I'm a SSG in the 82d, last week our BDE put out that all non-airborne personnel (NAP), will be given a PT test ever week until the go airborne or PCS. We just came came back from deployment and have alot of NAPs in out unit due to meeting numbers, but my question is doesnt this fall under harrassment? It's single all SM who are differnt, I AM AIRBORNE, but it just seems to this a little much, last I checked being airborne was by choice no by being pressured. I'm to be honest some of the soldiers in our company that are NAP have better PT scores than ones that are. I guess I can see where DIV wants to uphold their traditons of being Airborne, but its not like we are jumping into war anymore either. I enjoy jumping but I think thats someone choice and they shouldnt be singled out, especially hen there are Airborne personnel with no standard "DIV PT" scores.

If someone has some wisea** remark hold it. I just think thisis the stuff EO preaches and someone should clearify this or leave the NAP, alone and trade out for personnel that are in units that have lost thier jump status.

It sounds like an EO complaint to me. Unless of course the AB guys are doing some type of training during that PT test. They could say it is staying mission ready.

And just because we don't jump into combat now doesn't mean that we shouldn't stay trained on it and be ready in case it is needed. Combat readiness.

Commanders like this aren't too bright. You get MUCH more out of a soldier if you offer some type of incentive instead of a punishment (because we all know that's what is really happening here). Not to mention this type of thing kills moral and causes soldiers to start resenting each other.

That one's kinda tricky. Technically it doesn't violate any EO protected categories (race, religion, gender, ethnicity or national origin). I had a 1SG once who always gave "hey you" details to the youngest people in the unit. Not the ones with the least time in service, or the least rank, but the youngest. We had a 21 year old SGT who joined at the age of 16 with parental consent, had a combat deployment under his belt, was squared away, etc...but it didn't matter. Long story short (too late, I know), no action could be taken against the 1SG because age isn't a protected category. Nor is jump status, nor is rank. It's not a nice thing to do, but it isn't in violation of any EO policy that I'm aware of.

As for violating other regulations, I don't know. There are just too many of them out there. If you are sincerely concerned, speak with your local SJA/JAG advisor or the IG (not to initiate a complaint, but to find out if that is a legal practice).

Good luck regardless of how you pursue it or if you do.

1–4. Policy statements
a. It is the policy of the Department of the Army (DA) to provide equal opportunity in employment for all people,
and to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or
reprisal.

Actually, age is in there.

Must have been added in recently. Or my unit's policy letter at the time wasn't based on actual regulation, which wouldn't have suprised me any.