Hendrickson and Repatriation Commission

[2005] AATA 1252

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1252

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL        Nº V2003/1150

VETERANS'     APPEALS       DIVISION

Re:       GRAEME FRANCIS HENDRICKSON

Applicant

And:       REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal:       G.D. Friedman, Senior Member

Date:             16 December 2005

Place:            Melbourne

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision that alcohol dependence and depressive disorder suffered by the applicant were war-caused with effect from 6 June 2002.

(sgd) G.D. Friedman

Senior Member

VETERANS' AFFAIRS ‑ veterans’ entitlements - alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse – depressive disorder - whether war‑caused

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9(1), 120, 120(4), 120A

Fogarty v Repatriation Commission (2003) 37 AAR 363

Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331

Re McLeod-Drydenand Repatriation Commission (1998) 53 ALD 428

Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668

ReWitten and Repatriation Commission (1998) 54 ALD 605

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581

REASONS FOR DECISION

16 December 2005  G.D. Friedman, Senior Member

1.      This is an application by Graeme Francis Hendrickson (the applicant) for review of a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) dated 4 August 2003.  The VRB affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Repatriation Commission (the respondent) dated 29 November 2002 and varied on 9 December 2002 that depressive disorder and alcohol abuse were not war‑caused.

2. The Tribunal received into evidence the documents lodged under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T17), plus 4 exhibits (Exhibits A1‑A4) tendered by the applicant and 14 exhibits (Exhibits R1‑R14) tendered by the respondent.

BACKGROUND

3.      The applicant was born in Maryborough, Victoria, on 10 June 1948 and, after leaving school at the age of 14, he completed an apprenticeship as a motor mechanic with local service stations.  He joined the Australian Army (the army) on 2 October 1968 as a national serviceman, and was discharged on 10 October 1970.  He married in 1969.  He served in Vietnam from 20 August 1969 to 13 August 1970 as a motor mechanic in the Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.  This constitutes operational service for the purposes of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act).

4.      Following his discharge, the applicant returned to work for his former employer.  He left after three months to work for another service station, where he remained for ten years until he was retrenched.  He then opened his own motor vehicle service and repair business in Maryborough, where he still lives with his wife.  He has three adult sons, one of whom works in the business.

5.      The applicant says he suffered from insomnia, poor appetite with some weight loss, and social withdrawal after leaving the army; and was prone to feeling miserable, irritable and unhappy.  In 1995 he was admitted to Maryborough Hospital and was referred for psychiatric treatment, including anti-depressant medication.  He increased his alcohol consumption while he was in the army, and now drinks 6-8 cans of beer each day.

6.      On 11 June 1997 the respondent accepted that the applicant’s bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus were war-caused, and assessed the rate of disability pension at 30 per cent of the general rate.  On 6 September 2002 the applicant made a claim to the respondent that his Anxiety, Stress Depression and Alcohol dependence were war‑caused.  On 29 November 2002 the respondent refused the claim in respect of depressive disorder and alcohol abuse, and increased the rate of pension to 70 per cent of the general rate.  On 9 December 2002 the respondent increased the pension rate to 80 per cent.

7.      On 18 December 2002 the applicant sought review of this decision by the VRB.  On 4 August 2003 the VRB affirmed the decision.  On 15 October 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal for review of the VRB decision.

8.      The issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant’s depressive disorder and alcohol abuse were war-caused.

EVIDENCE

9.        In a written statement dated 18 November 2004 (Exhibit A2) the applicant said that he had lived a fairly protected life before operational service in Vietnam, and he had not wanted to go there.  He noted that when he did serve there he was on edge and unprepared for the events and experiences of a war zone.  He stated that he served with 102 Field Workshops based at Vung Tau, although his duties took him to Phuoc Tuy province and the Australian headquarters at Nui Dat.

10.      The applicant said that on one occasion he was in a truck that was towing a damaged armoured personnel carrier (APC) from Nui Dat to Vung Tau.  He said that as the vehicle was crossing a bridge the trailer began to slide sideways out of control.  He was standing on the passenger seat facing the trailer, and watched in horror as the trailer began to jack knife towards the truck (the trailer incident).  He stated that he was scared because he was sure that a serious accident was about to happen and that he would be killed or injured.  Eventually the truck and trailer skidded to a halt and no-one was injured.  The applicant said that the incident left him very shaken, particularly as he had a complete view of the event.  He said that he has re-experienced the incident in his mind since then.

