Naomi Madams and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission - [2012] AATA 98

[2012] AATA 98

Division VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

File Number

2011/0999

Re

Naomi Madams

APPLICANT

And

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Deputy President S D Hotop

Date 17 February 2012

Place Perth
Decision under review affirmed.
.................[sgd]..............................
S D Hotop
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – applicant served in Army 2000-2001 – applicant claimed compensation for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in 2009 – applicant suffered major depression and borderline personality disorder prior to Army service – applicant has not suffered PTSD – applicant’s major depression and borderline personality disorder not aggravated by Army service – applicant has not suffered compensable mental injury – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s 4(1), s 5A, s 5B and s 14(1)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President S D Hotop
17 February 2012
INTRODUCTION

Naomi Madams (“the applicant”), who was born in March 1981, served in the Australian Regular Army from 28 February 2000 to 27 July 2001. On the latter date the applicant was discharged from the Army on the ground that she was “not suited to be a soldier”.
On 3 March 2009 the applicant lodged with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs a claim for compensation, dated 13 February 2009, under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“SRC Act”) for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) on the basis that she suffered PTSD as a result of the “bad” treatment she received from other soldiers in the course of her Army service.
On 20 April 2009 a delegate of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (“the respondent”) made a determination disallowing the applicant’s claim for compensation. That determination was affirmed by a “reviewable decision” made by a Review Officer of the respondent on 9 March 2011.
On 18 March 2011 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that reviewable decision dated 9 March 2011.
THE EVIDENCE
The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:
·the “T Documents” (T1−T21, pp 1−91) lodged with the Tribunal by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth);
·Exhibits A1 and A2 tendered by the applicant;
·Exhibits R1−R9 tendered by the respondent; and
·the oral evidence of the applicant and of Dr Anthony Mander.
RELEVANT MEDICAL BACKGROUND
On the basis of the documentary evidence before it, the Tribunal makes the following findings regarding the applicant’s psychiatric/psychological history.
Before Army Service
On 27 November 1997 the applicant’s general practitioner, Dr Edwardes, referred her to an anorexia-bulimia outpatient clinic at Princess Margaret Hospital.
On 10 June 1999 Dr Edwardes referred the applicant to the Mirrabooka Mental Health Clinic for assessment and management. The referral letter noted that (inter alia) the applicant “complains of problems in her head” and that she had been “referred to PMH with ? Anorexia Bulimia in Nov 1997”.
On 21 June 1999 Dr Mackereth, Psychiatry Registrar, Mirrabooka Mental Health Clinic referred the applicant to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital with a provisional diagnosis of major depressive disorder and anorexia nervosa and requested her admission as an inpatient for assessment and management.
The applicant was admitted to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital on 21 June 1999 and she was discharged on 23 July 1999. The Inpatient Summary, dated 26 July 1999, noted (inter alia) that, on presentation, the applicant:
·“complained of constant thoughts of death and dying, describing that all her friends had died”;
·“had feelings that people would break into her home and kill her family and herself”;
·“admitted to feeling fat and experiencing a weight loss of approximately 15 kilograms over several months …”;
·“had numerous thoughts of killing herself and admitted to making cuts on her arms”;
·“reported experiencing self-deprecatory auditory hallucinations which tell her to harm herself and also to harm others”;
and recorded the “final diagnosis” on discharge as:
“1. Manic depressive psychosis, depressed type (major depression, with psychotic features).
2.Eating disorder.
3.Unresolved loss issues.”
On 2 August 1999 the applicant was admitted to Royal Perth Hospital. The Emergency Department Case Notes refer to a “suicide attempt” involving an “overdose” of medication. She was transferred to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital on 4 August 1999 “for ongoing management of her depressed mood and suicidal ideation” and was discharged on 23 August 1999 with a “final diagnosis” of “major depression”.
During Army Service
A Defence Force Psychology Assessment Record, dated 3 October 2000, states as follows:
“ Background PTE Madams is awaiting allocation to TMNL OP IET following withdrawal from the Basic Med Assist course. She has been admin referred by her chain of command following a disciplinary infringement when she took leave when on restriction of privileges.
Presentation PTE Madams was open and honest.
Interview PTE Madams stated that she was very bored in Holding Platoon although enjoyed having good friends there. She said she was well known for her high spirits and enjoyed antagonising other soldiers who were also bored in the environment.
