A Navy SEAL from Virginia Beach died of injuries sustained in combat in Afghanistan. Chief Petty Officer Adam Lee Brown, 36, a decorated combat veteran, was fatally wounded during a battle with heavily armed militants.
View original post here:
SEAL Dies in Combat in Afghanistan
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — The Navy says a SEAL from Virginia Beach has been killed in a battle with militants in Afghanistan. A statement issued Friday by the Navy said Chief Special Warfare Operator Adam Lee Brown died Thursday. The 36-year-old native of Hot Springs, Ark., enlisted in the Navy in 1998 and joined the SEALs in 2001. He was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He is survived by his wife, two children and his parents.
Follow this link:
Navy: SEAL killed in Afghanistan
SAN DIEGO — The Navy identified the officer killed in a weekend vehicle crash here as Ensign Zackery Norrbom. Norrbom, 24, was speeding in a 2010 Chevrolet Camaro about 12:45 a.m. Sunday when the car went off the road in the coastal village of La Jolla and hit a sign and then a parked car, according to San Diego police. Norrbom, who was alone in the car, was not wearing a seatbelt and was ejected from the car, police said. He died at a local hospital three hours later. The accident remained under investigation, said Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello, a Naval Surface Forces spokesman in Coronado, Calif. Norrbom, of Fontana, Calif., had graduated in 2008 from the Naval Academy and reported to San Diego for assignment on the destroyer Milius, according to Navy Personnel Command. He was a designated surface warfare officer. His military awards included the National Defense Service Medal.
Originally posted here:
Ensign dies in single-car crash
At least one in six service members is on some form of psychiatric drug. And many troops are taking more than one kind, mixing several pills in daily “cocktails” — for example, an antidepressant with an antipsychotic to prevent nightmares, plus an anti-epileptic to reduce headaches — despite minimal clinical research testing such combinations. The drugs come with serious side effects: They can impair motor skills, reduce reaction times and generally make a war fighter less effective. Some double the risk for suicide, prompting doctors — and Congress — to question whether these drugs are connected to the rising rate of military suicides. “It’s really a large-scale experiment. We are experimenting with changing people’s cognition and behavior,” said Dr. Grace Jackson, a former Navy psychiatrist. A Military Times investigation of electronic records obtained from the Defense Logistics Agency shows DLA spent $1.1 billion on common psychiatric and pain medications from 2001 to 2009. It also shows that use of psychiatric medications has increased dramatically — about 76 percent overall, with some drug types more than doubling — since the start of the current wars. THE FULL INVESTIGATION: • Could meds be responsible for suicides? • Downrange: ‘Any soldier can deploy on anything’ • How drugs enter the war zone Troops and military health care providers also told Military Times that these medications are being prescribed, consumed, shared and traded in combat zones — despite some restrictions on the deployment of troops using those drugs. The investigation also shows that drugs originally developed to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are now commonly used to treat symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, such as headaches, nightmares, nervousness and fits of anger. Such “off-label” use — prescribing medications to treat conditions for which the drugs were not formally approved by the FDA — is legal and even common. But experts say the lack of proof that these treatments work for other purposes, without fully understanding side effects, raises serious concerns about whether the treatments are safe and effective. The DLA records detail the range of drugs being prescribed to the military community and the spending on them: • Antipsychotic medications, including Seroquel and Risperdal, spiked most dramatically — orders jumped by more than 200 percent, and annual spending more than quadrupled, from $4 million to $16 million. • Use of anti-anxiety drugs and sedatives such as Valium and Ambien also rose substantially; orders increased 170 percent, while spending nearly tripled, from $6 million to about $17 million. • Antiepileptic drugs, also known as anticonvulsants, were among the most commonly used psychiatric medications. Annual orders for these drugs increased about 70 percent, while spending more than doubled, from $16 million to $35 million. • Antidepressants had a comparatively modest 40 percent gain in orders, but it was the only drug group to show an overall decrease in spending, from $49 million in 2001 to $41 million in 2009, a drop of 16 percent. The debut in recent years of cheaper generic versions of these drugs is likely responsible for driving down costs. Antidepressants and anticonvulsants are the most common mental health medications prescribed to service members. Seventeen percent of the active-duty force, and as