eyesight

[andrew51]

Does anyonne know which special forces require 20/20 vision and which dont??and do any of them accept applicants with corrective eye surgery

[WS-G]

Does anyonne know which special forces require 20/20 vision and which dont?
I presume you actually mean "20/20 uncorrected or better". The answer to that particular question is NONE.

The minimum vision standard for Airborne, Special Forces and Ranger training is as follows: Must have vision in both eyes. Must be able to distinguished red, green and white. Distant visual acuity in one eye must be correctable with glasses to 20/20 or better (the other eye only has to be correctable to 20/100 or better, and there is no minimum uncorrected visual acuity requirement). Any required lens correction cannot exceed ±8.00 dioptres (look at your spectacle prescription; the numbers need to fall within that range).

For entry into Military Free-Fall training, the above standard applies, plus uncorrected distant visual acuity no worse than 20/70 in the better eye and 20/200 in the poorer eye. This can be waived on a case-by-case basis. Also, you would be required to meet or exceed all of the standards of the Army Class 2 Flight Physical (this is similar in scope and standards to the Federal Aviation Administration's First-Class flight physical).

For entry into the SF Combat Diver Qualification Course (CDQC), your uncorrected distant visual acuity must — as for MFF — be at least 20/70 in the better eye and 20/200 in the poorer eye, or else you'll need to get a waiver. In addition, the visual acuity in each eye separately must be correctable with glasses to 20/20 or better.

Contrary to popular misconception, it is also possible to attend Sniper training with glasses, provided that one's visual acuity is correctable to at least 20/20 in each eye separately.

[Scout]

They all require vision correctable to 20/20.
Army SF is just beginning to allow PRK, and supposedly the rest of the Army is going to follow suit soon. LASIK is disqualifying for military service, I haven't heard anything about RK or other types. there's other threads about eye surgey, and I've posted articles concerning it in the past.

Scout

[FutureMustang]

I have one thing to add with regard to the vision standards that Salter laid out. I just enlisted 11x/Airborne option/Ranger Training uncommitted (75th), and I can only distinguish red and green. I failed basically every slide but red/green, and my physical got stamped RANGER/AIRBORNE, and I still got the picket fence physical profile. I'm not a BTDT, but I don't think I'm wrong in this case. I went to great pains to ensure that my color vision won't have an effect on my Army career, and I've gotten the green light from every place I've checked on it. Unless you're referring to a test other than the Phalant, where they just show you objects that are red/green/white and ask you to distinguish, I'm good to go, so I don't see why someone else wouldn't be. I also didn't need any waivers for that.


Correction: I think the test is spelled Falant, not Phalant. Whatever it is, I'm sure a lot of you know what I'm talking about. The test they give you after you can't see the numbers in the color vision book. You sit in a chair about 10 feet from a little machine that shows you red, green, and white dots. Phalant/Falant, whatever it is.

[This message has been edited by FutureMustang (edited 11-17-2000).]

[WS-G]

Future Mustang:

FALANT (all caps) is the correct spelling. It's the acronym for "Farnsworth Lantern", and tends to be the prefered test for ascetaining red-green-white perception (or the lack thereof). Users include the Federal Aviation Administration and NASA, as well as the Armed Forces.

Incidentally, the ability to tell red from green is what 90% of your color perception is based on anyway.

Also, keep in mind that MEPS facilities often fail to follow the correct test administration protocols, especially WRT vision and hearing. Your results at MEPS will actually appear to be worse than reality.

For example, when I took my physical for reenlistment at Houston MEPS several months ago, the overhead lights (bright fluorescents!) were left on in the room where the vision tests were given, with light fixtures situated directly overhead of the test apparatus, causing marked glare in the optics of the test equipment.

Separate exams that I've taken for law enforcement, the Federal Aviation Administration and my private ophthalmologist all show that I have a visual acuity of 20/200 correctable to 20/10, for example. MEPS however, marked me with 20/400 correctable to 20/20 — just enough to get slapped with a profile of "2" under "Eyes" instead of 1's across the board (the only non-1 profile acceptable in the SOF world, so no problem, even if it is only because MEPS screwed up). This will be subject to review at some point in the future.