PTE Madams said she had been found to be at KLOAD when ordered to be at ACTION during a recent field phase. She said she had subsequently been placed on restriction of privileges and then left barracks on leave without approval. She said that she was probably going to be charged for both offences. She explained her taken leave as having been influenced by the lack of discipline in Holding Platoon. She said that she regretted having done it, but had expected to ‘get away with it’. She accepted the ramifications.
PTE Madams stated that she enjoyed the Army lifestyle and had made good friends in the unit. She said she was liked by most people, and all her peers accepted her outgoing nature. She said she had spent 6 years in Cadets, and although this had not assisted her greatly in her transition to the ARTA, she was finding the change enjoyable and was looking forward to a career.
PTE Madams was asked about certain personal characteristics and her social reality testing ability. She was debriefed as to the nature of future counselling if required, and she responded in a polite manner.
Assessment PTE Madams does not exhibit symptoms of psychopathology and her overall presentation is not cause for concern. Her adjustment seems appropriate and her referral appears to have arisen through her socially gregarious tendencies, and the inherent command attention which these would invariably attract. Otherwise, PTE Madams appears to have adjusted well to the military, albeit with a tendency to try disciplinary barriers. It is likely that she will respond appropriately to disciplinary action and serve to an acceptable standard in the future. She is to be reviewed under further referral only.”
A Department of Defence Psychological Report, dated 26 February 2001, states as follows:
“ Background PTE Madams was referred by the acting SI ASW (CAPT Rosalie McDonald) with regard to her attitude and motivation for trade, course performance and general conduct. She reported that PTE Madams has failed almost all course assessments to date and is the subject of a Cls warning for cheating.
PTE Madams has been psychologically assessed on 2 occasions previously. The first was in relation to her withdrawal from medical training and the second was in response to concerns raised by the OC Latchford Company (CAPT Sisto Bernardo) in regards to her social integration into Army and general attitude/motivation.
Summary      PTE Madams remained mostly aloof during the session although she did discuss her thoughts and feelings with sufficient prompting. Foci of interest during the session included her general service motivation, her perceptions of her current behaviour, and the means through which she was allocated to the Clerk Admin trade. Other factors discussed included her social life within and outside the Army, her goals for the future, and general mental health aspects.
Assessment    PTE Madams has been allocated to a trade which was her third preference under Air Dispatcher and Driver. Her difficulties apparently emanate from a lack of prior experience with computers and general difficulty assimilating instruction. She exhibits rudimentary potential to fulfil training requirements in the trade. Her primary intention at present is to leave the training environment and experience the wider Army. She has spent a significant amount of time at ALTC to date with little net gain for either herself or Army.
Although she is potentially capable of offering effective service, this is restricted to the most general duties. Should it be deemed that she is unable to pass the Clerk Admin course, she should be vocationally counselled with regard to trades do (sic) not require high aptitudes and have brief IET courses.
Most importantly, she presents as a potential administrative liability through her difficulties in controlling her behaviour. Her behavioural concerns seem to stem from poorly conceived notions of disciplinary boundaries and an immature approach to her social/organisational reality. It is unlikely that her behaviour will undergo significant change through counselling, and it does not appear particularly responsive to military discipline.
There were no further psychological issues evident during interview.
Recommendations:      1.    That PTE Madams be considered a potential administrative liability due to her apparent difficulties with regard to developing self-discipline and control over her own behaviours;
2.Should PTE Madams fail the Clerk Admin course, that she be formally assessed with regard to reallocation/retention prospects.”
A Department of Defence Psychological Report, dated 17 April 2001, states as follows:
“ …
Background:
PTE Madams has failed two courses Basic Medical Assistant and Clerk Administrative. She wishes to be considered for further training.
Assessment:
PTE Madams has met the test requirements to be reallocated to her two nominated preferences Dispatcher Air and Driver. It should be noted however that PTE Madams has demonstrated difficulties with clerical tasks. While she meets the criteria of tested ability she does not exceed it greatly. Given previous course failures, these indicators of training risk should be considered if she is to be reallocated. Though she has struggled to find work she is suited to, she remains keen to serve in the Army. It appears likely that if she gains competencies that she can apply she will settle to become an average soldier.
