2011 Update on Clark Fish

There's continued to be a lot of interest in the story of Clark Fish on this site: I think folks can settle down now, though - he's not going anywhere. On August 2, 2010, Clark Fish was committed to the Arizona Department of Corrections to serve a life sentence for the murder of Elizabeth Anne Friedel.

Beth Friedel's family are the ones who had the grace to ask the prosecutor to shelve the death penalty for him this summer and offer him life without parole, otherwise he would likely still be facing execution for kidnapping, torturing, and killing her as he did...which he denied doing until he was actually convicted, only at which time his attorneys claimed the PTSD made him do it.

See, there's much more to Clark Fish than PTSD, as Beth Friedel's brother pointed out to me - so don't be fooled. Just donning a military uniform does not make one a hero to be exempted from the responsibility of his/her actions, either. As many soldiers well know, in fact, there are an awful lot of people who just pull out their uniforms to hide their own inadequacies, and wrap themselves in ribbons and medals the way that politicians wrap themselves in the flag. It's show.

Vets and others out there with PTSD that's messed up your lives - Clark Fish is no sympathetic martyr to identify with. Women - he's a wreck alright, but tormenting and taking the life of an innocent human being can take its toll on the mind and soul. Do not be sucked in by his victimized appearance. He may not be very brave, but he survived Maricopa County's jail so he's tough enough. He'll find his place in prison in time. Maybe he'll even get a grip on his rage and abusiveness and help teach other vets to do so as well so they don't re-offend. Stranger things have happened.

Clark's biographer got quite close to him over the course of his trial, which may have obscured some more deeply disturbing things about his crimes and defense, but you can easily find some pretty decent human beings who have endured unbelievable trauma and never turned around to hurt anyone in response. Rape survivors don't regularly go on a nut and kill creepy men because of their trauma; most children who were sexually molested do not grow up to be pedophiles; and the vast majority of soldiers who have been in combat and seen violence first-hand don't come back and re-enact it in our streets and libraries.

That said, it appears enough people want to know how to reach prisoner Fish now that he's out of Joe's jail and in prison that I should post it. The ADC link at the top should help you keep current if he gets moved - though once someone lands in SMU, it can be a good long time before they're able to climb out and get into a less-restrictive hole. Follow this link for policies you should be aware of if you want to correspond. Here is also the family & friends guidebook.

Clark A. Fish (ADC #255567)
ASPC-Eyman/SMU I
P.O. Box 4000
Florence, AZ 85132

As a final note, though, if you want to do something good for veterans caught up in the criminal justice system, look for your local veterans court, if you have one, or inquire at your closest homeless shelter or VA hospital. There are lots of traumatized souls behind and beyond the razor wire who could use help putting their lives back together, who have hurt only themselves. My bet is that they could use the kind of fan club that Clark Fish already has behind him, so please look before you leap with your good intentions.

Rest in Peace, Elizabeth Anne Friedel.

**Hit this link for the 2011 update on Clark Fish**

It is very seldom that I alter or remove a post in response to a complaint from a reader, but in the case of "Happy Birthday Clark Fish", I've made an exception, having heard from Dave Friedel, the brother of the woman Fish was convicted of murdering. With his permission, I am posting his remarks from our correspondence below. I hope Mr. Friedel's comments are taken into consideration by whomever incarcerates him as well, so that they may protect other prisoners from his apparent proclivity to prey on the more vulnerable.

My first post on Fish at Arizona Prison Watch - a straight reprint of Kaj Larsen's original article for the Huffington post - remains, though I will link it to this one so the two perspectives are connected at both ends. I decided to remove my birthday post on Fish from all my sites after reading both Friedel's emails and reviewing Larsen's written and video pieces again. I remain an opponent of both the death penalty and mass incarceration, but am no less troubled by what to do with people who are a danger to others in our community. Regardless of the source of their own disturbance - be it childhood or wartime trauma - they can't be allowed to continue to abuse others as Fish did to his victim leading up to the moment of her death. They certainly should not be celebrated as martyred victims themselves, which is essentially what the post I removed suggested by inviting people to drop Fish a line on his 25th birthday, at which time I believed he was still facing the death penalty. As Mr. Friedel states, Fish has since taken a plea life without parole, offered at his victim's family's urging.

