Lawrence Harbridge v Repatriation Commission

[2007] AATA 30

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 30

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No A2005/354  

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		LAWRENCE HARBRIDGE

Applicant

And  REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal J.W. Constance, Senior Member

Date22 January 2007

PlaceCanberra

Decision The decision of the Repatriation Commission made 12 November 2003 as affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 27 October 2005 is affirmed.

..............................................

J.W. Constance, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – Disability pension – Special rate – Intermediate rate – Whether veteran totally and permanently incapacitated – Whether alone test satisfied –Whether requirements of subsection 24(1)(c) of Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) met.

Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 19, 23, 24, 120

Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 101 FCR 50; [2000] FCA 328

Repatriation Commission v Alexander (2003) 75 ALD 329; [2003] FCA 399

Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1

REASONS FOR DECISION

22 January 2007                 J.W. Constance, Senior Member 

INTRODUCTION

1.      Mr Harbridge served as a member of the Armed Forces for 23 years and is a Vietnam Veteran.  On 12 November 2003 the Repatriation Commission decided that Mr Harbridge was entitled to an increase in the disability pension payable to him under the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) to 90% of the general rate.  The Commission decided that Mr Harbridge was not entitled to payment at either the special rate (section 24) or the intermediate rate (section 23).  The Veterans’ Review Board has affirmed this decision.

2.      Mr Harbridge is now seeking a review of the decision to refuse his application for payment at the special and intermediate rates.  For the reasons which follow I have decided that the decision of the Commission should be affirmed.

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT

3.      Unless otherwise stated the following findings of fact are based on the evidence of Mr Harbridge.  I am satisfied of the facts found to my reasonable satisfaction as required by section 120(4) of the Act.

4.      Mr Harbridge is 61 years of age.  He  left school at the end of 1962 and joined the Army in early 1963.  His service in the Army included active service in Vietnam.  He has a number of disabilities which have been accepted as being caused by his service, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with alcohol dependence and Ischaemic Heart Disease.

5.       When Mr Harbridge left the Army in 1986 he immediately joined the Department of Defence. In general terms his work in the Department was similar to that he had performed in the Army.  In the last year of working with the Department he was involved in the monitoring of the public switch telephone network and the telecommunications network for the Department and assisted in the formation of policy as to the Department’s requirements for communication services.

6.      Mr Harbridge retired from the Department at the end of May 2001 at age 55.  Mr Harbridge described the situation in the 6 months leading up to his retirement as follows:

“The months -…