11.      The applicant stated that, on another occasion, he recalls seeing an APC at the workshop area and observing blood in the front section where the vehicle had been torn apart by a mine or rocket-propelled grenade (the APC incident).  He said that he was shocked at seeing the damage and the blood, and he had a feeling that someone he knew could have been killed or wounded.

12.      The applicant described how on another occasion he was assigned night guard duty at the hospital, and was required to sit in a chair carrying an unloaded rifle, guarding a person he assumed was an enemy prisoner (the guard incident).  He said that he spent a nervous and unsettled night because the prisoner was awake almost the whole night, and the applicant had to look at him constantly.

13.      In oral evidence the applicant stated that he was living at home with his parents before joining the army, and was able to complete his apprenticeship before commencing national service.  He said that he completed basic training at Puckapunyal before undertaking corps training with Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RAEME) at Bandiana.  He was then was posted to the Armoured Corps at Puckapunyal before undertaking jungle training at Canungra in Queensland.  He said that by this stage he knew he would be sent to Vietnam but he had no choice.

14.      In relation to the trailer incident the applicant told the Tribunal that he was accompanying the truck driver to provide security, and was armed with a rifle as the 20 km trip from Nui Dat was dangerous due to the possibility of enemy in the area.  He said that they had collected the APC, which had been damaged by a mine, and were returning it to the workshops at Vung Tau for repairs.  The applicant explained that the truck had been travelling too fast down an incline, and the heavy weight of the APC caused the truck to jack knife.  He said that after the incident he and the driver managed to use a heavy-duty jack to straighten the trailer, and they returned to base.  He said that he and the driver discussed the incident but the driver did not report the matter.

15.      In relation to the APC incident the applicant stated that he noticed part of an old jacket or shirt in the vehicle, as well as blood and possibly something that he took to be a piece of bone or human body part.  In relation to the guard incident the applicant said that this was the only occasion that he was required to perform these duties.  He said that he was worried when he was sitting in the hospital room because the prisoner looked shifty and was not restrained in the bed.  He emphasised that he had no knowledge of the man’s physical condition or the extent of any injuries.

16.      The applicant said that before service he used to drink only on Saturdays at the local hotel, and then no more than one or two glasses of beer.  He said that after joining the army he drank small amounts of beer on his various postings, but that in Vietnam he was recently married, was unhappy to be there and was scared.  He said that after work each day he would go directly to the canteen, where beer was cheap and was in unlimited supply.  He said he returned to the canteen after dinner and stayed until closing time at 9pm, and as a consequence his alcohol consumption increased to about 10 cans per day.  He described himself at the time as depressed and homesick, and he thought that something would happen to him.  He stated that he wrote to his wife every day and sent audio tapes. 

17.      On return from Vietnam the applicant resumed work as a motor mechanic but said that he became moody, withdrawn and unable to relate to people, and ten years later suffered a breakdown.  He said his employment was terminated.

18.      Under cross-examination the applicant agreed that he may have told the VRB and medical practitioners that one of the factors leading to his increased alcohol consumption during service was boredom.  He said that drinking helped him forget his fears about being in Vietnam.  He also agreed that he had given different versions of the trailer incident to various medical practitioners, but could not recall the reasons or the details.  In respect of the APC incident the applicant agreed that normal procedure was that damaged vehicles were cleaned before they were returned to Vung Tau.

19.      In respect of his current situation the applicant stated that the business is viable, but he only does light work, and one of his sons provides most of the labour.  He said that he takes medication to deal with his depression, and is still unwilling to talk about his experiences.  He told the Tribunal that he drinks 7-8 cans of beer each day.