While I found Larsen's story on Fish and other veterans with PTSD accused of violent crimes compelling, Fish is hardly the poster boy I would choose to represent traumatized soldiers - and I apologize to those men and women for seeming to do so. He does not appear to have had a deep-seated objection to perpetrating violence, as so many vets with PTSD do. Fish, rather, is a coward and a bully. His pattern of behavior, as evidenced by numerous 911 calls for domestic disturbances and violence in the months before Elizabeth Friedel was so brutally killed is as troubling as the murder itself.

While traumatized vets are indeed more likely to be convicted of violent crimes than members of the general population, I don't believe those crimes tend to emerge out of a long-standing pattern of abuse and domination of another. Rather, much of what I've read about are assaults or murders involving all-too-accessible lethal weapons when someone reaches a breaking point - representing a divergence from, not continuation of, character that was formed before their own traumatization or victimization.

For those unfamiliar with why the death penalty would be considered by a jury in the first place, there are stipulations about the crime being especially heinous in nature to consider - like torture. There are details to this case that suggest PTSD is now being used as a convenient excuse for such conduct, not identified as an extenuating circumstance where someone has actually taken responsibility for their actions. Perhaps Fish was poorly represented in his trial, but his claim of innocence during the guilt determination phase is now contradicted by his "mitigating circumstance" claim that PTSD caused him to kill his victim. This defense is not presented without his consent. Either Fish is guilty or he is not - if he is not, then his PTSD is irrelevant. If he is, than his entire defense can't really be trusted as sincere.

Whatever kind of man Clark Fish was before he donned a military uniform and learned to justify killing another human being, it is disturbing that he seems to show little remorse (if he is guilty) or even sympathy (if he is not) for the woman whose torment and murder he is being held responsible for. His obsession is with his own survival now; his perception seems to be that he is the only victim here. Fish's legal representation and his representation of himself - particularly the shift in strategy once convicted - has done him and all vets with PTSD a disservice.

We are all victims of both the military industrial complex and the mentality it can breed - some more so than others. Many people have endured far more horrendous, life-altering experiences of violence and trauma than Clark Fish describes - including survivors of childhood sexual abuse - and yet have not chosen to perpetrate systematic violence on others in response. Many go on to help others instead. This is why prevention and early intervention with victims of trauma is so important - to teach them how to manage their pain and rage in a way that does not result in them harming others or compel us to segregate them completely from the rest of human society.

This is one place where both the government and victims' rights organizations fall short. Americans are taught to believe that our own injuries or losses justify even greater violence to those who we believe have or may harm us or a loved one. We are a vindictive people, not at all invested in the kind of justice that heals and restores communities and lives, but rather that which brutalizes on a grand scale by war, mass incarceration, and executions as punishment. In the name of our own "protection" we succumb to a similar mindset as that of our perpetrators.

This is how we have justified things such as the genocide of Native Americans, the demonization and overwhelming oppression of dark-skinned immigrants and descendants of those we have enslaved and colonized, and the persistence of grossly inhumane conditions in American jails and prisons. We are rarely even moved by stories of the innocent victimized by our laws and our Anglo-American Manifest Destinies, we so want to believe that we are just in the eyes of the Creator even as we destroy lives.

I realize I may often confuse my readers with contradictions of opinion and sympathy. That's because I have no clear-cut answers - we tread in many gray areas here where interests and perspectives in total opposition don't automatically invalidate the other. In fact, one of our biggest problems with "justice", it seems, is that we too often adhere to rigid, Old Testament notions of what exactly that might constitute, and too seldom explore the contradictions.

With that, I give you the voice of one survivor of Clark Fish's indoctrination into violence - one which began when guns were toys and wars were games - and his decision to act it out on one more vulnerable than himself. Those of us who challenge the state on the conduct of its more disturbed soldiers - and those of us who do not accept the death penalty as a solution - especially need to hear what Dave Friedel has to say. I imagine he did not extend himself to talk about this issue without experiencing considerable pain in the process, and am grateful that he gave me permission to reprint his words here. I owe both him and his family my apologies and condolences.

