Beaton and Repatriation Commission
[2003] AATA 510
•30 May 2003
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 510
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No W2002/281
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re WILLIAM CHARLES BEATON Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Brigadier R D F Lloyd, Member
Date30 May 2003
PlacePerth
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
........…(sgd R D F Lloyd)…..........
Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – veterans’ entitlements –ex RAAF – operational and defence service but only operational service relevant – claimed condition of Osteoarthrosis right knee – alleged to have resulted from injury during authorised sport on base whilst on operational service at RAAF Butterworth – problems of supporting evidence – conflict of applicant’s evidence with contemporaneous service records, particularly concerning date/year of occurrence of injury – SoP template requirements met but only if applicant’s evidence sufficiently equates to findings of fact – in end result Tribunal satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was not sufficient ground to determine condition war-caused.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, ss 9, 120(1), 120(3), 120(4), 120A, 196B(2)
Re Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
REASONS FOR DECISION
30 May 2003 Brigadier R D F Lloyd, Member
1. This is an application before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by William Charles Beaton (“the applicant”) for a review of a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) dated 4 July 2002. The VRB decision affirmed that part of a decision by the Repatriation Commission (“the respondent”) of 7 December 2001, in which the delegate of the respondent determined that the applicant’s condition of osteoarthrosis of the right knee is not war or defence-caused. The applicant had then requested a review of that decision by a senior delegate of the respondent under s31 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (‘the Act”). That delegate, on 6 March 2002, determined that there were insufficient grounds to intervene and vary the earlier decision under s31 of the Act, and the matter was referred to the VRB. The Tribunal further notes that an earlier 1997 claim was made by the applicant for “arthritis right knee”.. This also was rejected by a delegate of the respondent on 15 May 1997 – the condition, diagnosed as being osteoarthrosis, being found not to be related to eligible service.
2. The applicant attended both the initial day of the Tribunal’s hearing on 15 May 2003, and also the resumed hearing on 20 May 2003, together with his advocate Mr B Cooper. The respondent was represented by Mr C Ponnuthurai. The Tribunal had before it the documents filed by the respondent pursuant to s37 of the Administrative Appeals TribunalAct 1975 (“the T documents”). In addition, the applicant tendered the following documents, which were taken into evidence on the first hearing day:
· Exhibit A1: Statutory Declaration by J A McQueen dated 14 October 2002.
· Exhibit A2: Statutory Declaration by G E Smith dated 8 October 2002.
· Exhibit A3: Statutory Declaration by B F Blundell dated 10 October 2002.
3. During that first day of the hearing it became clear that some relevant documents had not been included among those provided under s37 of the Act. In addition it was apparent that authoritative information concerning certain HMA Ships visits to Penang or nearby in 1959 would be of assistance to the Tribunal in deciding this matter. As a result of a direction given on the first day of hearing by the Tribunal, the following additional documentary material was provided by the applicant and the respondent and was taken into evidence at the resumed hearing:
· Exhibit A4: Letter from Mr B Cooper to the Tribunal dated 16 May 2003, with attached copies of additional Service medical records concerning the applicant, of 4 pages.
· Exhibit R1: Record of Port Visits of HMAS Anzac during period 7 May 1954 to 12 July 1963.
· Exhibit R2: Record of Port Visits of HMAS Quiberon during period 18 December 1957 to 13 August 1963.
· Exhibit R3: Document titled “Operational Service in Ships and Shore Establishments”, of 16 pages.
· Exhibit R4: Bundle of additional T documents, numbering 12 pages, of Service medical records concerning the applicant.
· Exhibit R5: Letter to the Tribunal from Mr Ponnuthorai, commenting on the documents in Exhibit R4 and making additional comments/submissions, dated 19 May 2003.
4. The applicant gave oral evidence, was questioned by the Tribunal and cross-examined by the respondent’s representative. His recollection of some relevant details of the particular period of his service of most concern in this matter was not as clear as the Tribunal would have expected under the circumstances. However he answered most questions in an apparently forthright manner, albeit leaving the Tribunal in some doubt in the end result about the accuracy of some aspects of evidence. No respondent witnesses were called.
