View Full Version : MEPS question
Hope i'm not breaking any rules, i really did search for this online and turned up nada.
I was going in for my MEP yesterday and intending to sign my REP 63 contract. Everything was fine except the vision test (i'm nearsighted, -6.5 in one eye and -7 in the other), which we had to get a waiver for. I didn't get a chance to talk to the National Guard liason or the doctor, so everything I know is through the recruiter. The doctor apparently will not approve of the waiver for the 18D MOS specified on my contract because SF training includes Airborne training, which I guess requires good eyesight. We are putting off the contract until we get the full medical report back next Thursday.
The recruiter says there are ways around this waiver issue, and we might have to get pretty creative, including enlisting in a regular 11B unit as a medic and then attending the SF tryout the SF unit holds in order to get back on track. However, that entails changing the contract to 91W. I was wondering if the waiver issue is true, that Airborne frowns upon bad eyesight. I had been planning to get LASIK surgery, but the recruiter said I should wait until after SFAS (before Airborne school) to get it. I appreciate any insight people can provide.
The Reaper
01-27-2006, 09:26
As I am sure you are aware, that is REALLY bad eyesight, perhaps unwaiverable.
Refer to the vision requirements in AR 40-501.
Any sort of corrective eye surgery can render you ineligible for Airborne or SF.
See the reg, as is directed in one of my stickies.
TR
Just spoke with my recruiter. Said his first sergeant looked at my medical and thinks I should have no problem getting a waiver from the NG Bureau for SF pipeline. Won't consider myself out of the woods yet until I am holding that waiver in my hand at the end of the month, but I hope to sign the contract soon and will be posting my ship date.
I missed something. This is from the Free-fall air section. Looks like I'm screwed as well at least for HALO. I'll see on Friday I guess. Who comes up with this crap? They changed it form the older version. I hate this uncorrected crap. Oh well.
(2) Uncorrected near visual acuity (14 inches) of worse than 20/50 in the better eye. Uncorrected distant visual acuity of worse than 20/100 in either eye. Distant vision that does not correct to 20/20 in both eyes with spectacle
lenses. Any refractive error worse than plus or minus 8 diopters.
The Reaper
02-05-2006, 09:10
I missed something. This is from the Free-fall air section. Looks like I'm screwed as well at least for HALO. I'll see on Friday I guess. Who comes up with this crap? They changed it form the older version. I hate this uncorrected crap. Oh well.
(2) Uncorrected near visual acuity (14 inches) of worse than 20/50 in the better eye. Uncorrected distant visual acuity of worse than 20/100 in either eye. Distant vision that does not correct to 20/20 in both eyes with spectacle
lenses. Any refractive error worse than plus or minus 8 diopters.
Nuke:
We already told him where to find the info, and that his vision was bad.
How about you quit dispensing medical advice until you are an Army physician or an SF soldier?
I wouldn't worry about HALO School till you make it through Basic, AIT, Airborne, SOPC I, SFAS, SOPC II, etc. Focus on the 25 meter target.
TR
Refractive error and Visual Accuity are distinct though they MAY be related.
Looking at the requirements, a plus or minus 8 correction is quite severe. Frankly if one with such an error were to lose his glasses or contacts he woulo be dependent upon someone else to find Them.
Things have changed vastly in the past several years and you may be getting outdated advice or the military may even not be totally up to date. I would expect the military in the future to require 20/20 vision corrected by means of surgery rather than spectacles or contacts. Hopefully you won't be mis-placing your eyeballs.
This may not be the case right now but it will come.
Not just for vision, but for all disabilities, remember that its not about you or your career. It is ultimately about the lives around you. What good is a medic if he can't see what he is doing because his glasses are lost or broken? In the same light, what good is a trooper who has to be helped/carried along because he reinjured a leg or knee which he lied about or failed to report?
BTW: 20/200 is considered legally blind!!
It is through debate and conversation that we learn. Feel free to learn me TR. :)
Oh man, you'd better duck and cover...
Oh man, you'd better duck and cover...
