# Infantry requirements VS. standard enrollment requirements.



## Mustadio (29 Jan 2008)

So It has taken quite awhile to complete my application process. Finally after getting my hearing tested by a specialist I am a H3. 1 ear can hear from 500 - 8000 Hz at about 5db average, so I have great hearing in that ear. My other ear, which I was born with, I can't hear lower pitches as efficiently as higher pitches. Lower pitches are around 40 db, while higher pitches are 10-20. For speech audiometry I can hear from 05 db in the 1 ear, and 25db in the other ear. So I'm an H3, which sure, my one hear isn't too great, but I was excited that I met the infantry requirements (not to mention almost all professions are H3).

Oh wait, what's that, the standard enrollment requirements are H2?... Needless to say I was disappointed when I got the letter informing me that I don't meet the requirements. Now I understand if you're in service and you are an H3 (become one over time I assume) you're still able to do the courses that need H3 hearing, because you joined when you had H2 or better hearing. I understand how that works out, but from my viewpoint that doesn't make much sense. If someone has been serving for a couple years, and has H3 hearing, or I am just applying and I have H3 hearing...well, we can both hear the same.

Obviously my situation won't change by posting here, but I am still posting this to feel a bit better. I'm not angry, just really sad =(. Discussion and any input would be appreciated. 

Thanks for reading .


----------



## tech2002 (29 Jan 2008)

Mustadio, 
 unfortunately there is nothing we can do. DND will not change right now the policy on hearing requirements, unless number of people will raise concerns, speaking to ombudsman for CF/DND, I have find out that DND is looking at the policies again. and possible review might help us as well.  will it happen I doubt it..  but we never know..


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Jan 2008)

Sorry that you didn't meet the enrolment medical standard due to your hearing.  You're right, your situation won't change by ranting here, but you seem to be more squared away than others by your realization of the difference between the medical standard for an occupation and the minimum enrolment standard.  Your viewpoint that it "doesn't make much sense. If someone has been serving for a couple years, and has H3 hearing, or I am just applying and I have H3 hearing...well, we can both hear the same'' may be understandable to you, but those who look at it with a broader institutional sense see it differently.

The medical categories are developed based on legitimate requirements that those serving in specific occupations need to meet minimum standards in order to do the job adequately.  There is also a likelyhood that a significant percentage of those who serve in the military will suffer some noise-induced (or ototoxic-induced) hearing loss during their military service.  For those who are enrolled meeting the minimum (or better) hearing standard (especially in combat arms) the expectation should be that, even if they suffer some hearing loss during their service, they may still be able to meet the required standard and thus don't need to be replaced.  The same cannot be said if someone was enrolled as an H3, there isn't as much room for wear and tear.

I wasn't able to quickly find anything that specifically refers to current CF stats but some of the same things happen in other countries' armed forces.  
Hearing health and care: The need for improved hearing loss prevention and hearing conservation practices


> Abstract — Hearing loss affects 31 million Americans, particularly veterans who were exposed to harmful levels of noise during military functions. Many veterans also receive treatment with ototoxic medications, which may exacerbate preexisting hearing loss. *Thus, hearing loss is the most common and tinnitus the third most common service-connected disability among veterans*. ....
> 
> *Veterans are at particular risk for having noise-induced hearing loss due to noise associated with military service * [15-16]. The alarming incidence of hearing loss among World War II veterans contributed largely to the creation of audiology as a novel healthcare profession. While present military personnel benefit from improved weapons systems and armors that are increasing survival rates, regrettably* noise-induced hearing loss is on the rise among U.S. servicemen and women*. ....
> ... *Among soldiers returning from deployments, hearing loss is the fourth leading reason for medical referral*. One-third of soldiers who recently returned from deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq were referred to audiologists for hearing evaluations due to exposure to acute acoustic blasts; 72 percent were identified as having hearing loss. Auditory disabilities represented the most prevalent individual service-connected disability among veterans receiving compensation in fiscal year (FY) 2004, affecting some 742,211 individuals [18].



