PDA

View Full Version : Definitive answer


medic41
01-31-2012, 08:29
As i am awaiting my Q course date, i've put in my paper work for corrective eye surgery. I've already read and understand regulations for SF regarding vision and corrective lenses. I asked the EENT staff (eye docs) about their new surgery called ICL (Implantable Lens) and the restrictions placed regarding halo and scuba, but they couldn't give me a definitive answer.
For the record, ICl is acceptable for SF. If somebody has a point of contact for either school that would be able to shed some light on the subject, i would appreciate it. Due to the nature of both schools it has been difficult to track down any point of contact at all.

The Reaper
01-31-2012, 19:37
Unless you have documentation from a competent medical authority stating that the procedure is approved for SF, I would not do squat with my eyes till I walked across the stage with my diploma, beret and Tab, or had that documentation in my hands.

Your call though.

TR

medic41
02-01-2012, 14:35
I agree with you Reaper, and i won't be getting committing to anything at all until i can get a regulation or memorandum. I've just been running into dead end after dead end, and i was hoping someone could put me on the right track with an email or phone number to an authority on the subject. At this point, just about every office in Bragg must have received a call from me searching for answers.

Eagle5US
02-01-2012, 20:19
Your post does not instill much confidence...

EENT is NOT "eye docs"...they are Otolarygologists. The "EYE in Eyes Ears Nose and Throat" is primarily referring to fixing facial (orbital) fractures. These folks operate in the housing FOR the eyes...not the eyes themselves.

Opthomologists are the eye docs and are probably the ones you are talking to.

How is you can state "For the record ICL is acceptable for SF" when you are looking for someone to put pen to paper and tell you the same?:confused:

This procedure is similar to cataract surgery but without removing the old lens - hence the "Implantable Contact Lens". That equates to an "eye prosthetic" (not a "prosthetic eye").


AR 40-501
-CH5-3 Medical Fitness standards for initial selection for ABN, RGR, SF, etc...
para g: eyes and vision
(1) Para 2-12, 2-13 with the exceptions listed below (none of which apply to this so I will refrain from typing them)

-CH2-12
para g. Lens
(1) Current aphakia, HISTORY OF LENS IMPLANT, or current history of dislocation of a lens does not meet the standard.

While the implantable contact lens does not replace the biological lens, as with cataract surgery, it is still an implantable lens none-the-less and can be considered such unless further specified by the medical authority. The medical authority in this case is going to be the SWC SGN.

I see no mention of ICL Corrective surgery in any chapter of the current regulation and am curious (as previously stated) as to where you got "for the record ICL is acceptable for SF".

There should be no need for you to contact "every office on Bragg" regarding this. There is only one individual who will make the decision as to whether or not your physical will be approved and that is the office of the SWC SGN.

ZonieDiver
02-01-2012, 20:20
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying that IF the surgery you seek will still qualify you for SF, but NOT HALO or SCUBA, that you won't seek SF??

Regs change.

Eagle5US
02-03-2012, 08:42
FROM THE WAIVER AUTHORITY in response to my RFI-

MAJ K,

ICL's require a waiver. Must have demonstrated stable visual acuity 6 months post-op. No short-cuts on time frame. The issue I see with ICL's is many have pre-operative refractions that are greater than +/- 8.0 diopters, and regardless of the surgery, and how good they see now, they won't get a waiver. Waiver request must include pre-op refraction.

The reason is high diopter refraction leads to substantially increased risk of retinal detachment - which for an SF Soldier, far from the flagpole and western medical standard of care (access to an opthalmolgist who can quickly intervene and prevent blindness in that eye) is problematic.

Thanks,
RL