much as 6 percent of deployed troops, are on antidepressants, Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton, the Army’s highest-ranking psychiatrist, told Congress on Feb. 24. In contrast, about 10 percent of all Americans take antidepressants, according to a 2009 Columbia University study. Suicide risks Many of the newest psychiatric drugs come with strong warnings about an increased risk for suicide, suicidal behavior and suicidal thoughts. Doctors — and, more recently, lawmakers — are questioning whether the drugs could be responsible for the spike in military suicides during the past several years, an upward trend that roughly parallels the rise in psychiatric drug use. From 2001 to 2009, the Army’s suicide rate increased more than 150 percent, from 9 per 100,000 soldiers to 23 per 100,000. The Marine Corps suicide rate is up about 50 percent, from 16.7 per 100,000 Marines in 2001 to 24 per 100,000 last year. Orders for psychiatric drugs in the analysis rose 76 percent over the same period. “There is overwhelming evidence that the newer antidepressants commonly prescribed by the military can cause or worsen suicidality, aggression and other dangerous mental states,” said Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist who testified at the same Feb. 24 congressional hearing at which Sutton appeared. Other side effects — increased irritability, aggressiveness and hostility — also could pose a risk. “Imagine causing that in men and women who are heavily armed and under a great deal of stress,” Breggin said. He cited dozens of clinical studies conducted by drug companies and submitted to federal regulators, including one among veterans that showed “completed suicide rates were approximately twice the base rate following antidepressant starts in VA clinical settings.” But many military doctors say the risks are overstated and argue that the greater risk would be to fail to fully treat depressed troops. For suicide, “depression is a big risk factor,” too, said Army Reserve Col. (Dr.) Thomas Hicklin, who teaches clinical psychiatry at the University of Southern California. “To withhold the medications can be a huge problem.” Nevertheless, Hicklin said the risks demand strict oversight. “The access to weapons is a very big concern with someone who is feeling suicidal,” he said. “It has to be monitored very carefully because side effects can occur.” Defense officials repeatedly have denied requests by Military Times for copies of autopsy reports that would show the prevalence of such drugs in suicide toxicology reports. ‘Then it’s over’ Spc. Mike Kern enlisted in 2006 and spent a year deployed in 2008 with the 4th Infantry Division as an armor crewman, running patrols out of southwest Baghdad. Kern went to the mental health clinic suffering from nervousness, sleep problems and depression. He was given Paxil, an antidepressant that carries a warning label about increased risk for suicide. A few days later, while patrolling the streets in the gunner’s turret of a Humvee, he said he began having serious thoughts of suicide for the first time in his life. “I had three weapons: a pistol, my rifle and a machine gun,” Kern said. “I started to think, ‘I could just do this and then it’s over.’ That’s where my brain was: ‘I can just put this gun right here and pull the trigger and I’m done. All my problems will be gone.’” Kern said the incident scared him, and he did not take any more drugs during that deployment. But since his return, he has been diagnosed with PTSD and currently takes a variety of psychotropic medications. Other side effects cited by troops who used such drugs in the war zones include slowed reaction times, impaired motor skills, and attention and memory problems. One 35-year-old Army sergeant first class said he was prescribed the anticonvulsant Topamax to prevent the onset of debilitating migraines. But the drug left him feeling mentally sluggish, and he stopped taking it. “Some people call it ‘Stupamax’ because it makes you stupid,” said the sergeant, who asked not to be identified because he said using such medication carries a social stigma in the military. Being slow — or even “stupid” — might not be a critical problem for some civilians. But it can be deadly for troops working with weapons or patrolling dangerous areas in a war zone, said Dr. John Newcomer, a psychiatry professor at Washington University in St. Louis and a former fellow at the American Psychiatric Association. “A drug that is really effective and it makes you feel happy and calm and sleepy … might be a great medication for the general population,” Newcomer said, “but that might not make sense for an infantryman in a combat arena. “If it turns out that people on a certain combo are getting shot twice as often, you would start to worry if they were as ‘heads up’ as they should have been,” Newcomer said. “There is so much on the line, you’d really like to have more specific military data to inform the prescribing.” Military doctors say they take a service member’s mission into consideration before prescribing. “Obviously, one would be concerned about what the person does,” said