# Poor Vision for Chaplain in Reserves



## chaplainLD (9 Jul 2007)

After obtaining endorsement from a Lt. Col, in the Army Reserves to come on board as a Chaplain, I went ahead and took my medical. All was fine, except my poor vision. I received a letter from Recruiting Medical Office stating that because of my poor vision "requiring the use of lenses that are stronger than those allowed for recruits," that I do not meet "the common medical standard...." The letter concludes "Please contact your Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre for the final decision concerning your application." In other words, I see fine with my glasses on, but too poorly with them off.

At present, I am still waiting for my local Recruiting Centre to receive from file from Ottawa. But many of my contacts in the CF reserves do not know if this standard really applies also to Chaplain Reservists.

If it does, what do people think about Laser surgery? Is it worth the risk??

Anyone?


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Jul 2007)

Yes. I have been told by those who've done it that it is a good idea. Impacts your night vision though, apparently.

Regardless, the army needs a few good padres!


----------



## kincanucks (9 Jul 2007)

_But many of my contacts in the CF reserves do not know if this standard really applies also to Chaplain Reservists._

Well it does and it should.  If you don't meet the vision standards now than you are worse than V4 which is the lowest acceptable vision standard.  Good Luck.


----------



## FastEddy (9 Jul 2007)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> _But many of my contacts in the CF reserves do not know if this standard really applies also to Chaplain Reservists._
> 
> Well it does and it should.  If you don't meet the vision standards now than you are worse than V4 which is the lowest acceptable vision standard.  Good Luck.




Regardless of existing standards, can you personally elaborate why or how a Chaplains poor vision could impede or affect his Duties and of Administering Comfort to the Sick the Wounded or the Dying or the Troubled of Spirit or Mind.

It almost seems, that today to qualify to have your limbs blown off or Dying for your County you must have a College Degree and be a Olympian Adonis.

How many applicants  have been turned away over the years for being just under the wire, but would be perfectly functional in a Selective or Specific Trade.


----------



## KrissyJ (9 Jul 2007)

My husband is in the CF and he got it about a year ago. In his  view he say's its the best thing he ever did. I would suggest going to a Lasik MD if you have one near you. They have great payment plans and they were wonderful during the process. We pay 130$ a month for two years to cover the cost. If you want to speak to him about his experience send me a PM and I will pass him your email.


----------



## kincanucks (9 Jul 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Regardless of existing standards, can you personally elaborate why or how a Chaplains poor vision could impede or affect his Duties and of Administering Comfort to the Sick the Wounded or the Dying or the Troubled of Spirit or Mind.
> 
> It almost seems, that today to qualify to have your limbs blown off or Dying for your County you must have a College Degree and be a Olympian Adonis.
> 
> How many applicants  have been turned away over the years for being just under the wire, but would be perfectly functional in a Selective or Specific Trade.



I don't know but why don't you ask the branch that sets the standards for their occupation? And a Chaplin can't administer freak all if they can't see where the sick and wounded are and perhaps we should lower the standards so that seeing eye dogs and people in wheelchairs are perfectly acceptable.  Then perhaps the MP branch can buy wheelchair accessible patrol vehicles and the drug dogs can have a secondary duty.

HH and DA


----------



## RCR Grunt (9 Jul 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> It almost seems, that today to qualify to have your limbs blown off or Dying for your County you must have a College Degree and be a Olympian Adonis.



Standards exist so that you may meet the minimum requirment to SOLDIER.  A chaplain is still a soldier, when he goes overseas he still wears a helmet and body armour and carries a gun, and he has to be able to employ that weapon.  If he is unable to do so, he becomes a liability.  It can't be explained any clearer than that.


----------



## Trinity (9 Jul 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Standars exist so that you may meet the minimum requirment to SOLDIER.  A chaplain is still a soldier, when he goes overseas he still wears a helmet and body armour *and carries a gun, and he has to be able to employ that weapon.*  If he is unable to do so, he becomes a liability.  It can't be explained any clearer than that.



Oh really!?  Are you sure about the highlighted parts???!!!   :-X


----------



## RCR Grunt (9 Jul 2007)

I was worried about that part, but could not recall whether ours carried or not ... either way if they cant see the danger they are not employable.


----------



## Munxcub (9 Jul 2007)

Generally speaking, in the CF are you not a soldier first a (your trade here) second? I am very new to it all but that's my understanding, please correct if I am wrong.


----------



## Fraser.g (9 Jul 2007)

As I personaly know a Padre that has returned from KAF in the last week, I am confident in stating that yes they do wear PPE but do not wear a side arm or C-7.