---------------------------------------

Dave Friedel	Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:38 PM
To: arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com, prisonabolitionist@gmail.com
Reading your article; specifically the video from the Huffington Post (http://arizonaprisonwatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/clark-fish-ptsd-and-death-penalty.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaj-larsen/for-returning-soldiers-is_b_636579.html ) is very disturbing because the slant this piece about Clark Fish provides ZERO information around the 4 months of torture of Elizabeth Anne Friedel endured (restraining orders, 911 calls, Police engagements, etc), harassment against the family seeking to help her, the AWOL status of Clark Fish and lastly the threats AFTER her murder by Clark. How do I know ALL of this??? Because I am the victim's brother and know firsthand as I desperately tried to help her. I sat through the entire trial, heard all the facts, and listened to the 911 calls of Beth pleading for help. This is the sort of HACK journalism which FAILS the public by not reporting the COMPLETE story. I fully support our troops and believe programs should be offered to treat PTSD but you cannot dismiss their actions if they FAIL to seek help, take medicine, or be civil in society. Shame on you Mr Larsen for tainting our troops efforts by showcasing a poor example of what they experience. Clark never was on the line and never was put into battle (confined to guard duty on the base) because of his conduct. He volunteered in that hospital because of his prior AWOL status in which he served in Military prison for 6 months until he changed his mind to serve along with our honorable men and women. -- regards, Dave Friedel

---

Peggy Plews	Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:28 PM
To: Dave Friedel
Dear Mr. Friedel, I appreciated your note - albeit a painful one, understandably. I'm not a journalist myself - you landed on my personal blogs where I had re-posted Larsen's Huffington post article. I had received a number of inquiries from readers about how to contact Fish (I am based in Phoenix), so made a second post about him which included his address and the link to the video piece "War Crimes" that Larsen did. The connection between PTSD and violent crime (not only among veterans) concerns me; I'm adamantly opposed to the death penalty myself; and Larsen's article was indeed sympathetic to Fish after following him for over two years. So, in my own editorializing I was also sympathetic to what he faces now without giving sufficient thought to evidence that he was repeatedly abusive to your sister and may well have killed her. For the injury that my thoughtlessness may have compounded, I am truly sorry. I would be willing to post either an article you recommend that presents the other side of Clark Fish's story - your sister's side - or something you want to write yourself. I would even post the following letter as a guest editorial if you want - a criticism of my decision to post what Larsen wrote in the first place. I can handle the criticism. It will make me think twice the next time. Your perspective is certainly one that should be heard on the issue. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and shouldn't be left to one person to tell. Please let me know how you would like to proceed on this, if at all. I don't think that even among my small audience your voice will fall on deaf ears. I can't speak for Larsen, however. My condolences for the terrible loss of your sister. Sincerely, Peggy Plews “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” - Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) Prison Abolitionist http://prisonabolitionist.blogspot.com Arizona Prison Watch http://arizonaprisonwatch.blogspot.com Hard Time: Hep C in AZ Jails and Prisons http://hardtimehepc.blogspot.com Free Marcia Powell http://freemarciapowell.blogspot.com ¡El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido! [Quoted text hidden]

---

Dave Friedel	Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:08 AM
To: Peggy Plews
I can appreciate your objection to the death penalty, although I do not share it and here is why. The objection is based on the belief that people are all inherently good, sometimes make mistakes and want to do the right thing. After all, society functions quite well and everyone basically operates within the structure to the benefit of the whole even if the economics of it are based on the "Invisible Hand" that Adam Smith so eloquently outlined. I can fully appreciate this and by all means, I too would count myself among you in this thinking. But the reality is, this is simply not true for all of us. The fact is 1 in 25 people who walk among us have a deficiency (or advantage depending on how you look at it) to avoid the conscious will to be good or reflect the other person's pain; the root of all religions aka the Golden Rule. For this reason, it leaves quite a few people with a vulnerability which can be exploited to the determinant of us and others. This is not to say all psychopaths are murderers or are evil, but they have the ability to shut off that which society deems as the governor to regulate compassion. I have spent quite amount of time and research to understand psychopathy and degrees in which they operate with in society. Clark Fish had 3 of the 4 common markers for psychopathy and trust me, when I initially met him, he was perceived as charming but I also was at the brunt of his unbelievable hate as I tried very hard to intervene and help my sister. So much in fact, that he wrecked my car, threatened my life to the point of filing a restraining order myself, and eventually blaming me for my sisters death (saying if I tried harder she would be alive today). In fact, it was my family that told the district attorney (whom I have the deepest respect for) to provide Life without Parole as an option when the 12th juror broke the law by initially telling the other jurors she would never consider the death penalty. Everyone was prepared to seek the death penalty again and on July 29th 2010, Clark did end up taking the offer for Life in Prison. Does he deserve to live his life in prison? No, but those of you against this process are ignorant to the realities that these viruses do exist and only after being personally impacted can a person truly appreciate the realities of surviving such an ordeal. I have a new found respect for the individuals who live through pandemics, especially when they could be prevented by a unified society approach. Our appeal process provides 18 years to correct a wrong, but the cancer that lives within our prisons will continue to spread as we move psychopaths into general population with other inmates trying to serve time for far less crimes. Do not think for ONE MOMENT, Clark will not feed on the other weaker people in prison - trust me he will. It is exactly the undeniable compassion people possess which makes it so hard to convict and protect our society. As for posting my replies on your blog, I will leave that up to you. I would be just as understanding if you removed the article to begin with.