5. The applicant served in the Royal Australian Air Force (“the RAAF”) from 1956 to 1962 and again from 1963 to 1977. His eligible service under the provisions of the Act, however, is limited to the following periods:
(a)Operational Service (Malaysia): 18 October 1957 to 26 March 1960.
(b)Eligible Defence Service: 7 December 1972 to 10 October 1977, when the applicant took his final discharge from the RAAF.
6. The applicant’s service in Malaysia, whilst not directly active service against enemy forces, is prescribed as operational service as it is defined under the Act. For this service the matter before the Tribunal is to be determined in accordance with s120(1) and (3) of the Act. Under these provisions the Tribunal is required to decide whether, on the material before it, there is raised a reasonable hypothesis to connect the claimed condition with the applicant’s operational service. If so, it must determine, based on the facts before it, that the condition is war-caused unless is it satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination.
7. For the applicant’s eligible defence service, as defined in the Act, and should it be applicable, the matter is to be determined by the Tribunal in accordance with s120(4) of the Act. Under this provision, it is required to decide the matter to its reasonable satisfaction – that is, on the balance of probabilities. The applicant’s advocate however advised that the contention raised by the applicant related only to operational service. Eligible defence service was not involved.
8. Additionally, as the claim was lodged after 1 June 1994, by virtue of s120(A) of the Act, the Tribunal is required to assess the matter in accordance with any relevant Statement of Principle (“SoP”) issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority (“the RMA”).
9. The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied, based on the medical evidence before it, that the applicant’s claimed condition is appropriately diagnosed and described as osteoarthrosis of the right knee. It is contended by the applicant’s advocate that the origin of this condition was an injury sustained by the applicant whilst playing authorised sport (basketball) at RAAF Butterworth, whilst the applicant was serving there. The basketball game, according to the applicant’s evidence provided to the Tribunal, was between a RAAF team of which he was part and a team from a visiting RAN ship. The game he says was played on base and he thinks was on a Friday. The name of the visiting RAN ship he is not certain about, but he believes it could have been HMAS Anzac or more likely HMAS Quiberon. He is not at all sure when this basketball game occurred, but his recollection now is that it was in proximity to the Chinese New Year. He places the year as being not in his first or last year at Butterworth, that is not 1958 or 1960, and therefore asserts that this game in which he states he injured his right knee would have been in February 1959 (or late January), because that was the time in which the Chinese New Year fell in that year.
10. The only initial evidence before the Tribunal to further support the approximate date of this basketball game was that provided by his fellow servicemen, who were serving at Butterworth in this period. Their evidence is contained in the T documents at T11 page 65 and 66 and T13 page 68 and 69, together with updated statutory declarations by two of the three (J A McQueen and G E Smith) as Exhibits A1 and A2. The third member’s only statutory declaration, that of B F Blundell, is at Exhibit A3. The evidence provided by these three colleagues of the applicant in essence supports the contention that the applicant injured one of his knees during an apparently official basketball game between a RAAF team and a team from a visiting HMA Ship during the period 1958-59/60. Their evidence is similar to that now provided by the applicant, that the HMA Ship involved was either the Anzac or the Quiberon, during a ship’s visit, and although they do not indicate the port involved, the applicant in his oral evidence says it was Penang. Mr Blundell’s evidence (Exhibit A3) comes down in favour of the ship involved being HMAS Quiberon.
11. The further evidence in this regard is contained in Exhibits R1 and R2. The record in Exhibit R2 shows HMAS Quiberon ported at Penang from 29 January to 2 February 1959 (and Port Swettenham from 3 to 6 February 1959). Exhibit R1 shows HMAS Anzac was not in the vicinity of Singapore/Malaysia until April 1959. At the time contended by the applicant of January/February 1959, Anzac is shown as being based out of Sydney and operating in Australian waters.