RECOMMENDATION
1.Suitable Dispatcher Air
2.Suitable for Driver”.
On 25 May 2001 the applicant was referred by her Commanding Officer for a psychological examination. In his referral report the Commanding Officer stated as follows:
“1. PTE MADAMS is a poor performer: this has been demonstrated by her performance whilst in Holding Section, her conduct record, and performance on past IET courses. PTE Madams behaviour is below that of the standard required of a Soldier in the Army.
2.PTE Madams has been indirectly involved in every recent disciplinary incident that has occurred with a collective of ALTC soldier particularly Holding Section Soldiers.
3.PTE Madams displays a negative attitude towards the Army in front of her peers, but not her seniors.
4.PTE Madams has demonstrated consistently that she is careless with the truth, placing her integrity in question.
5.PTE Madams has repeatedly demonstrated, or attempted to manipulate her superiors with no understanding of the consequence of such actions.
6.PTE Madams has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding in relation to soldierly qualities and service life to her superiors.”
On 1 June 2001 the applicant was admitted to Wodonga Base Hospital after an apparent suicide attempt by consuming 20 diagesics and she was discharged on 6 June 2001. This event and her subsequent psychological treatment and progress are summarised in a Department of Defence Psychology Assessment Record, dated 15 June 2001, as follows:
“ Background This report is made to PTE Madams’ chain of command with regard to retention suitability. She was referred on THU 31 MAY 01 following numerous conduct issues. She was informed of a charge of prejudicial behaviour on FRI 01 JUN 01, and later attempted suicide after stand down. She made the attempt by consuming 20 diagesics (paracetamol tablets) in her barracks room. She had left the key in the door with it open and made the attempt under ROP circumstances by which she would be inspected every 2 hours. She was responded to Army medical staff and her chain of command. She was removed to Wodonga Base Hospital for an overnight stay and had resumed full vital signs by morning. The first session was in a supportive role conducted on the morning of SAT 02 JUN 01.
Presentation PTE Madams completely avoided eye contact and cried infrequently. Although responding to direct questions, she was generally closed during the session.
Session        PTE Madams said that she had attempted suicide as she could no longer tolerate the negative attention she was receiving. She said she feels as if she has ‘a big fuckin’ sign’ above her head which attracts this attention. She said she did not lie but was being charged because nobody believed her. She said she did not want to die but wanted to avoid being in Holding Platoon any longer.
PTE Madams confirmed that she understood her status as a Med patient for her own safety. She said she was not planning on any further attempts. She questioned why she had to go to ARTC over the weekend and asked if she could ‘just go home’.
Assessment    PTE Madams is currently presenting as a low suicide risk although her emotional state seems very unstable and for this reason it would be in her interests to ensure she remains in medical care over the weekend. She is to be reviewed upon return to ALTC.
…
4.6.01
Session        PTE Madams reinforced comments from 2 days ago regarding her dissatisfaction in Holding Platoon. She said she was feeling better and was questioning her continued stay in the ward. She said she is now considering leaving the Army as she has been in for so long with no gain. She said she finds it difficult to tolerate certain types of people in her chain of command.
PTE Madams said she was no longer feeling like harming herself and was guilty about what she had done. She said she was planning on moving into a new house with a girlfriend and taking up civilian employment in Albury.
Assessment    PTE Madams mood appears to have stabilised over the weekend, although her overall outlook remains somewhat fragmented with regard to self-esteem. Whilst she continues to present a low suicide risk, it would seem that the ward is the safest place for her at present. She is to be reviewed tomorrow for release.
...
5.6.01
Session        PTE Madams discussed her intentions of discharging at own request and her plans for the future. Further management issues were discussed, and she raised her reluctance to return to Holding Platoon. She was advised that she would be sent to Admin Section awaiting discharge action. She agreed to this.
Assessment    PTE Madams is now stable for release from medical care. Further counselling is to focus on self-esteem and vocational planning, coupled with general monitoring in regard to suicidal intent and general self-care.
7.6.01
Session        Vocational decision making was discussed. Stability monitored. PTE Madams now planning on alternate careers, thinks Police may be an option, otherwise unsure.
Assessment    Minimal suicide risk. To be monitored in general supportive role.