Col. C.J. Diebold, chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii. “If they have a desk job, that may factor in what medication you may be recommending for the patient [compared with] if they are out there and they have to be moving around and reacting fairly quickly.” Off-label use Little hard research has been done on such unique aspects of psychiatric drug usage in the military, particularly off-label usage. A 2009 VA study found that 60 percent of veterans receiving antipsychotics were taking them for problems for which the drugs are not officially approved. For example, only two are approved for treating PTSD — Paxil and Zoloft, according to the Food and Drug Administration. But in actuality, doctors prescribe a range of drugs to treat PTSD symptoms. To win FDA approval, drug makers must prove efficacy through rigorous and costly clinical trials. But approval determines only how a drug can be marketed; once a drug is approved for sale, doctors legally can prescribe it for any reason they feel appropriate. Such off-label use comes with some risk, experts say. “Patients may be exposed to drugs that have problematic side effects without deriving any benefit,” said Dr. Robert Rosenheck, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University who studied off-label drug use among veterans. “We just don’t know. There haven’t been very many studies.” Some military psychiatrists are reluctant to prescribe off-label. “It’s a slippery slope,” said Hicklin, the Army psychiatrist. “Medication can be overused. We need to use medication when indicated and we hope that we are all on the same page … with that.” Combinations of drugs pose another risk. Doctors note that most drugs are tested as a single treatment, not as one ingredient in a mixture of medications. “In the case of poly-drug use – the ‘cocktail’ — where you are combining an antidepressant, an anticonvulsant, an antipsychotic, and maybe a stimulant to keep this guy awake — that has never been tested,” Breggin said. Newcomer agreed. “When we go to the literature and try to find support for these complex cocktails, we’re not going to find it,” he said. “As the number of medications goes up, the probability of adverse events like hospitalization or death goes up exponentially.” Looking for answers Pinpointing the reasons for broad shifts in the military’s drug use today is difficult. Each doctor prescribes medications for the patient’s individual needs. Nevertheless, many doctors in and outside the military point to several variables — some unique to the military, some not. A close look at the data shows that use of the antipsychotic and anticonvulsant drugs, also known as “mood stabilizers,” are growing much faster than antidepressants. That may correlate to the challenges that deployed troops face when they arrive back home and begin to readjust to civilian social norms and family life. “The ultimate effect of both of these drugs is to take the heightened arousal — the hypervigilance and all the emotions that served you once you were deployed — and help to turn that back down,” said Dr. Frank Ochberg, former associate director for the National Institute of Mental Health and a psychiatry professor at Michigan State University who reviewed the Military Times analysis. Dr. Harry Holloway, a retired Army colonel and a psychiatry professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., said the increased use of these medications is simply another sign of deployment stress on the force. “For a long time, the ops tempo has been completely unrelieved and unrestrained,” Holloway said. “When you have an increased ops tempo, and you have certain scheduling that will make it hard for everyone, you will produce a more symptomatic force. Most commanders understand that and they understand the tradeoffs.”
Read more here: Medicating the military
The U.S. Navy says two fighter jets on a training mission collided over the northern Nevada desert, but both pilots survived.
Read the original post:
Pilots OK After Navy Jets Collide in Air
A former sector commander in Alaska is facing a general court-martial for charges of adultery, fraternization and other sexual improprieties. Capt. Herbert “Mark” Hamilton III has been charged with 30 counts, including: failing to follow orders; lying to investigators; committing adultery with enlisted personnel; sending and receiving “sexual and amorous text messages” using a government cell phone; photographing sexual acts; downloading and storing sexually explicit material on his government-issued laptop; and making an official phone call “while engaged in sexual activity,” according to charging documents. Coast Guard Rear Adm. Christopher Colvin, 17th District commander, has referred the matter to a court-martial July 21, according to Lt. Cmdr. Greg Versaw, a staff attorney for the 17th District. A motions hearing will be held April 5. No one else has been charged, but the investigation is ongoing, said Lt. Eric Eggen, a spokesman for the 17th Coast Guard District. Neither Hamilton nor his defense attorney Navy Lt. Cmdr. Eric McDonald returned calls for comment. The Anchorage Daily News reported, however, that Hamilton’s attorneys acknowledged