http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/hearingloss.cfm


> NIHL and Veterans
> NIHL is of particular concern to veterans. Because NIHL is not immediately apparent (having a gradual onset), many veterans leaving the service are unaware of the full extent of hearing damage. Although governments are now realizing the link between military service and NIHL, it took a long time and many lawsuits before any compensation was given to the affected veterans. In 1999 *the USA alone distributed $291.6 million in compensation for NIHL to some 56,792 veterans*. The annual cost of *compensation to veterans in France is estimated to be $60 million*. In *Belgium two thirds of all payments made to veterans with disabilities correspond to NIHL*. Many veterans damage their hearing during service. They can, however, prevent more damage from occurring and they can save their remaining hearing after their military duties are completed.



I included this as it refers to a 60 year old study on NIHL in military setting (the last sentence) as an example of how long this issue has been looked at.
http://medicineau.net.au/clinical/ent/en1471.html


> Acoustic trauma
> 13. Burns26 writes that there is a clear tendency for the ear to be more tolerant of noise at the low rather than the middle and higher frequencies. The ear appears to be particularly vulnerable to frequencies in the range 2000 to 4000 Hz, or even 6000 Hz. *These frequencies are likely to be generated* in industrial settings by various hammering, stamping, pressing, shipping and riveting operations27, and *in military settings by gunfire and explosions*. For the latter, Terkildsen28 has shown that a single intense, sudden sound can damage the ear before the aural reflex can act (that is, where sound is generated in a shorter time than 44 11 milliseconds). For repetitive sounds, the contraction of the stapedial muscles is maintained when repetition occurs less than once a second. *In 1946, Murray and Reid29 showed that 28 single rounds fired several seconds apart produced substantial temporary threshold shifts whilst the same number of shots from an automatic (Bren) gun gave insignificant temporary changes*.


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Jan 2008)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> The medical categories are developed based on legitimate requirements that those serving in specific occupations need to meet minimum standards in order to do the job adequately.  There is also a likelyhood that a significant percentage of those who serve in the military will suffer some noise-induced (or ototoxic-induced) hearing loss during their military service.  For those who are enrolled meeting the minimum (or better) hearing standard (especially in combat arms) the expectation should be that, even if they suffer some hearing loss during their service, they may still be able to meet the required standard and thus don't need to be replaced.  The same cannot be said if someone was enrolled as an H3, there isn't as much room for wear and tear.



I was trying to come up with pretty much that same logic earlier but couldn't even begin to think of how to say it.  Well put, Blackadder!


----------



## Mustadio (29 Jan 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I was trying to come up with pretty much that same logic earlier but couldn't even begin to think of how to say it.  Well put, Blackadder!



Agreed, well said.

Well all hope isn't lost, I still have a very, very thin strand, which I'm trying to hold onto. Cause actually the results that were rejected were before I got my ears cleaned out, where it was H3 and my Speech audiometry was 65dB. I went to the recruiting center and handed in my newer results which is what I said in my first post, where my speech audiometry is 25dB which is under the 30dB. Since this would qualify as H2 specifically for the speech part, which presumably would be the most important, I'm hoping it does some good for me. Also my 2000-8000 Hertz frequency is below 30dB, where my 250-1000 is now closer to 30, then 50, like my previous one. The person in charge of the health section of my recruiting center said he still doubts it will make any difference, but that he would still submit it for me, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed, and prepare to wait another grueling 3 weeks.

I completely understand why they need to be careful with the hearing section of the medical. They both want to ensure quality troops, as well as their safety. Just like many other's have said on this board, so I don't want to sound like a broken record player but, this really is something that I've always wanted to do. Amazingly everything else about me works perfectly fine. Especially considering how it seems like the majority of people these days wear glasses, I'm still a 20-20, and I'm fit, yet something from birth, that is completely out of my control gets the best of me. It's not even like I listen to music loud, like many people with hearing problems do to themselves.

Anyways, thanks for taking the time to explain, and getting the quotes and links to follow up on. Still holding on to a tiny bit of hope, wish me luck .


----------