14.6.01
Session        Vocational decision making continuing. PTE Madams was generally happy about future prospects, keen on leaving Army. Said current situation was acceptable and was experiencing few clashes with staff. Stated that she was not considering suicide and that she would use support measures if she experiences any difficulties (calling myself or DCO). Advised to utilise EO and DCO for vocational planning. Agreed to finalisation of counselling.
Assessment    Low suicide risk, mood state now stabilised. Generally positive about the future and likely to make a smooth transition to civilian life. To be reviewed under further referral only.”
A Department of Defence Psychological Report, dated 6 June 2001, states as follows:
“ Background This report is made to PTE Madams’ chain of command following request for assessment of her suitability to continue service.
PTE Madams was initially assessed by CAPT Paul Morgan (AAPsych) following her removal from training as a medic (17 AUG 01 (sic)). It was noted at that time that PTE Madams ‘lacks any real understanding of what she wants to do on a day to day basis in the Army’. The report notes that her ‘interest in becoming a driver is … ill founded’, yet recommends that she may pass the IET for the trade as it is ‘shorter’ and ‘less intellectual’.
PTE Madams has been assessed subsequently by myself on 2 occasions, both in relation to concerns raised by her superiors with regard to her attitude, integration, and general effectiveness as a soldier. I noted in my report dated 22 FEB 01 that PTE Madams ‘presents as a potential administrative liability through her difficulties in controlling her behaviour’. I noted that she lacks a coherent understanding of disciplinary boundaries or social and organisational realities. I further noted that the pattern of behavioural maladjustment she had exhibited to that point was unlikely to ‘undergo significant change through counselling’, and that she is not ‘responsive to military discipline’. I recommended at that time that she should be formally assessed for reallocation and retention prospects in view of these serious concerns with regard to her attitude and behaviour.
PTE Madams was subsequently assessed by CAPT Morgan on 23 MAR 01 and recommended as suitable for reallocation to either Air Dispatcher or Driver, although no comment was made with regard to her attitudinal, behavioural or emotional suitability for continued service.
Summary of recent history PTE Madams has continued to attract negative attention from superiors in the intervening period due to her maladjusted behavioural pattern and maladaptive attitude. Due to her poor conduct, she consistently presents an undue administrative burden to superiors.
Since enlistment into the ARA, PTE Madams has failed 2 IET courses and has now remained unqualified as a soldier for almost 12 months.
PTE Madams recently made a suicide attempt following notification of a charge by her Officer Commanding.
Assessment
PTE Madams has consistently exhibited a lack of understanding of military discipline and appears unable to anticipate the consequences of her actions. Her behaviour is not in accord with military expectations of appropriate conduct, and despite being granted numerous opportunities to improve in this regard, her maladjusted behavioural pattern appears entrenched. This in itself is sufficient grounds for administrative action in pursuing her discharge from service, based as it is on inappropriate conduct as a soldier.
PTE Madams’ failure to complete 2 IET courses suggests that she does not possess the requisite skills, aptitude, motivation or general ability to fulfil the most basic Army requirements for effective soldiering. Her performance to date indicates that she will experience extensive difficulty accommodating the most rudimentary of skills and acquiring the most basic of knowledge sets, regardless of the nature of training to which she is allocated.
PTE Madams’ recent suicidal behaviour, when considered in the context of the causal stressor (disciplinary action), is evidence that she lacks the required level of stress coping ability to tolerate routine military demands. Whilst she presents as a relatively stable individual, her recent behaviour suggest that she lacks emotional robustness for continued service.
Summary
PTE Madams has been provided with numerous opportunities to demonstrate her potential as a soldier by way of training and in general conduct. Whilst her limitations had been noted several months ago, it would appear that continued opportunities granted to her have resulted in the same outcome. It is a simple fact that she is incapable of offering effective service as a result of her maladjusted behaviours, limited potential, and lack of stress resilience for continued soldiering.
Although she is currently facing disciplinary action, it is my professional opinion that any further attempts at disciplining this individual would be somewhat futile, based on her history of failing to respond to such measures. It is also apparent that she is not currently capable emotionally of facing such action. I believe that prompt discharge from the service would be in the best interests of both the individual and Army, and continued disciplinary action would not only forestall this process but consume valuable administrative resources that could be more appropriately directed elsewhere.