at his Article 32 hearing in December that their client committed adultery and fraternized with enlisted women. However, they said his affairs would not be considered illegal in the civilian world. As a result, they said that he should get an admiral’s mast — a nonjudicial disciplinary hearing — not a criminal proceeding that could end with a prison term, according to the paper. In addition, his attorney, Navy Lt. Tim Bergstrom, argued that Hamilton never abused his position by advancing the careers of the women and the affairs did not affect his work, according to the newspaper. Hamilton did not testify at the three-day hearing. Hamilton, 48, had been the commander of Sector Anchorage, overseeing 200 personnel in charge of all the ports in western Alaska. Hamilton, who is working for the chief of staff in Sector Anchorage, was removed from command May 11 for the alleged misconduct and a loss of confidence in his ability to command. Hamilton was charged Nov. 3 with 31 violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to a Coast Guard news release. Two of those counts were not referred: one count of sodomy and one count of falsifying a travel order, Versaw said. A count of obstructing justice was added, he said. According to the charges filed, Hamilton is accused of sexual improprieties that allegedly took place in Alaska and other states and involved multiple women, including enlisted Coast Guard personnel. On Dec. 16, a Coast Guard petty officer told the court the captain had been her best friend until the abrupt ending to the affair. She said she and Hamilton met in New Orleans while responding to Hurricane Katrina, started a sexual relationship then and continued it for years. The two never lived in the same city but had daily contact via text messages, e-mails and phone calls. Hamilton, a married man, had been in the Coast Guard for 20 years. The UCMJ prohibits adulterous affairs that affect “the good order and discipline” of the Coast Guard. The code also prohibits officers from fraternizing with enlisted personnel. Hamilton also is accused of trying to “wrongfully influence the career of and defame the character” of a fellow service member between January and May 2009, according to the documents. The charges stretch from November 2004 until he was relieved of command in 2009. Hamilton had been the deputy commander at Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach, Calif., before he came to Anchorage in July 2008. — — — The Associated Press contributed to this report. Related reading CG captain says affairs not criminal
Go here to see the original:
CG captain faces adultery court-martial
A three-star Navy admiral has been nominated to take over the troubled Joint Strike Fighter program, the Pentagon announced Tuesday. Vice Adm. David Venlet , who runs Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md., was nominated to lead the joint program office that is developing the F-35 Lightning II, the most expensive procurement program in Pentagon history. Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the previous program manager, Marine Maj. Gen. David Heinz, in February. Venlet, a former F-14 Tomcat pilot, has engineering degrees from the Naval Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School. He is also former test pilot at the Naval Air Test Center in Maryland. The F-35 program and its lead contractor, Lockheed Martin, have been criticized in recent months for cost overruns and schedule delays. The Pentagon plans to purchase more than 2,400 F-35s for use in the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. Related reading DoD: F-35 costs rise at least 50 percent
Read more here:
NavAir admiral tapped to run JSF program
Weather maps plotting the track of hurricanes since 1851 were a key piece of evidence at a hearing Tuesday as a Virginia lawmaker attacked the Navy’s decision to move an aircraft carrier from Norfolk, Va., to Jacksonville, Fla. Rep. Randy Forbes, ranking Republican on the readiness subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, disagrees with a Navy conclusion that one of the reasons for moving a carrier to Naval Station Mayport is because of the threat of natural disasters. Hurricanes are the major risk to Norfolk and Jacksonville, and the Navy believes the risk of a hurricane hitting either location is about the same, a position reinforced by Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the vice chief of naval operations. Greenert said more hurricanes hit Florida than Virginia but a review of hurricanes over the last 15 years showed a “statistically insignificant difference.” Forbes, armed with data from NOAA about hurricane activity on the East Coast from 1851 to 2005, said Jacksonville is not any safer. In fact, Forbes said NOAA calculates the risk of a category 4 or higher hurricane striking Naval Station Mayport is 75 percent greater than the chance of hitting Naval Station Norfolk. Forbes’ questioning did not get into the issue of dispersal of the fleet, a key part of the Navy’s carrier-basing decision, so a hurricane that struck either location would not damage the entire carrier support structure on the East Coast.