20.      In a written statement dated 25 October 2005 (Exhibit A4) Ms K. Hendrickson, the applicant’s wife, said that she has known the applicant since childhood as they lived in the same country town, and they began a relationship when she was 17 years old.  She described the applicant as rather quiet, unassuming and thoughtful when she met him, and that before his army service he did not drink alcohol.  She said that the applicant began his national service in 1968, and when he was due to be sent to Vietnam they received permission to marry.  She noted that he became a social drinker after joining the army.

21.      In her statement Ms Hendrickson said that when the applicant returned from Vietnam he had changed, drinking to excess and becoming depressed.  She stated that he became short-tempered, with episodes of anger, and this had a negative impact on family relationships and his work.  His first employer terminated his employment after one month.  The next job lasted 10 years, but also ended because of the applicant’s poor attitude.  Ms Hendrickson told the Tribunal that for this reason she suggested that the applicant start his own motor repair business, which he did; and the business has continued with the assistance of their oldest child.  She said that the applicant’s ill-health has had an effect on her own health, and his drinking has continued.

22.      In oral evidence Ms Hendrickson said that the applicant has poor concentration and lacks patience.  She stated that she has tried to limit his alcohol consumption, but the applicant does not acknowledge that he has an alcohol problem.  She referred to letters and audiotapes sent to her from Vietnam by the applicant, and noted that in a letter he described the trailer incident.   

23.       In a written report dated 2 April 2003 (T17, page 79), Dr C. Percival, consultant psychiatrist, noted that the applicant’s alcohol consumption escalated rapidly after his arrival in Vietnam.  He stated that the applicant described considerable feelings of anxiety arising from his experiences in Vietnam, particularly the trailer incident and the guard incident.  Dr Percival concluded that the applicant had not suffered from any depressive disorder prior to his Vietnam service, and that his first episode of major depressive disorder occurred either during his time in Vietnam or within one year of his return.

24.      In a further report dated 27 September 2004 (Exhibit A3) Dr Percival referred to other reports concerning the applicant and concluded that the applicant is a poor historian, possibly as a result of cognitive deterioration due to excessive alcohol consumption.  He said that the trailer incident would have been a frightening experience and that the event might well have evoked intense fear, helplessness or horror.

25.      With regard to alcohol dependence or abuse Dr Percival stated that after interviewing the applicant and Ms Hendrickson he was satisfied that the applicant meets the criteria for alcohol dependence, largely because he has desired to reduce his alcohol consumption but has been unable to do so.  He was also satisfied that there is a connection with his operational service because the applicant experienced a severe stressor.  He stated that even if this was not accepted, the applicant satisfies the criteria for a diagnosis of alcohol abuse, and that there is a connection with his operational service because of the existence of a psychiatric disorder at the time of the clinical onset.

26.       In oral evidence Dr Percival emphasised that the applicant’s wife was the person who was in the best position to note the changes in the applicant after his operational service, and that her description of the applicant’s behaviour and his drinking pattern was significant.  Under cross-examination Dr Percival agreed that the trailer incident was the only one that could constitute a severe stressor.  He said that war veterans generally do not like to discuss their experiences, so this might account for the lack of any mention of this incident by the applicant during consultations with other medical practitioners.

27.      In written reports dated 31 July 2004 (Exhibit R5), 25 September 2004 (Exhibit R6) and 7 May 2005 (Exhibit R7) Mr H. Conant, Writeway Research Service Pty Ltd described his research into various claims made by the applicant.  In relation to the trailer incident Mr Conant said that the applicant’s unit was equipped with M543 heavy-duty tow trucks (photograph at Exhibit R14) and tilt-bed trailers capable of carrying an APC.  He said that these were driven by operators trained in recovery activities, and noted that his research had not found any reference to a failure of the towing mechanism of an M543 while transporting an APC.

28.      In relation to the guard incident Mr Conant stated that armed guard duty involving wounded Viet Cong prisoners did occur, but was rare.  He said that at the base at Vung Tau there were few, if any, risks to the applicant, and no ground attacks.  He said that if the applicant had consumed as much alcohol as he claimed, he would not have been capable of performing his duties, and would have received counselling or disciplinary action.  Mr Conant noted that there was no reference in the applicant’s medical records to abnormalities or treatment for alcohol-related disorders or that he sought treatment.  Under cross-examination Mr Conant agreed that beer was cheap and freely available in Vietnam.