Also, keep in mind that once you submit an application for MFF or CDQC, you will be examined by a Flight Surgeon or Diving Medical Officer, either of whom will exercise a much more meticulous standard of care than the bozos one will find working at a MEPS facility; results there will tend to be more in your favor.

The standards I listed previously are paraphrased for brevity (I was going from memory when I typed that), but are exactly as listed in AR 40-501 (http://books.usapa.belvoir.army.mil/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/r40_501/CCONTENTS). As Scout correctly summed up, the basic standard is that you must have visual acuity correctable to 20/20; in most cases this only has to be in one eye, though in some cases this must be in both eyes.



[This message has been edited by William M Salter (edited 11-17-2000).]

[andrew51]

Thanx alot guys. That really helped answere my question.I am really thinking about enlisting in the special forces, weather they be army navy or airforce

[FutureMustang]

Good points there Mr Salter. Definitely not going to argue with any of the info you present. My MEPS experience with the FALANT test wasn't too great either. As you said, the lights were on while I was taking it. In addition, they never read the directions to me, so I had no idea that the choices were red, green, and white when the test started.
I have two mischievious thoughts to throw into the mix: 1)The number book used is probably the standard DOD wide. If someone with connections at a MEPS or an Army eye testing center could jot down the publisher, the edition, and the name of the book, one could probably be ordered, and the numbers memorized. 2) On my physical, it listed my results from the FALANT test. I have a sneaking suspicion the sequence in which those color combinations appear is standard. If that's the case, you could memorize that order, and voila, me mr. can-only-tell-red-and-green comes up with perfect color vision. Just a thought. Probably been tried before, successfully and unsuccessfully.

[Sharky]

First of all, let me wish you the best of luck in getting into the regiment. I hope you make it. With that being said, let me play the devils advocate for a minute. I don't think it is right to try to cheat on something like the color-blindness test for one simple reason. You could get yourself or a fellow Ranger killed. The tests are there for a reason. They are not designed to be an obstacle to keep you out of the Regiment, they are designed to keep the people in the regiment alive. I use the regiment as an example but this could apply to many MOS's. If you could not distinguish between red and green I would not want you in my squad. Not because I don't like you but because you are putting the lives of those other Rangers in danger. Like i said, nothing personal toward you future mustang, I don't even know you. I would say the same thing to anyone. I don't have a problem with the cheating aspect. If you ain't cheatin you ain't tryin.......improvise, adapt and overcome and all that. My problem is with the consequences that it may cost you or worse, someone else, in the future.

------------------
F.I.D.O.

[FutureMustang]

Very good points sharky. I can distinguish red and green, and my other color deficiencies don't seem to be a problem as far as the Army is concerned.
Those mischievous things I mentioned were just fleeting thoughts, and they're things I both wouldn't do, and probably couldn't get away with. When I was a little kid, I dreamed of being a naval aviator. But, since I can't see worth a shit, I realize that me cheating on a color blindness test, even if it would get me in the cockpit of an F-14, wearing a bomber jacket and Ray-Ban's, and riding a Ninja, would be a very hazardous thing to my health and to that of others. I understand that rules exist for important reasons, and in this case I fall within the guidlines of those rules (can distinguish red/green). If I couldn't, and I cried to the Army, my congressman, and anyone else who wouldn't listen in some feeble attempt to get into something where my presence would be inherently dangerous to others, I'd be no different than those goofball feminazis who think females should be infantrymen, because "they want to," and "woman aren't physically inferior to men." I'm not the type to cry about it. Rules are rules, and they exist for safety and combat effectiveness.
Secondly, even if I were to cheat the tests in the manner I described above, the Army would probably think it's awful strange if someone who basically only passed red/green on his previous physical came up with perfect marks the next time. While it couldn't be proven that I cheated in such an instance, it wouldn't take them too long to change up the slides on the FALANT or get a new color blind book to show that I'm a fraud.
Thank you for wishing me luck in the Army and in getting into the Regiment. And I just want to reitterate that I agree with you 100% that would be a shady and dangerous thing to do. I'm a good kid, I just have an imaginative mind sometimes.

Jim

[This message has been edited by FutureMustang (edited 11-19-2000).]