Recommendations: 1. That PTE Madams be regarded as unsuitable to be a soldier on the basis of adjustment failure coupled with limited potential;
2.That PTE Madams be discharged from service under the most efficient means possible, and;
3.That PTE Madams receive further counselling with regard to life management and vocational planning.”

A Department of Defence Psychology Assessment Record of 25 June 2001 noted (inter alia) that the applicant had been “recommended for referral to a civilian psychologist in supportive maintenance role during her wait for discharge”.
A report of Kevin Spencer, Psychologist, dated 1 July 2001, to Captain Luke McCormack, Army Psychologist, states as follows:
“ I write to you following a recent referral of Pte Naomi Madams whom I have seen on two occasions, namely the 26^th and 29^th June 2001.
Pte Adams presented as quite an anxious and emotional young lady who spoke frankly about her recent suicide attempt and of her significant difficulties in relation to adhering to Army discipline.
Pte Madams also reported a number of other issues which have impacted upon her life to date including: significant levels of physical, emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of [X] and [Y]; previous suicide attempts; previous psychiatric assistance; a diagnosis of anorexia nervosa (age approximately 16); and hospitalisation in a psychiatric hospital for 2 months following the ‘cot-death’ of a baby girl whom Pte Madams was baby-sitting (only 1 year prior to Pte Madams joining the Army). Pte Madams reported frankly that she believed that the Army was only aware of some of the above psychosocial history.
In relation to her difficulties with discipline, Pte Madams reported (after some time), that she is ‘petrified’ and ‘scared’ of authoritative males who speak ‘down’ to her. When asked about her apparent fear of such males Pte Madams reported that it reminds her of [X] and [Y] and that this has had a somewhat cumulative effect upon her levels of self-esteem and ability to cope with the necessary discipline found in the regular army. Pte Madams further reported that she suffers from nightmares in relation to [X] and [Y] on at least two occasions per week. Finally Pte Madams reported that her current Warrant Officer reminds her specifically of [X] and she has not been able to cope with this. Pte Madams reported that she gets very depressed even at the thought of attending the army each day.
Pte Madams reported that at home she has many friends and that she never gets depressed when in their company. She reported that both she and the army realise that she is going to be discharged shortly, and that she would rather spend her time with friends and searching for TAFE-type courses and possible employment. Significantly Pte Madams reported that upon discharge she intends to remain in Albury/Wodonga with her friends and not return home to Perth.
Given the above brief history, and Pte Madams apparent frankness in reporting, I am of the opinion that it serves no benefit to either Pte Madams or the Army to enforce her attendance on a daily basis. I would therefore propose that the Army consider whether Pte Madams could stay at home prior to her imminent discharge and be contactable via her mobile telephone or, if deemed necessary, she report in by telephone on a daily basis to the Army. Given the consideration of duty of care I would also suggest that the Army continue with supportive measures for Pte Madams prior to her discharge. I would also propose, given her reporting of difficulties with her current Warrant Officer, that any contact between Pte Madams and the Army be conducted where possible through another supervisor – to this end I would stress however that the Warrant Officer is not at any fault for the current situation and Pte Madams resultant inability to deal with discipline.
…”
A Department of Defence Psychology Assessment Record, dated 2 August 2001, relating to an assessment of the applicant conducted on 6 July 2001, states as follows:
“ Background
I received phone calls from Kevin Spencer, a civilian psychologist nominated as Pte Madams provider of psychological care while she is at home on medical leave. She missed her appointment and sent Kevin a series of text messages stating that she felt that she could no longer stand to live with her problems, that there was no point in her coming to see him, that life was too hard and so on. She made no direct statement that she intended to take her life. She was contacted and instructed to come in to work for counselling.
Interview
PTE Madams was resistant to questioning. She tried to hide that she had not turned up for her appointment, denied sending more than one message, stated that she could not recall messages that she had presented the previous night. She said that she might have been suicidal last night but was not now. When questioned about how we could be confident that she would not repeat her suicidal actions, she resisted the line of questioning. When it was put to her that without her attending ongoing support while she was on leave, we could not be said to fulfilling (sic) our duty of care for her, she was dismissive. When it was put to her that our care options included hospitalising her she stated that she would kill herself if she was hospitalised, but that she would promise not to hurt herself if we just let her go home.
Assessment
PTE Madams appeared to have suicidal ideation, and emotional reactivity to the Army environment.