12. The applicant’s evidence concerning his knee injury, stated to have occurred at Butterworth on a Friday in January/February 1959, is that during the basketball game in question his ankle twisted during a “lay-up” and he fell heavily on and twisted his right knee. He states he was taken to his quarters by vehicle via the canteen, where ice was purchased. When he got to his bed in the barracks with the assistance of the driver of the vehicle, the ice was wrapped around his knee. He states he remained on his bed (apart from toilet requirements) throughout the weekend, with ice packs from the canteen self-applied, and he was taken by vehicle to eat his meals. On the Monday he resumed his duties even though he advises his knee was still swollen, tender and painful. He managed this because his duties were essentially clerical and mostly executed from a chair. He got to work that Monday following the injury incident, and for the remainder of that working week, with the help of the ‘duty vehicle’.. These work/travel arrangements continued through the rest of the week, ending on the Friday. He then rested up over the following weekend, at the end of which he recalls the pain and swelling had considerably subsided. The applicant’s further evidence is that from the following Monday onwards, that is 10 days after the injury incident, he was able to resume riding his bicycle the 1km to work and back, and to meals etc. He states that he did not report to the Base Medical Centre after the injury or seek medical treatment for it, then or in the days that followed. His stated reason for this to the Tribunal is that he had been previously described by one of the medical officers as being a malingerer (on his documents). He was upset/annoyed by this allegation and decided not to report to the Medical Centre. He hence relied on self-treatment, apparently ice packs only, with no pain reducing or other medication. He was unable to participate in any sporting activity, other than therapeutic swimming, for about 6 weeks or more after the injury, according to his evidence - which is supported by evidence in Exhibits A2 and A3.
13. The applicant further maintains that he had continuing problems with his right knee (collapsing etc) since this 1959 injury, resulting in a knee operation in Australia in 1962, although he did play competitive sport at Butterworth late in 1959-60 and in 1961 in Australia. He states that despite his knee operation he continued to have some problems, largely due to the onset of osteoarthrosis from the injury, and these problems still persist.
14. Following the accepted process set out by the Full Federal Court in Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82, the Tribunal next considered the relevant material before it (as summarised in paragraphs 10 to 13 above) in relation the the applicant’s stated contention concerning the cause of his claimed knee condition, in terms of it raising an hypothesis. As a consequence, and without initially making findings of fact in this regard, the Tribunal is relevantly satisfied that the material does validly point to an hypothesis connecting the applicant’s right knee osteoarthrosis condition with his service in Malaysia – which has been accepted as ‘war service’ (in this case, by virtue of his rendering ‘operational service’ as defined in the Act).
15. There is an SoP in force determined by the RMA, under s196B(2) of the Act, dealing with osteoarthrosis. The current SoP is Instrument 81 of 2001 and this was also the same SoP Instrument used by the respondent at the time of the primary decision involved in this review. It is common ground, and agreed by the Tribunal, that this SoP is the only relevant one in this case and furthermore that the only relevant factor in that Instrument is factor 5(j). This states as follows:
“(j) suffering a trauma to the affected joint before the clinical onset of osteoarthrosis in that joint; or”
The term “trauma to the affected joint” is defined in paragraph 8 of the same SoP, which states as follows:
“’trauma to the affected joint’ means a discrete joint injury that causes the development within 24 hours of the injury being sustained, of symptoms and signs of pain, and tenderness and either altered mobility or range of movement of that joint. These symptoms and signs must last for a period of at least seven days following their onset; save for where medical intervention for the trauma to that joint has occurred, where that medical intervention involves either:
(a)immobilisation of the joint or limb by splinting, sling or similar external agents; or
(b)injection of corticosteroids or local anaesthetics into that joint; or
(c)aspiration of that joint; or
(d)surgery to that joint;”
16. In this instance, the time of ‘clinical onset’ of the applicant’s osteoarthrosis condition of the knee is not an issue. Clearly, from the evidence before the Tribunal, the contended injury in 1959 was before the onset of the osteoarthrosis, which at the earliest is in the 1960’s and possibly as late as the 1990’s. In this particular respect therefore, there is no conflict with the time of onset requirement in factor 5(j) of the SoP, and this is common ground.
17. On the face of it, the hypothesis raised by the applicant seems to be a reasonable one in terms of the Act, based on his oral evidence and some of the documentary material available. If the injury did occur in early 1959, as contended by the applicant, then:
(a)Whilst not in circumstances of war in which the applicant was directly involved with the enemy, it occurred whilst he was on ‘operational service’, as defined. It is also agreed that a sports activity such as the basketball match was, in accordance with s9(1)(a) of the Act, part of that operational service. The opposing team in the basketball game involved is said to have been from HMAS Quiberon, which visited Penang from 29 January to 2 February 1959.