[WS-G]

Future Mustang, Sharky et al:

No worries WRT people cheating on their color-perception tests; here's why: The FALANT has been proven absolutely cheat-proof! This is why the Navy, NOAA and NASA are so fond of it, even though it only answers the question "Can you tell red from green — yes or no?". While it is possible to memorize the various Pseudo-Isochromatic Plates (PIP) test pages (yes, that what that type of test is called. Examples include the Ishihara, which was the first of this type), several dozen different editions exist. Given that they're also printed in loose-leaf form, they do get shuffled periodically. Thus, memorizing plates simply won't work. The only way to "cheat" is to get a dishonest examiner (highly unlikely!).

Keep in mind that if you fall slightly outside one or more of the medical standards, there is what is officially called the "waiver process". These are considered on a case-by-case basis.


[This message has been edited by William M Salter (edited 11-19-2000).]

[Sharky]

Roger that and good luck.

------------------
F.I.D.O.

[pomofo]

Sgt. Salter,

Since your vision is 20/200 uncorrected I would assume you wear glasses on missions? If so, is that a nuisance when you're out in the field? Also, with your vision as it is, would you ever consider getting laser surgery?

[Pompo3421]

Originally posted by pomofo:
Sgt. Salter,

Since your vision is 20/200 uncorrected I would assume you wear glasses on missions? If so, is that a nuisance when you're out in the field? Also, with your vision as it is, would you ever consider getting laser surgery?

I did quite well in the field wearing glasses. Even when it rained "cais and dogs" in VN there were ways to keep clear vision.

------------------

[WS-G]

pomofo:

Without correction, 20/200 is still adequate for performing most tasks that don't require reading anything smaller than a street sign. In any case, I have never found glasses to be a problem at all, in the field or in the cockpit (I've been a pilot in civilian life since 1984, by the way).

Since my best corrected visual acuity is somewhat better than 20/10 (I've tested at 20/8 on the Landolt Rings test in the past; the Snellen [letters] test isn't quite as accurate) with spectacle lenses already, for all practical purposes my eyesight is actually better than normal (except for the fact that I just need glasses <G> ). I prefer not to risk losing that extra visual acuity by having someone carving on my corneas.

Keep in mind that with PRK and LASIK, the cornea is subject to losing a certain amount of its clarity. As a result, someone with — for example — a DVA of 20/400 correctable to 20/15 and a –6.00 refraction before surgery finds his refractive error reduced to –1.25 and his uncorrected DVA has improved to, say, 20/60 or 20/50 (considered adequate to operate a motor vehicle without lenses), but discovers that his best corrected DVA is now reduced to a mere 20/25. Net results for such a patient: while his uncorrected DVA has improved, he still requires glasses (albeit a weaker lens prescription) to achieve his best visual acuity, only to find that his best DVA isn't what it used to be. This type of outcome is not my idea of an improvement.

BTW... I've had several episodes in the field (night-time, moving through dense thorn shrubs) in which branches have caught on the rucksak of the man ahead of me, only to snap back and catch me squarely in the face. I'd have caught some thorns directly in the eyes if I hadn't been wearing glasses.

[This message has been edited by William M Salter (edited 11-20-2000).]

[TMU]

I actually had LASIK done 4 years ago. I was legally blind in both eyes. My myopia (nearsightedness) was a -7.5 in my right eye, -7.25 in my left. I also had 2.75 diopters of astigmatism in each eye. My overall vision was measured at 20/450. I now see 20/10 in my right eye, 20/17 in my left http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/cool.gif.

I'm a USPA licensed skydiver, and I have over 70 freefall skydives since the surgery. I've also spent quite a bit of time in "unfriendly" environments (i.e. chemical plants, refineries, etc. - there's a lot of them in Houston!), and I have yet to experience any advese effects. I even had some incidents like the one Mr. Salter described. Once, I was clearing some brush and got poked in the eye with a stick. It scratched the hell out of my cornea (this happened only a month after my surgery!) Anyway, it healed completely in just a couple of weeks. Another time, I got gasoline in my eyes and the tissues received a chemical burn. Still no problems!

------------------
Do all you can . . . then do one more!

[Marauder]

Sgt. Salter;
I was wondering whether you would ever use contacts in the field. Or do you still prefer glasses for the reasons you laid out previously (ie. prevent damage to the eyes under certain circumstances)? Do regs/rules allow for wearing contacts while in the field? And did your glasses ever give off any glare during night excercises with clear skies when the moon was out?
Marauder