Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 1349
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No W2002/61
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re JOHN BRUCE McSHANE Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Brigadier R D F Lloyd, Member Date20 December 2002
PlacePerth
Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
…..........(sgd R D F Lloyd)....................
Member
· Exhibit A2: Statement of evidence by Mr McShane dated 10 December 2002.
No additional documentary evidence was provided by the respondent.
4. The applicant gave oral evidence at the hearing underlining important aspects of and expanding upon his written statement of evidence (exhibit A2). He was cross-examined by the respondent and answered a number of questions posed by the Tribunal. As a consequence, the Tribunal regards him as an honest and forthright witness, an opinion supported in the hearing by the respondent's representative. Mr McShane is particularly clear in his recollection of dates, locations and other aspects of his Service activities. This, the Tribunal notes, is readily understandable in view of the special type of activity with which the applicant was involved for all of his military service. This aspect is of particular relevance in the Tribunal's consideration of this matter, as referred to later in these Reasons. No other witnesses were called to give evidence by the applicant's advocate and none by the respondent.
5. The applicant served in the RAAF from 25 July 1955 to 24 July 1967. His mustering was telegraphist. According to his evidence relating to his service (exhibit A2) he states that after RAAF basic training at Richmond and training at the RAAF School of Radio, he was subsequently posted to 3 Telecommunications Unit (3TU). There he received training in radio interception and logging of radio morse activity originating from a variety of countries. He was then posted overseas. He states in exhibit A2 as follows:
“In April 1957 I was posted to 1 Bomber Squadron, Tengah, Detachment A, Labuan, North Borneo to relieve Corporal George Emery. The posting was B Grade and intended to be for a period of 12 to 15 months. Prior to leaving Australia, I was told that I would qualify for "war service".
I arrived in Singapore on Saturday 13th April 1957 with a Corporal Tim Crowley, and his group departed for RAAF Butterworth.. There was some delay with the RAAF aircraft that was due to leave for Labuan.. I arrived in Labuan on the 19th April 1957 [year amended from 2002 by the applicant at the hearing] and was allocated duties operating Radio Direction Finding equipment…”
6. The Labuan posting lasted only 4 to 6 weeks, according to the applicant, when operations there were closed down. He was given the choice of returning to Australia or to proceed to Hong Kong for 2 and a half years, which was an A Grade posting. He chose the latter, i.e. Hong Kong. He goes on to state in exhibit A2 as follows:
“I arrived at 367 Signals Unit RAF, Little Sai…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read McShane and Repatriation and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2002] AATA 1349
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the contested periods of service could be classified as qualifying service under the Act, and if the inaccuracies in the service records could be sufficiently rectified to support Mr McShane's claim. This involved interpreting sections 5(B) and 7(A) of the Act, alongside the requirements set out in Schedule 2, to ascertain if the claimant's service met the necessary criteria. Furthermore, the court had to consider the weight of evidence provided by Mr McShane and whether it was sufficient to overcome the deficiencies in his official records.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence provided and the relevant statutory provisions. It concluded that despite the issues with the accuracy of Mr McShane's service records, the evidence he presented was not sufficient to overcome the statutory requirements. The court held that the contested periods of service did not qualify under the Act, and thus, the decision to deny Mr McShane's claim was affirmed. The reasoning emphasised the importance of precise records and the stringent criteria set out in the Act for qualifying service.
The court's final orders confirmed the affirmation of the decision under review, thereby upholding the denial of Mr McShane's claim for veterans' entitlements based on the contested periods of service. The court's decision underscored the necessity for accurate service records and the strict interpretation of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act in determining eligibility for benefits.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is affirmed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.