LOL, nothing like poking the bear. I should know better.
The Reaper
02-05-2006, 14:50
Well that's a first. I've never been scolded for trying to help someone out. :D
As far as not being a Army physician or SF soldier...no I'm not but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;) Seriously though, I have done some research into the topic and have read a lot of papers/articles wrote by Army and Air Force physician on the topic at hand and figured I would pass on what I've learned from my reasearch. There is nothing wrong with that!
You are right I do need to worry about basic and even getting through MEPS first but there is nothing wrong with looking ahead. Something down the road might affect what I should do now. It isn't any good to find out that 3 months ago you could have prevented a problem you are facing today. But as you say, I can't get too focused on the future and forget about now. You make a good point there.
In the end it IS about the safety of the guys around you. I can understand that. But I don't think having glasses is such a big deal. When I go camping I take two sets of glasses and contacts when I'm out in the boondox. I always have a backup readily available. Calm down, I'm not saying it's the same as a combat situation by any means of the imagination but the point is that when presented with a possible problem you should have a plan on how to mitigate it.
Please don't take this wrong, I don't mean any disrepect to anyone. It is through debate and conversation that we learn. Feel free to learn me TR. :)
If you think that was a scolding, I can't wait till you meet your Drill Instructor. He will probably be less intellectual and more physical in his instructional technique though. This shot is low order.
Let's review. I made it through my initial entry training with corrected vision. Served in an infantry platoon for three years. Made it through the SFQC. Served another 22 years in SF. Spent the last four years of my career holding people to standards, evaluating and selecting SF soldiers, and assisting with approving or disapproving waivers. Am a plank holder on this board, where I have dispensed qualified advice to hundreds of prospective SF soldiers.
I think that people who have done nothing in the military yet should stand down and let people who have answer the questions here. That is what this site is all about. Ask a QP, a BTDT. Not "Ask a Masters in Energetic Materials (Explosives)".
Yeah, I guess I could stand down and let you tell people what you think the standard is, and what they should do. I am sorry, but I do not think that I will. The point I initially made was that he should look up the answer for himself in AR 40-501, and understand the limitations imposed. You started this thread with an ethical question about enlistment, and I gave you an answer. Maybe you would have prefered a reply from your local junior high shop teacher?
What value did your comments to the vision question add, other than a bit of confusion?
When you have completed some phase of training successfully, feel free to comment on it. Till then, I do not want to see you offering opinions or your two cents worth, unless someone specifically asks for a generic opinion, or about an area you are an expert in. Like Energetic Materials (Explosives).
This is not about being schooled, this is about respect, allowing qualified people to answer questions, and about the need to look it up for yourself.
This site is for QPs. You are a guest. If you choose not to abide by our requests, you will find your stay here brief. I hope that you understand my points, and roger up. If not, we can go high order.
Have a very SF Day.
TR
Lest you think I am pulling a leg or two:
http://vision.about.com/od/severevisionloss/f/legalblind.htm?terms=american+association+blind
The vision in my left eye is 20/200 on a good day. It has nothing to do with refractive error and is not correctable with glasses. It is due to macular degeneration. The vision in my right eye is 20/40 uncorrected.
Please don't take this wrong, I don't mean any disrepect to anyone. It is through debate and conversation that we learn. Feel free to learn me TR. :)How about closing your mouth, going outside and PT?
Better yet...WTF are your PT scores? Your ability to type seems pretty good.:rolleyes: Your SA and the abilty to read and comprend basic guidance are lacking.
Have a good day; not a SF Day, since you have yet to accomplish a damn thing in our arena.
This is off track a little but I see references to HALO and SCUBA physical qualifications. I spent over ten years on dive status and took a Class II Flight Physical semi-annually. The difference between the Class I and II was the vision requirements. Don't ask the actual requirements but I know I had students who had Rx inserts for their dive masks.
I see your point TR. That is the point of the forum. If they wanted to hear from guys like me they'd go somewhere else.
I have never questioned your cridentials and I ment no disrespect as I'm sure you know.
VR, Ray
GO STEELERS!