weight program and/or failing to meet the standards is a 2. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Here is the definition of a 2 out of Direct Access for "Health and Well Being"

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

If a member does not get a 2, then WE are FAILING to mark them according to the standards.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Sorry Seth, ifs, ands, or buts..... what exactly is the Coast Guard Fitness Program, and couldn't you adhere to it and still be overweight?

My biggest problem with the weight program is that it isn't being enforced everywhere. You could recieve a member who is overweight. You could place that member on the program. They could adhere to any fitness program that you could come up with, but because they were already allowed to get as heavy as they got, it could take longer than a single marking period for them to recover. Do you continue to hit them with that 2, or does their effort earn them a 3?

Keith, I could argue the 2 or the 3. The problem is that many of these people are getting 5s, 6s, or 7s. People clearly overweight are being graded on a curve based on the superior performance of their subordinates.

[BMC Seth Tomas]

Stu,

My interpretation of the above is a 2. I can't even see where a 3 could be argued on this one. It clearly states that a 2 is used for "Failed to meet minimum standards of sobriety or weight control." If they failed to maintain their weight within the standards set forth, then they deserve a 2 until a point when they start maintaining the proper weight standard.

I know that everyone can apply their own thoughts and opinions, but this is my take on it and how I mark my personnel. I can only hope that with as clearly as the standard is written for this mark, that EVERYONE would do the same.

Once again... MY opinion on this topic...

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

But you're not using the entire written standard. By giving the member the 2 you're saying they meet the entire standard.....including..... "Did not adhere to the Coast Guard Fitness Program."
According to your interpretation, there never should be a 3. Could the same thing be applied to 5s?
You could use that until someone appeals their marks, then you're going to have to justify it, or have it over turned..

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

From the PERSMAN

10.B.6.a.7.
Use the following guidelines to assign marks:
MARK MEANS THE MEMBER CONSISTENTLY
1(Unacceptable) – Did not meet all the written performance standards in
the “2” level and the rater considered the impact severely detrimental to
the organization or to others.
2 (Poor) – Met all the written performance standards in this level.
3 (Below Standard) – Did not meet all the written performance standards in
the “4” block.
4 (Average) – Met all the written performance standards for this level and
none in the “6” level.
5 (Above Average) – Met all the written performance standards in the “4”
level and at least one of those in the “6” level.
6 (Excellent) – Met all the written performance standards for this level and
did not exceed any of them.
7 (Superior) – Met all the written performance standards in the “6” level
and exceeded at least one of them.

If you're giving them the 2, which I think you can make the arguement for, you have to be saying they are not following that fitness plan.

[BMC Seth Tomas]

Stu,

I now see your side, but still disagree. I may be a little bit hardheaded here.... but if someone at my unit is on the weight program, they will receive a 2 from me and I will not even consider a 3. If they choose to appeal it, then I will cross that bridge when I come to it, but I don't see it being changed.

So what do you say? Is it a 3? What else do you factor into the mark?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Effort. If they are actually trying to lose the weight I'd give them the 3. The scenario I used about a member showing up at the unit overweight falls in here. Again, we allow some people to get that fat by not enforcing the weight policy. Once they get to a unit that actually weighs them and tapes them correctly, the battle starts. In my experience those obese people face real issues once they start losing the weight. As discussed before, many of them start losing the weight, but one of the first places that fat goes away is in their neck. As their weigh starts to drop, their body fat actually increases.
Take the guy who was just sent home. I don't know the guy, but lets use his numbers as an example. He's 41lbs and 3% BF over. Muscle weighs more than fat. He could start on a weight program, and start losing fat, but again starting in his neck. I think he's closer to reaching that magical 9% over for automatic discharge than he is for making weight. I don't think he'll ever meet his BMI again. If he isn't constantly monitored, every pound he puts back on is going straight to his waist, again increasing his BF%.
Add that to the attitude that you only need to make weight twice a year or when reporting to school, and people go on those fasts or starvation diets, yo-yoing the effect even more.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Again, we allow some people to get that fat by not enforcing the weight policy. Once they get to a unit that actually weighs them and tapes them correctly, the battle starts.

Wrong. Units may not follow the policy correctly, but it's the MEMBER who's responsible for their weight. We can't excuse the member that shows up overweight just because their last unit wasn't doing what was required.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

There's plenty of blame to go around. You can't excuse the unit for not enforcing the policy. Some people are going to do what's right, others are going to get away with what they can.
With the CPOACAD, I'm not excusing the member who took in more calories than they burned off,...... but I'm not giving the unit that was supposed to be taping them a pass either.
And at the end of the day, those people only got as fat as their unit allowed them to get. If they had been put on a scale earlier, they would have lost the weight, or been discharged.