----------



## RCR Grunt (9 Jul 2007)

RN PRN said:
			
		

> As I personaly know a Padre that has returned from KAF in the last week, I am confident in stating that yes they do wear PPE but do not wear a side arm or C-7.



This has been resolved and moved to PM's.


----------



## Fraser.g (9 Jul 2007)

ACK


----------



## FastEddy (12 Jul 2007)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> I don't know but why don't you ask the branch that sets the standards for their occupation? And a Chaplin can't administer freak all if they can't see where the sick and wounded are and perhaps we should lower the standards so that seeing eye dogs and people in wheelchairs are perfectly acceptable.  Then perhaps the MP branch can buy wheelchair accessible patrol vehicles and the drug dogs can have a secondary duty.
> 
> HH and DA




The above reply is what I should have expected from you .( you either won't, can't, shouldn't or suggest, look it up yourself).

Your extreme and ridiculous examples on this subject, clearly indicates you have reached a new high. 

I'm quite sure that any member of the Cloth, would never suggest his enrolment in the CAF's, if he felt that any personal physical impairment would restrict him in the performance of his Duties. In this case, you suggest Blindness.

As for your reference and snide remarks concerning the MP Branch, they are only reflective of where they come from.

In closing, I might mention, your Colleagues at the Montreal CFRC, must be thrilled of your opinion of them.


----------



## Scott (12 Jul 2007)

Ease up all or have it locked and binned.


----------



## kincanucks (12 Jul 2007)

_In closing, I might mention, your Colleagues at the Montreal CFRC, must be thrilled of your opinion of them._

Really?  Well since I don't work at CFRC Montreal or in recruiting it doesn't matter what my "colleagues" think does it?

And why should I look something up when I know the answer.  As for reaching a new high I am not there yet.  Move along now there is nothing to _see _ here.


----------



## Emenince Grise (12 Jul 2007)

chaplainLD said:
			
		

> After obtaining endorsement from a Lt. Col, in the Army Reserves to come on board as a Chaplain, I went ahead and took my medical. All was fine, except my poor vision. I received a letter from Recruiting Medical Office stating that because of my poor vision "requiring the use of lenses that are stronger than those allowed for recruits," that I do not meet "the common medical standard...." The letter concludes "Please contact your Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre for the final decision concerning your application." In other words, I see fine with my glasses on, but too poorly with them off.
> 
> At present, I am still waiting for my local Recruiting Centre to receive from file from Ottawa. But many of my contacts in the CF reserves do not know if this standard really applies also to Chaplain Reservists.
> 
> ...



Lasik is worth the risk, but be aware it will delay your enrollment by six months. A colleague enlisted in the Reserves as a chaplain and Lasik delayed his process for six months.

DND Recruiting is being especially clear in insisting that chaplains meet the common medical standard. I know of several very qualified applicants for the Chaplain's Branch who passed Selection Board but did not meet the medical requirements. I am one of those. Waivers are possible, but the grounds are limited. I suggest you contact the Chaplain General's office directly as they may be able to clarify process with Recruiting.


----------



## Emenince Grise (12 Jul 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Standards exist so that you may meet the minimum requirment to SOLDIER.  A chaplain is still a soldier, when he goes overseas he still wears a helmet and body armour and carries a gun, and he has to be able to employ that weapon.  If he is unable to do so, he becomes a liability.  It can't be explained any clearer than that.



You are quite right that a chaplain wears a helmet and body armour, but they are forbidden to carry a weapon of any kind. In that way, you are quite right. They are a liability in a operational setting. However, chaplains are prepared to take the risks and the soldiers they serve are prepared to protect them, I am told.


----------



## chaplainLD (12 Jul 2007)

Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> Lasik is worth the risk, but be aware it will delay your enrollment by six months... I suggest you contact the Chaplain General's office directly as they may be able to clarify process with Recruiting.


Thank you for your advise.

What's somewhat surprising, to me anyhow (but perhaps it's part of basic training  ;D) is the lack of clarity in the information, and the way it flows to the applicant.

CFRC wasn't aware, initially, of the response I had received from the Medical Office in Ottawa. The CFRC officer told me to wait until my file returned from Ottawa, and then to speak with the medical technician who did my medical testing. (BTW: that same officer told me that the waiting time after Lasik surgery was 3 months -- not 6.) Today, I did so. But he told me that I would have to speak with the CFRC officer to find out if a waiver was possible.

I would have thought that the evaluation from the Medical Office would go to the CFRC (not to me), who would then compose their own letter letter to me, informing me of: the medical test results; b) the implications, c) and my options. As of today, I have yet to receive any official word (certainly not in terms of a letter) from CFRC.