Intervention
PTE Madams was referred to Cathy Sullivan, a DCO social worker. I felt that counselling would be better achieved by a female civilian with an understanding of the military environment, given PTE Madams level of resistance. DCO also offered the opportunity to do some discharge planning, which would also help PTE Madams to visualise a positive future. PTE Madams agreed that she would attend her civilian psychologist so that the Army could be assured she was receiving ongoing care while she was at home.”
After Army Service
At 2.11 am on 29 August 2001 the applicant was admitted to Albury Base Hospital with a “presenting problem” described as “overdose ETOH”. A Patient Health Care Record completed by an ambulance officer notes that the applicant’s flatmate reported that the applicant had consumed 4 beers and, “after inhaling what is believed to be an unknown substance/s mixed with grass from a bong, [she] became ill”. The applicant was discharged at 7.00 am on 29 August 2001.
On 11 December 2001 at 9.25 pm the applicant was admitted to Albury Base Hospital, the “presenting problem” being described as “psychotic episode”. The hospital progress notes record that the applicant had attended a psychologist that afternoon where there had been a discussion involving “history of ? abuse from …” and the applicant had subsequently become “extremely agitated”. The applicant was examined on 13 December 2001 by a psychiatrist who opined that she was not “psychotic” or “thought disordered” but that she had suffered a “transient mood disturbance”. She was discharged on 13 December 2001, the diagnosis on discharge being Borderline Personality Disorder.
On 12 January 2005 the applicant presented at Gold Coast Hospital stating that she was depressed and requesting “someone to talk to”. Her “presenting problems” were described as follows:
“ C/o ‘feeling funny’. Mood always depressed but much worse since phone call from her father who called her a ‘useless c…’. Feels her family don’t care about her. …”
Her diagnosis was described as:
“ Dysthymia + ↑depressed mood in cluster B personality”.
On 26 August 2005 the applicant was admitted to Gold Coast Hospital following an incident in which she was found by police on a ledge about 20 metres from the ground, refused to talk to the police, and had to be forcibly removed from the ledge by the police. Her “presenting problems” were described as follows:
“ Pt states a significant drop in mood in past 2/12 ─ has been thinking a lot about the past, fragmented memories causing her significant distress ─ did not elaborate. …
Continues to feel suicidal…”
The relevant documentation indicates that, because the applicant was at risk to herself and was not willing to remain at the hospital for assessment and treatment, an Involuntary Treatment Order was made in respect of her treatment as an inpatient, following assessment by an authorised psychiatrist, on 29 August 2005.
THE APPLICANT’S DISCIPLINARY TREATMENT IN THE ARMY
The documentary evidence before the Tribunal records the following disciplinary treatment received by the applicant in the course of her Army service, and the Tribunal makes the following findings on the basis of that evidence.
On 18 October 2000 the applicant pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to comply with a lawful general order, namely, that on 22 and 24 September 2000 she failed to report for duty at a specified time, and that she left the area of the barracks from approximately 2330 hours on 23 September 2000 to approximately 0500 hours on 24 September 2000. In respect of those offences she received a total punishment of 7 days’ restriction of privileges and fine of $191.49.
On 15 November 2000 the applicant pleaded guilty to the following charges:
·failing to comply with a lawful general order on 22 October 2000, by failing to report for duty at a specified time;
·disobeying a lawful command on 16 October 2000, by disobeying the lawful command of a superior officer to report to him at a specified time and place;
·prejudicial behaviour on 16 October 2000, by making a false statement to the superior officer regarding her whereabouts at the time she was required to report to him.
She received the following punishments:
·a fine of $500.00 on the first charge;
·7 days’ detention on the second charge; and
·7 days’ detention (cumulative) on the third charge.
The punishment imposed in respect of the third charge was, following a review, subsequently quashed and a punishment of 3 days’ detention (cumulative) was substituted.
On 23 February 2001 the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of prejudicial behaviour, by making a false statement to a superior officer on 20 February 2001 regarding her medical condition and restrictions. The punishment imposed in respect of that offence was a fine of $150.00.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE APPLICANT’S ENLISTMENT IN THE ARMY
A Department of Defence Psychology Assessment Record, dated 20 January 2000, indicates, in relation to the applicant’s “emotional adjustment”, that there is no problem regarding (inter alia) “substance abuse”, “psych history”, “mental health”, “stress”, or any “sleep problems”. A Recruiting Psychology Report, dated 20 January 2000, concluded that the applicant was “acceptable for enlistment in the ARA as a MED ASST”.