(b)The injury, if it occurred as contended, appears to have been a discrete injury to the right knee joint, albeit its severity is uncertain.
(c)The contended injury appears to have caused immediate symptoms and signs of pain and tenderness, together with reduced mobility, and that these symptoms and signs are said to have lasted for 7 to 9 days. No medical treatment or intervention was sought or involved. Other than rest, the only apparent treatment was self-prescribed and self-applied ice packs to the affected knee over a period of some 3 days.
(d)The contended injury during the basketball game came as a result of a twist to his knee, described by the applicant in terms that, in the Tribunal’s opinion, equate to a form of trauma to the knee joint.
(e)If the injury/trauma occurred in 1959 as described, it was before clinical onset of osteoarthrosis which seems to have been first apparent in the 1960’s or even as late as the 1990’s.
18. Again, following the process in Deledio, and without yet making relevant findings of fact from the available evidence, but taking the matters summarised in paragraph 17 above into account, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the hypothesis as raised by the applicant appears to be consistent with the template of the SoP and in particular factor 5(j). It is, in the Tribunal’s opinion, neither obviously fanciful nor contrary to known scientific facts concerning this osteoarthrosis condition. It therefore, in the Tribunal’s opinion, is a reasonable hypothesis in terms of the Act – but in the end result must be subjected to the test of examination against the yet to be stated findings of fact by the Tribunal.
19. The respondent’s view, as expressed by its representative at the hearing, supports this opinion – that the hypothesis is reasonable and fits the template of the SoP. However, the respondent contends that the applicant’s hypothesis and claim should nevertheless fail on the basis that the contemporaneous and authoritative records in evidence before the Tribunal are preferable. They show that the significant injury that certainly caused an internal derangement of the right knee and which would have been the injury/trauma that led to the subsequent onset of osteoarthrosis of that knee actually took place in 1961, that is after the applicant’s period of operational service (and not within his eligible defence service either). In summary, the basis of the respondent’s stand in this regard from the evidence and especially the documented material available in the T documents, is as follows:
(a)There is no record of treatment or of reported problems with the applicant’s right knee, during the remainder of 1959 post February and in 1960, in the applicant’s Service medical records – as provided in the T documents, or in the Exhibits handed up by both applicant and respondent. In fact the first mention of a knee problem in the records is in late 1961 (T13 page 18). The relevant entries in this regard are as follows:
·“8/8/61 – ESale [East Sale, Victoria] - (R) [right] knee collapsed at basketball. O/E [on examination] slight “click” on flexion but McMurrays negative … reduce or give up sport ……. .”
·“28/11/61 – ESale – Both knees constantly aching even after inactive period. O/E - (R) “clicks” on extension. (L)[left] NAD [no abnormality detected]. McMurrays negative.”
(b)Again in 1961, on 29 November, the applicant was referred to Wing Commander Toyne (a RAAF medical specialist) by a Senior Medical Officer (Flt Lt S Murphy) for an opinion concerning the right knee. He records similar comments to those above, with the added comments of Toyne, as follows:
·“29/11/61 – I saw this man in August last [1961] when he c/o [collapsed on] (R) knee, ‘giving way’ when playing sport. O/E at that time there was a slight “click” heard and felt at the end of flexion. I advise to reduce or give up sport, which of course he did not do. Now he says that both knees are constantly aching even after periods of inactivity. The findings are the same O/E (R) knee, (L) knee seems normal. Xrays taken. Please advise.
[ signed ] S Murphy, Flt Lt S.M.O”
·“14/12/61 – Meniscectomy indicated. Torn medial meniscus, Rt knee.
[ signed ] A H Toyn Wg Cdr”
(c)On 12 February 1962, the applicant was referred to Dr Bedbrook, an orthopaedic surgeon (T3 page 20). On 22 February 1962, Dr Collibee, another orthopaedic surgeon, reported as follows (T3 page 20):
·“22.2.62 – Twisted R knee at basketball in July 1961. Knee gave way (but) was able to continue game. Since then R knee repeatedly gives way …. “
(d)On 11 April 1962, the applicant was admitted to hospital in Perth (RGH Hollywood) for a right knee meniscectomy. On admission a Dr Misson records, in part, as follows (T3 page 23):
·“….. hears a click and gets sharp pain in the R knee. First trouble with knee June 1961 (emphasis added) when playing basketball, pivoted to R felt pains in knee (R) which gave way. No swelling then or since …….. .Clicking on extension and McMurray. Non tender. No effusion. For meniscectomy.”