29.      In a written report dated 29 June 2004 (Exhibit R2), Dr L. Walton, consultant psychiatrist, said that the applicant referred to the trailer incident and had stated: We got a bit stirred up.  Dr Walton said that such an event certainly might evoke intense fear, helplessness or horror, despite the applicant not describing such a reaction.  He diagnosed a mixed anxiety/depressive disorder with a pattern of chronic excessive alcohol consumption.  On the question of clinical onset he stated:

Clearly the veteran attracted psychiatric diagnosis and treatment from 1995 and thus the date of clinical onset would be no later than that.  The veteran actually describes mounting apprehension prior to his undertaking operational service (anticipatory anxiety) and that his levels of anxiety escalated while in Vietnam, and there was a recurring pattern of anxiety and depressed mood on an annual basis thereafter.  I strongly suspect that if the veteran had been psychiatrically assessed within a two-year period of his military service, then he would have been recognised as psychiatrically disturbed.

Dr Walton concluded that he could find no material sufficiently strong to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant’s operational service did not contribute to the development of his psychiatric symptoms.

30.      In a further written report dated 7 February 2005 (Exhibit R3), Dr Walton acknowledged that the conclusions in his first report were based substantially on the history provided by the applicant and which were accepted at face value.  In oral evidence Dr Walton stated that sometimes veterans are not forthcoming when asked by medical practitioners to describe their wartime experiences.

31.      In a written report dated 22 October 2002 (Exhibit R10, page 11), Dr G. D’Ortenzio, consultant psychiatrist, said:

The features described by his wife on his return from Vietnam could be consistent with his alcohol abuse alone, but also could suggest the development at that time of significant depressive and anxiety symptoms either in the context of a clear anxiety disorder or alternatively in an adjustment disorder with mood and anxiety problems.

CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES

32. Section 9(1) of the Act provides:

9(1) Subject to this section and section 9A, for the purposes of this Act, an injury   suffered by a veteran shall be taken to be a war-caused injury, or a disease contracted by a veteran shall be taken to be a war-caused disease, if:

(a)the injury suffered, or disease contracted, by the veteran resulted from an occurrence that happened while the veteran was rendering operational service;

(b)the injury suffered, or disease contracted, by the veteran arose out of, or was attributable to, any eligible war service rendered by the veteran;

…

33. The process of deciding whether the material before the Tribunal connects a disease, injury or death to war service, where s 120 and s 120A of the Act apply, was laid down by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 at 97 as a four‑step process:

1.        The tribunal must consider all the material which is before it and determine whether that material points to a hypothesis connecting the injury, disease or death with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the person.  No question of fact finding arises at this stage.  If no such hypothesis arises, the application must fail.

2.        If the material does raise such a hypothesis, the  tribunal must then ascertain whether there is in force an SoP [Statement of Principles] determined by the Authority under s 196B(2) or (11).  If no such SoP is in force, the hypothesis will be taken not to be reasonable and, in consequence, the application must fail.

3.        If an SoP is in force, the Tribunal must then form the opinion whether the hypothesis raised is a reasonable one.  It will do so if the hypothesis fits, that is to say, is consistent with the "template" to be found in the SoP.  The hypothesis raised before it must thus contain one or more of the factors which the authority has determined to be the minimum which must exist, and be related to the person's service (as required by ss 196B(2)(d) and (e)).  If the hypothesis does contain these factors, it could neither be said to be contrary to proved or known scientific facts, nor otherwise fanciful.  If the hypothesis fails to fit within the template, it will be deemed not to be "reasonable" and the claim will fail.

4.        The tribunal must then proceed to consider under s 120(1) whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the death was not war-caused, or in the case of a claim for incapacity, that the incapacity did not arise from a war-caused injury.  If not so satisfied, the claim must succeed.  If the tribunal is so satisfied, the claim must fail.  It is only at this stage of the process that the Tribunal will be required to find facts from the material before it.  In so doing, no question of onus of proof or the application of any presumption will be involved.  

34.      In Statement of Principles (SoP) N° 76 of 1998 concerning alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse the relevant factors are:

5.