In a Medical Induction Declaration Form, signed by the applicant and dated 1 March” 2000, the question: “Is there any Medical Condition or history that you failed to declare at recruiting?” is answered “No”. That form contains a note as follows:
“ Note: Concealing any previous Medical History at this stage of your induction is an offence and may make you [liable] to disciplinary action under the Defence Force Disciplinary Act Section 57.”
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE APPLICANT’S DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY
A Notice to Show Cause as to Why Discharge Should Not Occur, dated 8 June 2001, was issued to the applicant. The Notice stated (inter alia) that it was proposed to discharge the applicant under reg 176(1) of the Australian Military Regulations on the following ground: “Not suited to be a soldier”.
On 8 June 2001 the applicant signed a form acknowledging that her discharge was sought on the ground of “Not suited to be a soldier”, stating that she understood the reasons given in the Notice, and stating, in reply to the Notice, that she had “no representation to make against [her] discharge”.
A Discharge Determination, dated 26 June 2001, was made whereby it was determined that the applicant was to be “administratively discharged” under reg 176(1) of the Australian Military Regulations on the ground “Not Suited to be a Soldier”.
Following a period of convalescence leave from 4 July to 25 July 2001, the applicant was discharged from the Army on 27 July 2001.
THE RECENT PSYCHOLOGICAL/PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE
Report of Dr Marc Joffe
A report of Dr Marc Joffe, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, dated 9 December 2008, addressed to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, was tendered in evidence by the respondent (Exhibit R1).
In his report Dr Joffe noted that he had seen the applicant on 13 and 21 November 2008 for the purpose of assessment. He explained the reason for the referral of the applicant to him as follows:
“ Ms Naomi Madams … had been a member of the Australian Defence Force between approximately the year 2000 and her medical discharge from the Service in approximately the year 2003. During the course of her military service, Ms Madams had reportedly sustained a non-union of the base of fifth metatarsal fracture to the left foot on or about 3 May 2001. Ms Jenette Stade of Worklink Occupational Health & Rehabilitation Service had noted that Ms Madams was quite acutely emotionally distressed in circumstances where she would discuss her period of service with the Australian Defence Force, and had also noted that Ms Madams was having difficulty coming to terms with her discharge in 2003. Ms Stade had requested that Ms Madams be investigated from the perspective of clinical psychology in order that she might be assisted in relation to any psychological difficulties that might have been established during the course of the nominated assessment.”
Dr Joffe noted that the documentation available to him at the time of preparation of his report comprised his clinical notes pertaining to his consultations with the applicant on 13 and 21 November 2008, and he added:
“ I note that I did not have an opportunity to peruse any detailed documentation pertaining to Ms Madams’ service with the ADF, and I am acutely aware that this constitutes a limitation with respect to the subject assessment..”
In his report Dr Joffe set out the history he obtained from the applicant, in relation to “difficulties encountered during military service”, as follows:
“ Ms Madams tells me that her ‘biggest problem is that I wanted to do the Army my whole life and I did all I could to get in’. Ms Madams goes on to stipulate that ‘they don’t treat you nice, they don’t treat you right’. Ms Madams stipulates that ‘then you get kicked out like trash because of an injury’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she had sustained an injury to the fifth metatarsal in the left foot on or about 3 May 2001. She stipulates that this injury had been sustained during a triathlon type event whilst doing her military service. Ms Madams stipulates that she had re-injured her foot again during a ‘field exercise’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she was discharged from the ADF in approximately the year 2003 as a function of ‘medical reasons’ and Ms Madams stipulates that her discharge was extraordinarily difficult for her to ‘get over from an emotional point of view’.
Ms Madams relates that her basic training was ‘not too bad’ although she stipulates that she was repeatedly told, in her opinion, that she was ‘not smart enough for medics training’. Ms Madams stipulates that she was repeatedly belittled with respect to her intelligence and upon nominating for medics training, she had been variously advised that ‘I don’t know how you got in’. Ms Madams stipulates that she was transferred to a holding platoon and she advises that it had felt to her as if they had ‘kept me in there for months’. Ms Madams stipulates that during this time in the holding platoon she had been directed to a computer course, but that in general it had felt as if ‘they just make an object of you’. She stipulates that she had not felt at all useful in this holding platoon.