Excerpt from: Storm data used against Mayport carrier plan
The commanding officer of a Pearl Harbor-based attack submarine was fired Monday after he was found guilty of “drunkenness” and “conduct unbecoming an officer,” in nonjudicial punishment, a spokesman said Tuesday. It was the seventh CO firing of 2010. Cmdr. Jeff Cima, skipper of the attack submarine Chicago, was relieved by Capt. Daryl Caudle, commander of Submarine Squadron 3, after allegations regarding Cima’s behavior during a March 10 visit with a Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps unit, said Lt. Cmdr. Dave Benham, a spokesman for Submarine Force Pacific. Benham said he could not give more details about the visit or Cima’s alleged misbehavior. He said Cima has been temporarily assigned to the staff of SubRon 3. The squadron’s deputy commander, Capt. James Horten, has temporarily taken command of Chicago until a permanent replacement is named, Benham said. Horten is a former commander of the attack sub Olympia. Cima’s career has included tours aboard the attack submarines Drum and Pasadena, as well as with the ballistic-missile submarine Pennsylvania, culminating with a stint as executive officer of Pennsylvania’s Blue Crew. He graduated from Boston College in 1991 and received his commission through Officer Candidate School. Other skipper firings this year: • Capt. John Titus Jr. was fired Jan. 8 as CO of Naval Supply Corps School in Georgia. An investigation found that he did not adequately punish a subordinate accused of fraternization. • Capt. Holly Graf was fired Jan. 13 as CO of the Yokosuka, Japan-based cruiser Cowpens for “cruelty,” a spokesman said. • Capt. Glen Little was fired as CO of Naval Weapons Station Charleston, S.C., after he was arrested Jan. 26 on a charge of solicitation of prostitution. • Cmdr. Scott Merritt was relieved as head of Naval Support Activity North Potomac on Feb. 12 following nonjudicial punishment. Sources told Navy Times the NJP involved fraternization with junior Navy personnel. • Cmdr. Timothy Weber , the CO of the Norfolk, Va.-based destroyer Truxtun, was relieved Feb. 17 for having an inappropriate relationship with a female officer in his command, according to a Navy statement • Capt. William Reavey Jr. , CO of Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla., was fired Feb. 26 for “inappropriate conduct,” officials said.
Originally posted here:
CO of attack sub fired for ‘drunkenness’
Total incidents of reported sexual assaults involving service members — both as victims and perpetrators — rose 11 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the Pentagon said Tuesday. The Pentagon recorded a total of 3,230 incidents of sexual assault in fiscal 2009. The precise number of victims versus perpetrators is difficult to determine because of limitations in the reporting format; a single incident could involve multiple victims or multiple attackers, said Kaye Whitley, director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. The numbers include all incidents involving service members; in some cases, a civilian may have been the victim or the perpetrator. According to the report , 279 of the incidents were reported in the Middle East and South Asia — a 16 percent increase from fiscal 2008. Of these, 215 were recorded in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon said the overall rate for all the services was two reports of sexual assault per 1,000 service members. The rates by service: the Army, 2.6 per 1,000; the Navy, 1.6 per 1,000; the Air Force, 1.4 per 1,000; the Marine Corps, 1.3 per 1,000. Typically, the assaults involved junior enlisted service members 18 to 24 years of age; involved male attackers; and in about one-third of the cases, involved alcohol use, Whitley said. The numbers are far from precise, however, because sexual assault crimes are widely underreported, both in the civilian world as well as in the military, Whitley said. The Pentagon estimates that only 20 percent of victims report the crimes, for reasons ranging from the perceived stigma of having been violated to fear of retribution. “We don’t know how many sexual assaults there are,” Whitley said. “One of the things we are developing is a survey that we can administer yearly … so we can get a better handle on the prevalence.” Now, the Pentagon must rely solely on aggregate reports from service investigators and sexual assault response coordinators. Fiscal 2008 reports The Pentagon recorded a total of 2,908 reports in fiscal 2008. The increase in fiscal 2009 is a result that the Pentagon welcomes because sex crimes reports lag actual incidents and the higher number means that more sexual assaults are being reported. “People are beginning to have confidence in our system, and they’re coming forward to report,” Whitley said. “Our goal was to increase reports, and they did go up 11 percent. And we are attributing that to our worldwide prevention strategy and social marketing campaign. And we’re pleased that reports are up.” Whitley admitted the department has no way of knowing whether the increased reports could also be due to an actual increase in sexual violence. Whitley also was pleased to see a rise in the number of confidential “restricted” reports. Instituted in 2005, this form allows victims to get medical care without triggering an investigation by the chain of command. These are typically made by victims who may not have made a report had the restricted reporting option not been available, Whitley said. These also rose 11 percent, to 837 restricted reports.
Originally posted here: Sex assault reports up 11 percent last year