Navy News, benefits, careers, entertainment, photos, promotions - Navy Times HOME

Eye armor

Thousands of sailors serving on the ground in Iraq and other combat zones do not have the protective eyewear they need, according to a Navy eye doctor who is serving with the Army.

Today, only those sailors specifically deploying with the Army or Marine Corps are issued military tested and approved ballistic eyewear. That’s because those services have adopted formal service-issue programs while the Navy has not.

Most affected by this problem are sailors in Seabee and Special Warfare units, as well as any organized Navy units that deploy on the ground to a war zone. Those sailors could be using substandard equipment, the doctor said.

This concern comes as the Navy’s involvement in ground combat operations is on the rise. In March, 11,000 sailors were on the ground in the region, climbing to more than 12,500 now.

“What’s lacking for the Navy is a clearly written, detailed, formal instruction telling commanders exactly what ballistic eyewear to purchase for their sailors,” said Lt. Cmdr. Brian Hatch, a Navy eye doctor serving with the Tri-Service Vision Conservation and Readiness Program in Aberdeen, Md. “The Army has a program and a policy, the Air Force and Marine Corps have programs and policies, but the Navy does not.”

Such a policy would mean that commanders would have specific guidance on exactly what ballistic eyewear to purchase and issue to their troops, thus reducing confusion and the chance sailors might receive substandard devices, Hatch said.

Navy officials say they have a policy and have issued standards that protective eyewear must meet. That policy comes under a broad “sight conservation policy” outlined in a few paragraphs as part of the Navy Occupational Safety and Health Program — known in the fleet as OpNav 5100.23G for shore activities or 5100.19D for those afloat.

“Those instructions state the standard [that] Navy protective eyewear should stand up to,” said Boyzie Hayes, an ordnance safety expert at the Navy Safety Center in Norfolk, Va. Officials at the Navy’s Bureau of Medicine referred all questions on ballistic eyewear policies to the safety center.

Hayes said the afloat instruction is being updated to require that protective eyewear on ships meet a ballistic standard and not a simple safety glass standard, as the rules state now. He said he was not aware of an update timetable for the ashore instruction.

Regardless, he confirmed, the updated instruction will not list military tested and approved ballistic eye protective devices, something other services provide in an effort to eliminate confusion.

The Navy’s approach is too vague, Hatch said, and with more sailors heading to war zones, the approach is dangerous, too.

The other services, he said, have instituted specific ballistic eyewear policies — the direct result of revelations two years ago that 16 percent of war injuries in theater were eye-related.

That number has since declined to about 12 percent, Hatch said.

Simply stated, ballistic eyewear will stop many kinds of projectiles from reaching the troops’ eyes — essential in a war zone and not a bad idea in shipboard industrial environments.

Army in the lead

The Army has led the way in issuing ballistic eyewear. Since 2005, it has issued ballistic eyewear to soldiers in boot camp as well as to deploying units.

The Marine Corps began issuing ballistic eyewear to deploying units in 2005. The Corps has since expanded that effort to new recruits as well, and claims that nearly 100 percent of members have been issued the devices.

The Air Force is the latest service to develop a formal ballistic eyewear program. In May, it began issuing eye protection to deploying airmen, stopping short of a full issue to all service members.

“The Army had already done the research, so we adopted what they had already approved,” said Air Force Master Sgt. Richard Searles, spokesman for the Air Force Surgeon General at Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.

In their policies, all three services specifically forbid members from using nonstandard protective eyewear in the field. The glasses must meet stringent testing standards and be part of an approved purchase list.

In addition, each of the other services are working to get protective eyewear listed in so-called tables of authorized equipment — an important step, Hatch said, in getting the money needed to outfit everyone.

None of this applies to the Navy, at least not formally, and the service has yet to put a formal policy in writing — which means that when it comes to purchasing and issuing ballistic protective eyewear, Navy commanders are flying blind.

“They have no guidance, there’s no Navy list of approved ballistic eye protection devices that have been tested and deemed to meet standard,” he said.

Many units, he said, purchase eye protection off the shelf from local vendors and must trust the salesman that the devices meet standards.

“There’s no quality control in a situation like that,” Hatch said. “By having a formal policy that lists approved devices, commanders can rest assured what their sailors are getting meets military standards.”

Another problem with nonstandard ballistic eyewear is the devices might not accommodate the military-issued corrective inserts for those who need glasses. This can force commanders to pay for inserts designed for the eyewear they have purchased, instead of getting the devices for free through the military medical system.

Hatch says developing a formal Navy program should be simple, given the other services’ testing and evaluation efforts.

“The solution could be as simple as joining the Marine Corps and making it a Navy and Marine Corps Eye Protection System,” he said.

Hatch thinks shipboard sailors also should get the devices. Standard-issue protective goggles used onboard ships may provide some level of protection, but not ballistic protection — which is a higher standard, he said.

Hatch said the shipboard environment is rife with dangers to sight.

“Just think of the hazards that come onboard ship — hanging over the side, chipping paint – working around aircraft or in engine rooms — all of those environments can be a threat to eyes.”