On 12 April 1962 this operation to his right knee was performed and Dr Collibee records in a post operative review in May 1962 that the applicant “ … should have no permanent disability from this knee … “ (T3 page 25).
(e)In the applicant’s application to the respondent for acceptance of arthritis of the right knee in February 1996, he states that he first became aware of this arthritis condition in his knee in 1994 (T4 page 45).
20. From this documented evidence the respondent contends that there is no doubt, based on the wording used in the medical records, that a significant right knee injury to the applicant did first occur when playing basketball, but that it was at East Sale in Victoria not at Butterworth and was in June/July 1961. This is not in the applicant’s period of eligible service.
21. Further to this, the Tribunal notes and the respondent also draws attention to the following aspects concerning the applicant’s evidence, in which the applicant now contends that the initial causal right knee injury was not that which occurred in 1961, but was a knee injury in 1959 whilst he was on operational service at RAAF Butterworth:
(a)The record of HMAS Quiberon’s visit to Penang in late January/February 1959 does support the applicant’s evidence that he played, or may have played, a basketball game against a team from that ship during that visit period. The evidence at Exhibit A1, A2 and A3 also supports this contention. If he indeed did so, it is accepted that this activity would be regarded as one in which the applicant was properly rendering service as part of his operational service as defined in the Act.
(b)If the applicant’s description of his situation immediately following the 1959 injury, and for the following 9 days or so, were to be accepted, then this in the respondent’s opinion satisfactorily meets the requirements of the relevant SoP. In this regard however, the ability of the applicant to go back to work, albeit clerical in nature, less than 3 days later, and even though he was transported there and back for that week – raises considerable and significant doubt for the respondent about the alleged injury/incident having occurred. In the Tribunal’s opinion it rather raises relevant doubt concerning the severity of the injury.
(c)The basis for not seeking medical treatment at the time of the alleged injury, as given by the applicant, is the comment by one RAAF doctor on base on a previous occasion of sickness that he had been “malingering”.. Nevertheless it is difficult for the Tribunal (and the respondent) to accept that with such an allegedly painful and significant injury, he would not have officially reported it and obtained some form of proper medical treatment. Not even low level pain relief medication was sought, obtained or taken. The records show that the applicant did however seek medical treatment at the Base Medical Centre at Butterworth for other much less significant ailments, including some around that period (Exhibits A4 and R4), and which were subsequent to him becoming aware of the ‘malingering’ notation/comment by one of the medical officers.
(d)The applicant states he was unable to participate in any sport or any worthwhile physical activity/exercise for some 6 weeks or more after the injury, yet that restriction - which would normally be an official and recorded one - gets no mention at all in the Service records before the Tribunal. This, the Tribunal regards as significant and unusual. He was however able to resume riding his bicycle 10 days after the injury. Even though it is said that this activity was with a little difficulty initially, at least the seriousness and extent of the knee injury in the Tribunal’s opinion is further put in question as a result of these aspects. In the respondent’s opinion however it again shows that the injury/incident itself is unlikely to have occurred at all.
(e)There is no indication in the applicant’s Service records, and no recorded mention by him subsequently to doctors treating his knee in 1961/62, of this alleged 1959 knee injury. In fact quite the contrary in terms of the latter, in which it is recorded by doctors that the applicant referred to the 1961 injury as the “first” knee injury. In response to questions by the Tribunal, the applicant acknowledges this but puts forward the explanation of it being a reference in 1962 by him to the most recent (latest) knee injury, ie in 1961. In the respondent’s opinion this would seem highly unlikely, considering the applicant at that stage was heading for a significant knee operation and one would have expected a full history to have been given by him to the doctors/surgeons involved at the time. In the Tribunal’s opinion it indicates that the 1959 injury was apparently not important or severe enough to warrant his referring it to the doctors/surgeons.