Outstanding questions:
1. Is a waiver a  possibitly? (I will inquire, as advised) (Consider, while I took a medical test, absolutely no physical fitness test was required.)
2. How long, exactly, is the waiting time after the operation?
3. After the waiting time is over, what steps do I have take (forms to fill, etc) to get the disqualification rescinded?


----------



## Munxcub (12 Jul 2007)

The fitness test is done at the beginning of BMQ these days, no biggy.


----------



## FastEddy (13 Jul 2007)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> _In closing, I might mention, your Colleagues at the Montreal CFRC, must be thrilled of your opinion of them._
> 
> Really?  Well since I don't work at CFRC Montreal or in recruiting it doesn't matter what my "colleagues" think does it?





Sorry, I wonder where I got that impression, oh!, maybe I read it some where, that you were also the Guru and this Forums last word on Recruiting and no one should ever question your posts on the subject. Also I was not inferring that you were posted at CFRC Montreal.

Apparently I have erred in my presumptions and apologize for same. 

Now back on track, as for a Chaplain not being able to find injured CF Members on Land or Sea, I can not believe that Religious Institutions Recruit Candidates that would have such impaired vision.

I can only guess that many a Brave Chaplain crawled out in the Blackness of Night, guided only by the cries or moans of the dying or wounded of WW I. 

The argument for a comparable degree of vision for a sniper, should be the same as a Chaplain is ridiculous. Though I'll bet the Gentleman in question has a valid Drivers Lic.


----------



## Brett (13 Jul 2007)

You people give me headaches....


----------



## Sig_Des (13 Jul 2007)

Allright. I remembered that there was a legal precedent here.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1994/1994canlii3483/1994canlii3483.html

It's a case from 1994 of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (Applicant) vs. the Canadian Armed Forces (Respondent)on behalf of Julia Husband (Mise en cause).

Miss Husband claiming that she was discriminated against by the CAF based on a physical disability. She had applied for a direct entry position as a musician with the CAF, a position in which the candidate fills a designated position. "Candidates are judged initially on their musical abilities and then, on recommendation, they are made a recruitment offer. Once recruited, they must, like all other recruits, pass basic training. Although the complainant's musical skills qualified her for the position, her eyesight did not meet the minimum entry standard for the CAF."



> The majority of the Tribunal concluded that the types of activities which must be performed by members of the military carry with them a reasonable risk of the loss, breakage or other problems associated with the use of corrective lenses. *It held that the entry level standard for visual acuity, while constituting discrimination based on disability, was a bona fide occupational requirement and was therefore not a discriminatory practice.* It expressly found that the minimum standard for visual acuity for entry into the CAF had met the objective test laid down in Ontario Human Rights Commission et al. v. Borough of Etobicoke, i.e. that the minimum standard was reasonably necessary to assure the efficient and economical performance of the job without endangering the employee, her fellow employees and the general public



Now this was for a musician, but I see the principle of the ruling still applying.


----------



## FastEddy (13 Jul 2007)

Edited to correct background, Sorry !


----------



## FastEddy (13 Jul 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> Allright. I remembered that there was a legal precedent here.
> 
> http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/1994/1994canlii3483/1994canlii3483.html
> 
> ...




Very Interesting and informative reading, which I would not attempt to argue concerning the case of Ms.Husband, favouring the CAF on the "Soldier first policy".

But wonder if the MOC of Clergy were substituted for Musician if those arguments would be effected or different ?, concerning the under noted extract,

"Before proceeding to consider the second issue, it would be useful to discuss the occupation against which the determination of that issue must be assessed. After considering the preponderance of uncontroverted evidence on the point, the majority concluded that the primary role or occupation was that of a soldier. It therefore assessed the entry standard in light of the evidence concerning the unique role assigned to that occupational group by the National Defence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N-5, sections 14, 31 [as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 31, s. 60, Sch. I, s. 14], 33 [as am. idem, s. 15] and 34 [as am. idem] which provide, in substance, that any member of the CAF may be placed on active service by reason of emergency, for the defence of Canada and is at all times liable to perform any lawful duty."

This simply means in one sense that any Member of the CAF's can and must bear arms and willfully engage an enemy with deadly force, be it that he or she is a Musician, Clerk or other wise.

But in the case of the Clergy, is this a lawfull order or if its against the tenants of that Clergy's Religion is he/she required to obey those orders ?. Therefore can the CAF's policy Soldier first be applicable or applied ?.

Cheers.