The Walking Wounded and Purple Hearts.

This lengthy update on new federal rules that should help soldiers and veterans get easier access to benefits due to PTSD symptoms comes from Charlie at CURE National - we get a lot of good info from them. As Charlie notes, without a purple heart to sway a judge, veterans with PTSD will probably keep going to prison at the rate they have been.

I have mixed feelings about giving out a bunch more purple hearts, though. My Dad was shattered by war, and I always thought he should have received one for what they did to him, but I don't want to glamorize anything about war more than it already is. Those medals and ribbons aren't just for the folks who "earn" them - they serve to justify state violence and glorify warriors, enticing the next generation of soldiers to enlist. The promise of college tuition with a stint in the service is certainly a big motivator for many youth - especially poor youth of color who see their peers and older siblings going off to prison at astounding rates. But most of the soldiers and vets I've known weren't in it for the money and benefits - state uniforms and rank command respect and infer nobility of some kind among the mainstream of our society. They also give people power, though, which they sometimes abuse or fail to recognize the grave consequences of.

Medals reinforce the honor of doing violence; they symbolize heroism and self-sacrifice, shame dissenters, and - except for firefighters - are most often given to cops and soldiers for the work they do for the state (even though teachers, nurses, and many other folks serve their community and country just as devotedly - sometimes at very high risk). I think that would just confuse a vet who was struggling with his or her role in war, whether they became targets themselves or whether they hit their targets from 5000 feet in the air. That's why I'm reluctant to endorse handing out a bunch more purple hearts.

Still, in all my years of working with homeless veterans, it was the ones with chronic PTSD and head injuries - not the amputees or those who took a bullet in the gut, got out and got through it -who were the most disabled by their experience. Having a buddy die in your arms, or watching a child burn to death is pretty devastating, especially if you think you should have been able to save them but couldn't. Their courage as well as their fear need to be validated, but not necessarily with a medal. For some people, recovery necessitates re-evaluating one's mental framework, and confusion is a sign of progress towards rejecting, rather than rationalizing, choosing a profession - or a crime - in which violence is seen as a necessity. Once you have that medal on your chest, you're suddenly not supposed to feel confused about any of it at all. I don't think that's necessarily a good thing.

Anyway, I'm posting this whole notice because a lot of folks from military bases have been finding their way to this site trying to make sense of what's happening to Clark Fish - and so many others like him. And while these new rules may not seem to affect the practice of mass incarceration on the surface, I think there may still be a trickle-down effect. If the VA is actually taking PTSD seriously and removing some of the barriers they've had to approving claims, they should also be improving access of veterans to treatment services - which could reduce the incidence of crime among them. It should also help legitimize PTSD as a mitigating factor in both prosecution and sentencing decisions in more jurisdictions.

This is so important because veterans, on the whole, are more prone to be convicted of violent crimes than non-veterans, which is what lands them in prison instead of doing community service or drug treatment programs. It risks harm to others and compounds their own trauma when they aren't able to check their fear or rage, or when they rely on psychoactive drugs to regulate their temperament for them. That combination can be a volatile cocktail even for those of us who haven't been trained to numb ourselves to the gruesomeness of war, the body counts, and the wondering about how many school children ended up being our collateral damage that day.

