Giger and Repatriation Commission

[2007] AATA 2000

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 2000

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q 200600298

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		VERA GIGER

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President P E Hack SC

Date30 November 2007

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.  

..............Signed...............

Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS AFFAIRS – application for widow’s pension – veteran was Ordinance Artificer – veteran took his own life – veteran suffered from depression – issue of time of clinical onset of depression - whether death was due to depression caused by war service- whether bombardments in Korean War were a severe traumatic event- applicant was remote to bombardment and not an eyewitness – hypothesis relied upon is not reasonable – decision under review – decision under review affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth.) – ss120(1), (3)

Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331

REASONS FOR DECISION

30 November 2007   Deputy President P E Hack SC    

Introduction

1.Mrs Vera Giger is the widow of the late Jack Hans Giger who died by his own hand in December 1966. Mr Giger saw service in the Royal Australian Navy during the Korean War. Mrs Giger contends that her late husband’s death was caused by his war service and that accordingly she is entitled to a widow’s pension.

2.The respondent, the Repatriation Commission, decided on 8 April 2005 that the death of Mr Giger was not related to war service and that a war widow’s pension was therefore not payable. That refusal was affirmed by the Veterans Review Board. Mrs Giger now seeks a review of the decision in this Tribunal.

Background

3.Mr Giger had a number of periods of “eligible war service” as that term is used in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth.) (the Act) but that which is of particular relevance in the present proceedings was his service aboard HMAS Anzac in Korea between 6 September 1952 and 26 June 1953.

4.The circumstances of that service were the subject of research undertaken by Dr Albert Palazzo, an historian, whose report dated 28 August 2006 is before me. There was no challenge by the Commission to Dr Palazzo’s conclusions and what follows is taken, in the main, from his report.

5.HMAS Anzac was a “Battle” Class destroyer. Her main armament comprised four 4.5 inch Mark VI guns as well as anti-aircraft and anti-submarine weapons. In the period between September 1952 to June 1953 when Mr Giger was aboard HMAS Anzac she participated,

“in coastal patrol, interdiction and bombardment missions on the eastern and western shores of North Korea.”

Dr Palazzo’s research of her Reports of Proceedings during this period lead him to these conclusions:

“In the course of its tour of operations in North Korean waters from 6 September 1952 to 26 June 1953 the ANZAC participated in 35 shore bombardment missions. Of these attacks two were specifically identified as bombardments of population centres (see missions…