----------



## Trinity (13 Jul 2007)

Just because you take the "weapon" away from the chaplain, doesn't make him/her any LESS of a soldier.

Chaplains are still required to do all other aspects of soldiering on top of their own trade. And the CF has decided
that the minimum requirement for soldiering is and thus every trade must meet that.


----------



## FastEddy (13 Jul 2007)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Just because you take the "weapon" away from the chaplain, doesn't make him/her any LESS of a soldier.
> 
> Chaplains are still required to do all other aspects of soldiering on top of their own trade. And the CF has decided
> that the minimum requirement for soldiering is and thus every trade must meet that.




That has never been in dispute. But it is not the question at hand.

But since you wished to enter the Arena, I respectfully put it to you, do and are the Clergy required to take human life and be used or placed in a Combat Roll as a stipulation for enrolment.

If it is not, therefore it would be fair to presume that DND's Standards are with exceptions and the argument of Soldier First .  Would a Clergy candidate with a V4 or V5 with minimun corrective equipment be denied enrolment using this argument, where the Candidate would never be ordered into a Combat Roll. And these Exemptions would not place the DND and other CAF Members at risk or harms way.

These questions are most certainally not meant to be Critical of the Chaplains Corps, quite the opposite.

Cheers.


----------



## xena (13 Jul 2007)

Pardon me for interjecting, but I believe there is something of "tradition" vs. "regulation" going on.  I am aware that the QR&O's prohibit a Chaplain from issuing an order.  There is no such regulation preventing a (whatever level) commander from issuing a Chaplain an order.

However, this is "traditionally" not done.  The idea is that no commander would ever tell a Chaplain what to preach about from the pulpit, etc.

Similarly, I don't believe there is a true exemption in the regulations regarding Chaplains carrying weapons.  It is within the traditions of the various denominations and faiths, that they do not.  Therefore, they could be expected to be *capable* of bearing arms, even if they do not.

I will welcome any corrections on this matter by members of the Chaplain's branch, or others with the pertaining regs at hand.


----------



## Emenince Grise (13 Jul 2007)

xena said:
			
		

> Pardon me for interjecting, but I believe there is something of "tradition" vs. "regulation" going on.  I am aware that the QR&O's prohibit a Chaplain from issuing an order.  There is no such regulation preventing a (whatever level) commander from issuing a Chaplain an order.
> 
> However, this is "traditionally" not done.  The idea is that no commander would ever tell a Chaplain what to preach about from the pulpit, etc.
> 
> ...





> NON-COMBATANT STATUS
> 4. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, chaplains are non-combatant. The policy of the ICCMC and
> Chaplain General is that chaplains shall not bear arms. Consistent with this policy is the guideline that a chaplain
> will only learn to make the weapon safe on the Chaplain’s Officers Basic Training Course (ChBOTC) and,
> ...



A-CG-001-000/JD-000  S 3-1

http://www.forces.gc.ca/Chapgen/docs/pdf/Branch_manual.pdf

I think this answers the question succinctly.


----------



## xena (13 Jul 2007)

Ack.  Thanks.  I'll be quiet now. :-X


----------



## armyvern (13 Jul 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> ...
> If it is not, therefore it would be fair to presume that DND's Standards are with exceptions and the argument of Soldier First .  Would a Clergy candidate with a V4 or V5 with minimun corrective equipment be denied enrolment using this argument, where the Candidate would never be ordered into a Combat Roll. And these Exemptions would not place the DND and other CAF Members at risk or harms way.
> ...



The other side of this coin is that, although Chaplains would never be placed directly into a combat role, they, by virtue of their calling, can be found at the front lines and in the FOBs. I agree that any soldier worth his salt would lay down his/her life without a thought to protect that Padre as well.

That being said, fighting on the lines, or attacks on FOBs, often occur at night in reduced visibility. Even in daylight, vision can be reduced significantly due to dust, debris, etc kicked up in the battle.  It is the duty of all CF personnel to be ever vigilant and to observe their surroundings, to detect, determine and report all threat possibilities. The ability to do so quite often _can_ be the deciding factor between life and death. Minimum vision standards exist for every CF member precisely _because_ of conditions existant at that _front line_ and everyone must meet those standards to avoid placing anyone else at that front line at a greater, or unnecessary, risk; including themselves.

Edited to add: "including themselves."


----------



## Trinity (13 Jul 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> That has never been in dispute. But it is not the question at hand.



Actually...  yes it is. By you here...



> But in the case of the Clergy, is this a lawfull order or if its against the tenants of that Clergy's Religion is he/she required to obey those orders ?. *Therefore can the CAF's policy Soldier first be* applicable or applied ?.