That connection between a history of trauma and being charged with violent crimes is evident among non-veterans as well, most notably women in prison. Those who have histories of trauma and victimization are much more likely to commit violent offenses than those who have never been abused. We turn victims into criminals when we fail to address the long term consequences of violence and terror - the potential that the victim may become the perpetrator - and in so doing we re-traumatize them further.

The last thing most of these folks want to do is hurt more people; they just want to stop being in so much pain themselves. Victims' rights groups would have a totally different take on crime and punishment if they followed the people they advocate for over the course of a couple of decades. It's not enough to throw a woman's rapist or a child's molester in prison and suck whatever money you can out of him as restitution, then cut them loose in ten or twenty years. For the victim's sake - for everyone's sake - we need to develop more systems of restorative justice that keep victims and communities safe without fostering internalized shame (manifesting in criminalized addictive behavior, for example), or externalized vindictiveness or rage further down the road in either survivors or perpetrators of violence.

"Victim" and "criminal" just aren't mutually exclusive categories, and we do everyone a disservice by acting as if they are - especially since it's the victims that so often get criminalized, which then exposes them to the more insidious and extensive violence of the state. At least 10% of men, women and children heading to prison will be physically or sexually assaulted there. The kids are most vulnerable, of course, and their perpetrators are most often the ones in uniform getting medals. Our recidivism rates are evidence that people don't get "rehabilitated" through being imprisoned, enslaved and brutalized - especially not if their festering wounds were caused by oppression in the first place.

Good luck to all you vets out there working on your PTSD benefit claims. I hope these new rules help, and that we bring your comrades home in one piece soon.

----------------------from CURE National---------------------

Dear Friends,

The new rules on PTSD Claims are a step forward. But I see little impact on alternative sentences for former combat veterans in the criminal justice system who are suffering from PTSD or TBI(Traumatic Brain Injury).

CURE feels strongly that these veterans should receive a Purple Heart like other combat veterans who are physically injured. Then, this purple heart recipent can convincingly show the judge that he should receive an alternative sentence if his crime was the result of PTSD or
TBI.

Because of below, combat veterans with PTSD and TBI will certainlyhave an easier time proving they should be given benefits. But, I think without a purple heart, they will be sent to prison pretty much at the same rate they are now.

Which, by the way, once in prison, veteran benefits are terminated during incarceration.

Charlie

*****

July 12, 2010

New Regulations on PTSD Claims

Quick Facts:

This new rule is for Veterans of any era.

The new rule will apply to claims:

o received by VA on or after July 13, 2010;

o received before July 13, 2010 but not yet decided by a VA regional office;

o appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals on or after July 13, 2010;

o appealed to the Board before July 13, 2010, but not yet decided by the Board; and

o pending before VA on or after July 13, 2010, because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a Board decision and remanded for re-adjudication.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

“Stressor Determinations for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder”

1. What is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)?

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a condition resulting from exposure to direct or indirect threat of death, serious injury or a physical threat. The events that can cause PTSD are called "stressors” and may include natural disasters, accidents or deliberate man-made events/disasters, including war. Symptoms of PTSD can include recurrent thoughts of a traumatic event, reduced involvement in work or outside interests, emotional numbing,
hyper-alertness, anxiety and irritability. The disorder can be more severe and longer lasting when the stress is human initiated action (example: war, rape, terrorism).

2. What does this final regulation do?

This final regulation liberalizes the evidentiary standard for Veterans claiming service connection for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Under current regulations governing PTSD claims, unless the Veteran is a combat Veteran, VA adjudicators are typically required to undertake extensive record development to corroborate whether a Veteran actually experienced the claimed in-service stressor. This final rulemaking will simplify and improve the PTSD claims adjudication process by eliminating this time-consuming requirement where the claimed stressor is related to “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity,” is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of their service, and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or contract psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD.

3. What types of claims for VA benefits does the final regulation affect?

The final regulation will benefit Veterans, regardless of their period of service. It applies to claims for PTSD service connection filed on or after the final regulation’s effective date, and to those claims that are considered on the merits at a VA Regional Office or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals on or after the effective date of the rule.

4. Why is this final regulation necessary?

The final regulation is necessary to make VA’s adjudication of PTSD claims both more timely and consistent with the current medical science.