Tribunal’s Conclusions and Findings of Fact
22. From the material before it and the total evidence available – as outlined in these Reasons – the Tribunal finds that the applicant did in fact incur an injury to his right knee at a basketball game whilst on operational service at Butterworth in late January/early February 1959. It accepts the applicant’s word in that respect.
23. At paragraph 18 of these Reasons, the Tribunal indicates its opinion that, at that point in its consideration, the description of the injury/trauma to the applicant’s knee in 1959, as provided by him, appeared consistent with the requirements of SoP Instrument 81 of 2001 factor 5(j). However, taking into account the matters already outlined and the following facts in particular:
(a)That the applicant did not seek any medical treatment or pain relief medications at the time – the only reason given being his stated misgivings concerning one of the doctors at the Base Medical Centre. Yet he did seek and obtain treatment at the Medical Centre for other apparently less significant ailments during 1959 – and after the malingering comment which occurred in July 1958.
(b)His relatively speedy recovery considering the stated severity and significance of his right knee injury – albeit his mobility was said by him to have been affected for some 7 days. Being able to cope with getting to the toilet on his own, especially in the first 3 days, and on day three to be able to resume in his work environment, which although clerical the Tribunal finds would have involved significant movement of his knee.
(c)His ability to resume riding his bicycle on day ten – involving leg/knee action which, by any normal standards with a significant knee injury, the Tribunal considers would have resulted in extreme pain and great difficulty. This is not the description given by the applicant, the words used by him being “with some difficulty”.
(d)His ability to resume physical/sporting activity after 6 weeks or so and then undertake significant competitive sport later in 1959 and even more so by the following year, which in the Tribunal finds would be unlikely if the January/February 1959 injury were of a severity/significance as envisioned in the SoP.
(e)The applicant’s failure to even mention the 1959 injury to treating/surgical doctors in 1962 in the lead up to his knee operation that year, and to incorrectly but clearly state to them that the first injury to his right knee had been in 1961. There was a significant and serious injury to his knee in 1961, but according to the applicant’s current evidence it was not the first or the most serious – he is now stating it was the 1959 incident/injury. The Tribunal finds that this is incompatible with the indisputable facts recorded in the applicant’s Service records.
The Tribunal, from the combinations of all these facts as outlined above, concludes that, whilst it finds an injury did in fact occur in January/February 1959 to the applicant’s right knee in the sort of circumstances he describes, it was not – based on the evidence before it – as significant an injury as the applicant has implied to the Tribunal. The evidence, as it has evolved, and the very strong contrary indicators/statements on record which subsequently were not refuted by the applicant in his oral evidence, in the Tribunal’s opinion in the end result do not support a severe enough injury having actually occurred in 1959 for it to have been causally relevant. Consequently, from the weight of evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the injury which caused the applicant’s subsequent osteoarthrosis of the right knee, as claimed, was in fact not in 1959 but that which unquestionably occurred in 1961. This 1961 injury is not within the applicant’s eligible Service periods.
24. The Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, based on all the evidence available and from its findings and the conclusions reached as outlined, that there is not sufficient ground for determining that the claimed right knee condition was war-caused.
25. With regard to the review process undertaken by a Senior Delegate of the respondent in March 2002 (T13 page 68 and 69), the Tribunal, whilst in no way bound nor influenced by the delegate’s stated reasons in that instance, simply notes for the record that the finding contained therein is similar to that arrived at by the Tribunal in these Reasons. The Tribunal’s opinion being also that, while it accepts the applicant’s contention that a knee injury took place in 1959 on operational service, the evidence results in it finding that the injury was not of sufficient severity to adequately meet the requirements and intention of the relevant SoP – for this particular joint condition to be accepted as having been war-caused.
Decision
26. For the above reasons, pursuant to s43 of the Administrative Appeals TribunalAct 1975, the Tribunal’s decision is to affirm the Veteran’s Review Board decision under review of 4 July 2002.
I certify that the 26 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Brigadier RDF Lloyd, Member
Signed: ......…(sgd V Wong)...........................
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 15 May 2003 & 20 May 2003
Date of Decision 30 May 2003
Counsel for the Applicant Mr B Cooper
Counsel for the Respondent Mr C Ponnuthurai
0