Based on your statement/question that chaplains cannot be a solider first.


The reality is it takes at least 9 years to train a chaplain (needs B.A, M.Div, 2 years civilian parish time), that if
you need to employ a chaplain in the solider first idea, i.e. put a weapon in their hand and assist in battle would be
a severe misuse of resources.  But they can do all other aspects of soldiering as required and/or ordered to.


Sure, even a blind chaplain could administer to the sick and the dying in combat, however, it is the training and environments that the chaplain
must endure in all aspects of military life, including field and deployment, which they must be able to complete first before giving care
(using your own example from earlier).   For WHATEVER reason the military has decided that the MINIMUM eyesight for soldiering skills is (whatever it is),
and SADLY this chaplain does not meet them.   

Hopefully he can apply for an exemption.  The chaplain hiring procedure is not straight forward and the Interfaith Committee on Canadian Military Chaplaincy is 
also involved.  An inquiry by them to the military on vision standards for chaplain might cause a review to see if a lower standard or exception is possible.
  http://www.forces.gc.ca/chapgen/engraph/iccmc_e.asp?cat=1


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Jul 2007)

One reason why we always had great respect for our (unarmed) padres. Another Falklands story...

Transcript:  Major The Reverend David Cooper, Padre, 2 PARA, Battle of Goose Green, 1982

Major The Reverend David Cooper

I was busy trying to collect casualties. We'd got a lot, we couldn't get them out, this was the real problem and indeed, a helicopter had coming forward to try to take 'H' out was shot down. So, not unreasonably, the Air Corps were reluctant to come out and for some hours we were on and around Darwin hillside with dwindling ammunition and an increasing number of casualties and no means of getting them out. I decided I was going to try to get to one of the forward companies having heard that they'd got casualties and I walked up Darwin Hill to try to get to them. At the top I came to the Gorse line and I passed main headquarters said where I was going and tried to get forward and had the gorse hedge just shot apart around me. I was aware of an enormous amount of noise, of shots going by, of the hedge disintegrating in splinters, twigs flying about, something plucked my sleeve. I eventually got through it and lay down with a soldier who was in a small hollow and could smell whisky. We had a conversation about which of us had been drinking before I realised in fact the hip flask I had been carrying with Bob Fox's whisky in had diverted a bullet and the shot had hit the flask and glanced off to the left. In the event, and I rather regret it now, but I threw the flask away and said "Its no use to me, the Argentines might as well have it."


----------



## FastEddy (14 Jul 2007)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Hopefully he can apply for an exemption.  The chaplain hiring procedure is not straight forward and the Interfaith Committee on Canadian Military Chaplaincy is
> also involved.  An inquiry by them to the military on vision standards for chaplain might cause a review to see if a lower standard or exception is possible.
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/chapgen/engraph/iccmc_e.asp?cat=1




Yes, this is the exact reason for my inquiry.

You seem to think the questions raised are designed to Demean or make Members of your Corps any less Soldiers, they are NOT !. They are only to explore and hopefully advance efforts by the above noted Committee. 

Though I can appreciate you Esprit-De-Corps, I can assure there is no cause for Saber Rattling. ;D

Cheers.


----------



## Trinity (14 Jul 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Though I can appreciate you Esprit-De-Corps, I can assure there is no cause for Saber Rattling. ;D
> 
> Cheers.



I can't.  I'm not issued a sword either.   :-\


----------



## FastEddy (14 Jul 2007)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I can't.  I'm not issued a sword either.   :-\




Good One !  ;D  Sorry I never considered that.

Cheers.


----------



## Emenince Grise (14 Jul 2007)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I can't.  I'm not issued a sword either.   :-\



I'm sure, however, that you do a pretty mean asperges with the Holy Water.


----------



## chaplainLD (15 Apr 2008)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Hopefully he can apply for an exemption.


Thanks for your good wishes. After a fairly lengthy wait (to decide who issues adminstrative waivers of this sort), a waiver was finally  issued! I am very excited to say that I will very soon be sworn in as a Reserve Chaplain!


----------



## Emenince Grise (15 Apr 2008)

chaplainLD said:
			
		

> Thanks for your good wishes. After a fairly lengthy wait (to decide who issues adminstrative waivers of this sort), a waiver was finally  issued! I am very excited to say that I will very soon be sworn in as a Reserve Chaplain!



Congratulations!


----------



## Trinity (15 Apr 2008)

Welcome to the club.


----------



## chaplainLD (15 Apr 2008)

Thank you so much for your good wishes! And in May, I am off to CFB Borden!


----------