5. How does this final regulation help Veterans?

The final regulation will simplify and streamline the processing of PTSD claims, which will result in Veterans receiving more timely decisions. A Veteran will be able to establish the occurrence of an in-service stressor through his or her own testimony, provided that:

(1) the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD;

(2) a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis;

(3) the Veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor; and

(4) the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service and the record provides no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

This will eliminate the requirement for VA to search for records, to verify stressor accounts, which is often a very involved and protracted process. As a result, the time required to adjudicate a PTSD compensation claim in accordance with the law will be significantly reduced.

5. How does VA plan to monitor the need for examiners in various regions of the country, and how does VA plan to respond if is determined that more examiners are needed in a particular region?

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has written in to the FY11-13 Operating Plan the need for additional staff to support doing adequate, timely exams. VHA proposes: “A8. Increase mental health field staff to address the increase in C&P examinations and develop monitoring system to ensure clinical delivery of mental health services does not decrease in VHA.“ Specifically, VHA has requested 125 clinicians for FY11 with additional 63 staff in FY12 if the need exists. If the Operating Plan and the proposed budget are approved, VA proposes asking the Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) to develop plans for distributing the funds in order to ensure adequate coverage at sites based on number of claims being processed; the VISNs are well positioned to determine these regional needs.

6. How does the regulatory revision affect PTSD service connection claims where an in-service diagnosis of PTSD has been rendered?

The new regulation does not apply to the adjudication of cases where PTSD has been initially diagnosed in service. Rather, under another VA rule, 38 CFR § 3.304(f)(1), if a Veteran is diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder during service and the claimed stressor is related to that service, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the Veteran's service, the Veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor.

7. Is the new regulation applicable only if the Veteran's statements relate to combat or POW service?

No. The rule states that the stressor must be related to a “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity,” and the claimed stressor must be “consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran’s service.”

8. What circumstances will still require stressor verification through DoD’s Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) , VBA’s Compensation &Pension Service (C&P Service), or other entity if a Veteran claims that his or her stressor is related to a fear of hostile or terrorist activity?

The regulatory revision will greatly lessen the need for undertaking development to verify Veterans’ accounts of in-service stressors. Now, stressor development may only need to be conducted if a review of the available record, such as the Veteran’s service personnel and/or treatment records, is inadequate to determine that the claimed stressor is “consistent with the places, types and circumstances of the veteran’s service.” In such circumstances, the Veterans Service Representative (VSR) will determine on a case-by-case basis what development should be undertaken.

However, it is anticipated that in the overwhelming majority of cases adjudicated under the new version of § 3.304(f), a simple review of the Veteran’s service treatment and/or personnel records will be sufficient to determine if the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service. We also believe that, in some cases, a Veteran’s separation document, DD-Form 214, alone may enable an adjudicator to make such a determination.

9. As the regulatory revision seems to require an enhanced role for the examining VA mental health professional, whose role is it to determine whether the claimed stressor is consistent with the Veteran’s service?

VA adjudicators, not the examining psychiatrist or psychologist, will decide whether the claimed stressor is consistent with the Veteran’s service.

10. Is a Veteran's testimony about “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity” alone sufficient to establish a stressor?

Yes, if the other requirements of the regulation are satisfied, i.e., a VA psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis and that the Veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, and the stressor is consistent with the “places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service.”

11. Are the stressors accepted as adequate for establishing service connection under new § 3.304(f)(3) limited to those specifically identified in the new regulation?

No. The examples given in the revised regulation do not represent an exclusive list in view of the use of the modifying phrase “such as” that precedes the listed examples. Any event or circumstance that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the Veteran or others, would qualify as a stressor under new § 3.304(f)(3).

12. How will the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) work with Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) on the new regulation?

VHA was actively involved in discussion with VBA of the new regulation and fully supports the new regulation.

The new regulation will provide fair evaluation for Veterans whose military records have been damaged or destroyed, or for whom no definitive reports of combat action appeared in their military records, even though they can report such actions and it is reasonable to believe that these occurred, given the time and place of service.

This will be especially beneficial to women Veterans, whose records do not specify that they had combat assignments, even though their roles in the military placed them at risk of hostile military or terrorist activity.