(a) suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcoholic abuse; or

(b) experiencing a severe stressor within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse;

…

“experiencing a severe stressor” means, the person experienced, witnessed or was confronted with, an event or events that involved actual or threat of death or serious injury, or a threat to the person’s or other people’s physical integrity, which event or events might evoke intense fear, helplessness or horror.

In the setting of service in the Defence Forces, or other service where the Veterans’ Entitlements Act applies, events that qualify as severe stressors include:

(i) threat of serious injury or death; or

(ii) engagement with the enemy; or

(iii) witnessing casualties or participation in or observation of casualty

clearance, atrocities or abusive violence;

35.      In SoP N° 58 of 1998 concerning depressive disorder the relevant factors are:

5.

…

(b) experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor or stressors within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of depressive disorder; or

(c) having a clinically significant psychiatric condition within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of depressive disorder;

…

“clinically significant” means sufficient to warrant ongoing management, which may involve regular visits (for example, at least monthly), to a psychiatrist, clinical psychologist or General Practitioner;

“severe psychosocial stressor” means an identifiable occurrence that evokes feelings of substantial distress in an individual, for example, being shot at, death or serious injury of a close friend or relative, assault (including sexual assault), severe illness or injury, experiencing a loss such as divorce or separation, loss of employment, major financial problems or legal problems;

36.      Mr Moore of counsel, representing the applicant, submitted that, on the material as a whole, there is clear evidence that the applicant suffers from a depressive disorder and alcohol dependence (and possibly alcohol abuse).  He said that there is a reasonable hypothesis connecting alcohol dependence or abuse and depressive disorder suffered by the applicant with the circumstances of his operational service in Vietnam.  Mr Moore acknowledged that there were inconsistencies in some aspects of the applicant’s evidence, but submitted that such inconsistencies would be expected from a person suffering from the relevant conditions who was trying to recall events that occurred more than 30 years ago.  He said that the Tribunal should accept the evidence from the applicant and Ms Hendrickson, who was a truthful witness and who supported the applicant’s evidence.

37.      Mr Douglass, the advocate representing the respondent, submitted that the applicant’s recollections of events, including his alcohol consumption, varied considerably and many of his claims were exaggerated.  He said that the evidence demonstrates that there is no connection between the applicant’s increased alcohol consumption and the trailer incident, which is the only incident that could be considered as a psychosocial stressor.  Mr Douglass stated that, in any event, the applicant’s depressive condition was not suffered within two years of a psychosocial stressor, as the clinical onset of depressive disorder occurred in about 1993 or 1994.

38.      The Tribunal reached its decision taking into account the written and oral evidence and the submissions made at the hearing.

39.      The question of whether a condition exists is to be decided as a preliminary issue (Fogarty v Repatriation Commission (2003) 37 AAR 363), on the balance of probabilities, under s 120(4) of the Act. On the medical evidence the Tribunal finds that the applicant suffered from alcohol dependence and depressive disorder.

40.      The Tribunal has applied each of the four steps from Deledio to the facts in this case.  In respect of the first step, the Tribunal finds, after taking into account all relevant matters, that the material points to a hypothesis connecting the alcohol dependence and depressive disorder with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the applicant.

41.      In respect of the second step, the Tribunal finds that SoP N° 76 of 1998 concerning alcohol dependence and alcohol abuse, and SoP N° 58 of 1998 concerning depressive disorder were in force and are relevant.

42.      In respect of the third step, the Tribunal agrees with Mr Douglass that the applicant’s recollections of events, including the trailer incident, varied to some degree when giving descriptions to various medical practitioners and to the Tribunal.  The Tribunal accepts Ms Hendrickson as a truthful witness who gave evidence in a frank and forthright manner.  As she knew the applicant before his army service she was in an ideal position to give evidence about the extent of changes in the applicant’s drinking patterns and his emotional/psychological presentation after operational service.  Her evidence was consistent with the matters recorded in Dr Percival’s report, and the Tribunal accepts her evidence that the applicant began drinking excessively after returning from Vietnam, and that he exhibited signs of a depressed state, short temper and relationship difficulties.

