04-17-2013, 14:38
|
#1
|
|
Asset
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5
|
Navy vs Army Retained Hardware Requirements
In the process of preparing my medical records for MEPS, with a metal plate on my wrist and full functionality, I’ve come across a number of forum threads on this site and others regarding retained hardware for orthopedic injuries and acceptance/disqualification across the different branches’ Special Operations Forces. It seems that the Army, in particular, is much more strict when it comes to retained orthopedic hardware (AR 40-501, 5-3, f.9.) for qualification for Airborne duty (requirement for SF), whereas the Navy is less strict when it comes to this same subject regarding the Naval Special Warfare/Special Operations qualifications (MANMED Article 15-105, 4.j.9.). The physical rigors are similar, why the distinction? Does the Army just have a larger influx of recruits and can be more selective? Is it as simple as a preemptive insurance claim defense?
|
|
jayjojay is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2013, 14:44
|
#2
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Wherever my ruck finds itself
Posts: 2,972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjojay
...SNIP...
|
Studies have shown that initial enlistees who have retained hardware become a liability in training at much greater nubers than those without retained hardware. Therefore the decision was made that it is generally not worth the headache or waste in resources and money.
__________________
"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
"Its not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" -Batman
"There are no obstacles, only opportunities for excellence."- NousDefionsDoc
|
|
Surgicalcric is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2013, 14:52
|
#3
|
|
Asset
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5
|
That makes sense, but do you know why the Navy would be more open to such enlistees?
|
|
jayjojay is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2013, 14:57
|
#4
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Wherever my ruck finds itself
Posts: 2,972
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjojay
That makes sense, but do you know why the Navy would be more open to such enlistees?
|
Nope, never cared to ask anyone who might know.
__________________
"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
"Its not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" -Batman
"There are no obstacles, only opportunities for excellence."- NousDefionsDoc
|
|
Surgicalcric is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2013, 16:11
|
#5
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2,530
|
Other than a few exceptions, life / duty requirements for the Navy are not near that of the Army.
Navy body fat standards are also significantly more lenient...why? Because they are in the Navy.
__________________
Primum non Nocere
"I have hung out in dangerous places a lot over the years, from combat zones to biker bars, and it is the weak, the unaware, or those looking for it, that usually find trouble.
Ain't no one getting out of this world alive. All you can do is try to have some choice in the way you go. Prepare yourself (and your affairs), and when your number is up, die on your feet fighting rather than on your knees. And make the SOBs pay dearly."
The Reaper-3 Sep 04
|
|
Eagle5US is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2013, 17:25
|
#6
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 18 yrs upstate NY, 30 yrs South Florida, 20 yrs Conch Republic, now chasing G-Kids in NOVA & UK
Posts: 11,901
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle5US
Navy body fat standards are also significantly more lenient...why? Because they are in the Navy.
|
What ever FLOATS you boat..
__________________
Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh
"May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead"
|
|
JJ_BPK is offline
|
|
|
04-17-2013, 18:59
|
#7
|
|
Asset
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle5US
Other than a few exceptions, life / duty requirements for the Navy are not near that of the Army.
Navy body fat standards are also significantly more lenient...why? Because they are in the Navy.
|
And that's really the essence of my question. I'm a civilian, no prior service, so I don't know first hand what you do, but from my understanding the physical stresses and rigors of a special operator in the Navy is similar to that of a special operator in the Army (atleast where the effects on an area of the body with retained hardware are concerned). If that's true why is the Navy more willing to take that risk on an enlistee than the Army?
|
|
jayjojay is offline
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:58.
|
|
|