This means that more Veterans will become eligible for VA care and thus be able to receive VA care for mental illness related to their military service, as well as receiving full holistic health care.VHA will work actively with VBA on implementing the regulation. VHA staff’s main role is as clinicians conducting C&P interviews to establish diagnoses and obtain other information to be used by VBA raters to determine the outcome of claims.

The new regulation will not change the diagnostic elements of the C&P interview, but may change what additional data are collected for use by VBA raters.

Clark Fish, PTSD, and the Death Penalty.

Please refer to my blog post of August 2, 2010 for an update and corrections to the information contained in this article. Clark Fish is not the primary victim here.

--------------------From the Huffington Post--------------

For returning soldiers, is Afghanistan the new Vietnam?

Kaj Larsen

Correspondent, Current TV’s “Vanguard”

Posted: July 6, 2010 02:59 PM

In a jail in Phoenix, Arizona sits Inmate P382209--Clark Fish. Clark is 24. He is wearing black and white stripes that suggest a different era of incarceration. Young, good looking, with sandy blond hair, well spoken in a self-educated way, he does not give off the impression of a hardened criminal. Clark is in his 16 by 9 cell taking two pink socks (the inmates have pink undergarments in the Maricopa County facility) and symmetrically rolling them together into a little ball about the size of an orange. He finishes by making and adjusting the dimple impression where the socks come together into a perfect curve--or, as my drill instructor used to say when I was in Officer Candidate School, "I want those socks to smile, Candidate Larsen! Why is the goddamn smile on those socks crooked?"

Clark's perfectly folded socks were a tell tale sign that he had once worn a different uniform than the old-school stripes he wears today. Just four years ago he was an Army medic deployed to Iraq. Thanks to his former military training his socks contain the perfect smile--but Clark does not. He finds himself in the most grave of circumstances: convicted of first-degree murder for strangling his girlfriend and now facing the death penalty.

In June of this year, after two-and-a-half years awaiting trial, Clark was found guilty. He joined the growing ranks of veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who return home and commit crimes. As I found in "War Crimes," a new documentary for Current TV's Vanguard series, one common thread among these fallen heroes is that a large majority of them are suffering from PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder. [Watch a trailer for "War Crimes" here.]

Clark was diagnosed with PTSD, which encompasses a wide array of long-lasting physical and mental responses to experiencing trauma, in 2007. To date over 350,000 veterans have been diagnosed with the condition and a recent Stanford University study suggests that as many as 770,000 of those returning from the two wars overseas may be suffering with PTSD.

As I followed the case of Inmate Fish, who had served six months at Balad Air Base in Iraq, I began to wonder just how many other veterans with PTSD from Iraq and Afghanistan were, like Clark, spending time behind bars. The answer is unknown. Neither the Department of Justice, nor the Department of Defense, nor any institution has an accurate count of how many vets are in our nation's prisons and jails. It is troubling that the scope of this problem is not understood.

The anecdotal evidence points to an iceberg-sized trend looming beneath the surface. Dozens of soldiers have been accused of killing girlfriends or wives, a town in Colorado had eight murders within a single battalion, and there is a landmark case in Oregon where an Iraq vet used PTSD as a defense for murder. In a yellow ribbon political climate, asking questions about incarcerated veterans is a sticky issue. But as I started looking at small town newspaper articles and speaking to advocacy groups, the pattern was undeniable: veterans are getting arrested and getting locked up.

In 2008 The New York Times published an article on Iraq/Afghanistan veterans who had been charged with murder after returning home. The researchers, using Lexis-Nexis and culling reports from local papers, determined that there had been at least 121 murders by veterans since the start of the two wars. The report was an initial indicator of a problem--but it may have underestimated the size and scope of the issue. The research technique only flagged articles where the veteran's status was explicitly mentioned. A case such as Clark Fish's, where there was no mention of his military service, did not make the tally. We were able to determine that there have been at least 44 additional murders since the article was published two years ago. While high-profile murders are headline grabbing, they represent only the apex of a pyramid of crime committed by veterans, including domestic violence, drug use and DUIs. The sum total of crimes committed by veterans is even more striking.