43.      In respect of the trailer incident the Tribunal notes that Ms Hendrickson gave evidence that the applicant described the incident in correspondence from Vietnam at the time, and said that he referred to a jack knife.  This evidence, together with the applicant’s evidence regarding the incident and his accounts to medical practitioners of fears for his safety, despite differences in the details, leads the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant experienced an event that involved a threat of death or serious injury, and evoked intense fear, helplessness or horror.  Therefore, the trailer incident meets the criteria for severe stressor in factor 5(b) of SoP N° 76 of 1998.  Although there is no written record of the incident, the Tribunal is satisfied that the event was an identifiable occurrence that evoked feelings of substantial distress in the applicant, and meets the criteria for severe psychosocial stressor in factor 5(b) of SoP N° 58 of 1998.  None of the other incidents meets the criteria.

44.      There is no definition of the term clinical onset in the SoP.  In Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668 the Tribunal, after considering a number of expert medical opinions as to the meaning of the term, said (at 670):

...we consider that there is a clinical onset of a disease, either when a person becomes aware of some feature or symptom which enables a doctor to say the disease was present at that time, or when a finding is made on investigation which is indicative to a doctor of the disease being present at that time.

The Tribunal followed this reasoning in Re McLeod-Drydenand Repatriation Commission (1998) 53 ALD 428 at 447;

…

We consider that the term “clinical onset” means the onset of symptoms which a medical practitioner would diagnose as attributable to the relevant condition.

45.      In ReWitten and Repatriation Commission (1998) 54 ALD 605 the Tribunal reviewed earlier decisions and adopted the definition of clinical onset as set out in Re McLeod-Dryden.  At 608, the Tribunal concluded:

…A disorder may not, in fact, have been diagnosed during the relevant period…but, with the benefit of hindsight and taking into account symptoms described by a veteran, it would need to be possible for a medical practitioner to express the opinion that the described symptoms established the clinical onset of the disorder during the relevant period…

In Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331 at 339, the Full Federal Court concluded that although the symptoms must have been present during the relevant period it is not essential that the condition in fact be diagnosed during that period.

46.       In relation to depressive disorder the Tribunal accepts the evidence from Dr Walton, that if the applicant had been psychiatrically assessed within a two-year period of his military service he would have been recognised as psychologically disturbed.  This view was supported by Dr Percival.   Based on this evidence, the Tribunal finds that, if assessed at the relevant time, the applicant would have been recognised as suffering from alcohol dependence.  Therefore, the Tribunal accepts Mr Moore’s submission that the date of clinical onset of depressive disorder and alcohol dependence was approximately 1970, and therefore the severe stressor and severe psychosocial stressor were suffered within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of alcohol dependence and depressive disorder respectively.     

47.      In these circumstances there is material or evidence pointing to the applicant satisfying factor 5(b) of SoP N° 76 of 1998 concerning alcohol dependence and factor 5(b) of SoP N° 58 of 1998 concerning depressive disorder, so the hypothesis raised is a reasonable one, and is consistent with the template in the SoPs (Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581). The applicant satisfies the third step from Deledio.

48.      In respect of the fourth step from Deledio, the Tribunal is called upon to make findings of fact.  The Tribunal has considered all the material including the medical reports and service records.  There is no material before the Tribunal which establishes beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for determining that the conditions of alcohol dependence and depressive disorder were war-caused.  Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the fourth step is satisfied, and the claim succeeds in respect of these conditions.

DECISION

49.      The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision that alcohol dependence and depressive disorder suffered by the applicant were war-caused with effect from 6 June 2002.

I certify that the forty-nine [49] preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of:

G.D. Friedman, Senior Member

(sgd):      Lydia Zozula

Associate

Dates of hearing:                6 July 2005, 14 November 2005 and 30 November 2005

Date of decision:                16 December 2005

Advocate for applicant:        Mr P. Liefman (6 July 2005)

Counsel for applicant:         Mr G. Moore (14 November 2005 and 30 November 2005)

Solicitor for applicant:         Peter J. Liefman

Advocate for respondent:     Mr R. Douglass

Solicitor for respondent:      Advocacy Section, Department of Veterans’ Affairs