For the most part, the military denies a connection between crime and combat, the tacit suggestion being that among any population there is going to be a certain amount of crime. However, the rate at which veterans are committing crimes wildly outpaces the general population. A series of articles by Dave Phillips, a local reporter from the Colorado Springs Gazette, about a battalion known ironically as the "Lethal Warriors" in Ft. Carson, Colo., documents one unit of about 500 soldiers in which eight men were charged with murder. Statistically that is about 500 times greater than the average murder rate of the city where the crimes occurred. In all the cases in Colorado--and in the case of every veteran we spoke with who had spent time in jail--PTSD had played a role in the crime.

So what's happening here? Why are a growing number of veterans linked by their service and their PTSD ending up behind bars? The pattern we observed seemed to follow a typical downward spiral. A veteran suffering from PTSD doesn't seek or receive the treatment he or she needs. They begin self-medicating to deal with PTSD, abusing alcohol, prescription drugs, and illegal drugs, and eventually getting in trouble with the law. These first offenses are early warning signs that go unheeded. Then, in many of the cases, the smaller offenses lead to larger offenses--like murder.

What is troubling about this trend is that the scope is not understood. Some experts have suggested that there is a lag effect of about five years between veterans returning and a follow on crime wave. They predict, eerily, that we are at the leading edge of a "tsunami" of veteran crime. Perhaps even more disturbing is the dearth of data and conversation about the subject.

Ultimately we ask our veterans to do an incredibly difficult thing. We ask them to go to a war and deal with the reality of death, destruction, and despair--and then to return home and put those things behind them, to fully function as members of society. Imagine spending 15 months overseas and never leaving your rifle. Sleeping with it, eating with it, even taking it to the john. You are trained to never be without it. Then you come home, and you feel naked without it. So you do what you where trained to do and carry the weapon at all times. Only now, if you bring your weapon to a movie theater, you may have committed a crime. In many of the cases, having a weapon on them was a critical component of a veteran being charged with a crime. Compounding that adjustment, many of these returning veterans are also suffering mental health injuries. The explosive cocktail of PTSD, self-medication, and combat experience has proven in some cases to be a violent combination.

This problem may have been pre-empted by forethought. America has ample evidence of returning soldiers damaged by war. In the early 1980s, one in five prisoners in America was a Vietnam veteran. Hollywood registered the trend. In Rambo: First Blood, a small town sheriff arrests a Vietnam veteran. Homer chronicles Ulysses' struggle to adjust to coming home after a decade of war. Yet despite the prevalence of literature and pop culture precedent, the military and the Veterans Administration seem to have been under-prepared to deal with a generation coming home after the current conflicts.

The news is not all bad. There are some encouraging signs. Veteran's Courts around the country are being established to focus on treating veterans for their PTSD rather than punishing them for their crimes. A positive step, but simultaneously an indicator of the problem at hand. The VA is getting better at identifying and treating the invisible wounds of war. Certainly the key to solving the issue is to identify vets suffering from PTSD before it spirals into criminal behavior.

And a few voices within the military are reluctantly starting to acknowledge the issue. The former Commanding General of Ft. Carson, one of the epicenters of the PTSD and crime epidemic, spoke of the "crescendo effect"--the idea that lesser crimes like DUIs and assault are red flags for further trouble. The critical issue remains: we have neither a comprehensive tracking system nor an adequate plan to receive the hundreds of thousands of veterans who are suffering from PTSD and may be at risk for ending up in jail or prison.

I have a close friend, a fellow veteran, who talks about the difference between the aftermath of WWII and Vietnam. He says, "After World War Two, a whole generation of soldiers came back home and built up their country. Conversely, we can acknowledge that after Vietnam many veterans returned and struggled to find their place." The battle for how this new generation of veterans will be remembered is still up for grabs.

While it's important to emphasize that the vast majority of veterans return home after serving honorably and re-integrate into society using many of the skills and strengths of their military service, the last several months have taught me that an increasingly alarming number are unable to leave the war behind. For the most extreme cases, PTSD is rapidly becoming a pipeline to prison. From Clark Fish who faces the death penalty in Arizona, to Jessie Bratcher, who was found guilty but insane because of PTSD in Oregon, veterans are fighting difficult battles in the courtrooms.

What steps we take to prevent other soldiers from becoming embroiled in these tragic scenarios will help define how this generation of veterans returns home and move from soldiers to citizens. We help the entire country by helping veterans who are on the edge. It makes our communities safer and honors the values they fought for.