Ms Madams stipulates that she believes that she was the subject of gratuitous discipline whilst in the holding platoon. She stipulates that she would be ‘blamed for all kinds of things like leaving trash lying around’. Ms Madams stipulates that she was frequently blamed and disciplined for ‘other people’s misbehaviour which was made to be my fault’. Ms Madams stipulates that she was always getting ‘ROP’s or ROC’s, and I think that I would have gotten somewhere between 20 and 50 during this time’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she believes that she was variously verbally abused by Non-Commissioned Officers who had blamed her inter alia, for example the theft of a fridge. She goes on to stipulate that a particular Sergeant had kicked over a rubbish bin and ‘made me pick up the rubbish’.
Ms Madams stipulates that the sort of gratuitous discipline that she had been experiencing in this holding platoon had felt ‘too much’ and that she had begun ‘answering back’.
Ms Madams stipulates that her ‘answering back’ had resulted in her being ‘sent to military jail’.
I believe Ms Madams tells me that she been sent to Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney.
Ms Madams tells me that she had received limited help with respect to advancing her soldiering but that she did receive repeated and gratuitous discipline.
Ms Madams tells me that in her experience, female soldiers are seldom sent to Holsworthy Barracks to military jail but that she was sent there.
Ms Madams stipulates that she was sent to military jail for a period of approximately three weeks, but that her incarceration there might have been for over a month.
Ms Madams stipulates that she had found the entire experience quite de-humanising and had stipulated that ‘it had destroyed my life, you’re like an animal in a cage’.
At this juncture during the consultation Ms Madams breaks down and becomes overtly tearful and acutely distressed. She stipulates that ‘when I think about Holsworthy it makes me crack all of the time’.
Ms Madams stipulates that upon admission to the military jail which she had nominated, she was removed from the vehicle in which she was travelling and she goes on to stipulate that ‘they make you feel like an animal. They yell at you, they push you, they hold you up against the wall, and you’re not allowed to talk’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she had found the discipline regime in the prison to be difficult, although she had stipulated that ‘my first night was okay’.
Ms Madams stipulates that on the following day she was required to request permission to go to the ablutions and that she was variously laughed at and humiliated by the prison guards. She stipulates that she was also made to wait gratuitously for food and yelled at and gratuitously disciplined if she had gotten up to obtain some food for herself. Ms Madams stipulates that during physical education she was invariably chastised for not running fast enough and on one occasion at least she recalls having ‘a medicine ball thrown at my back which made me fall over’. Ms Madams stipulates that she was variously yelled at to get up and that this too was profoundly humiliating for her.
Ms Madams stipulates that she had requested support and/counselling and/or ‘someone to talk to’ on a particular night during her detention and that she was advised that (sic) ‘go to hell’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she endeavoured to hang herself whilst incarcerated.
Ms Madams stipulates that the response of her captors was to drag her out onto the basketball court and to ‘leave me out there in the cold’. Ms Madams stipulates that following her attempt at self harm or suicide, she had received no medical or para-medical intervention.
Ms Madams stipulates that while in detention she was required to scrub toilet bowls until they shone, and that she was required to maintain her cell ‘perfectly’, Ms Madams stipulates that she had felt repeatedly persecuted because guards would ‘come in and rip it up and scrunch up my uniforms’ notwithstanding the fact that the cell had been tidied to a high standard previously and notwithstanding the fact that the uniforms had been maintained and kept to a high standard.
Ms Madams stipulates that she had felt somewhat vulnerable being the only female in detention, and she stipulates that ‘there’s meant to be female worker. There was only one on one day and that she was the only female soldier under sentence’.
Ms Madams stipulates that upon her discharge from military prison she had approached a Duty Sergeant and asked him for help. She stipulates that she was not sleeping, not eating, and had again attempted to commit suicide with Panadol. She stipulates that she had received limited emotional support and that she was placed in hospital. She stipulates that from her subjective vantage point they ‘never asked me what was wrong. They just left me in the hospital as a psych patient but I wasn’t treated like a psych patient. I didn’t receive any help or intervention’.
Ms Madams stipulates that to the best of her knowledge she had never seen a psychiatrist or psychologist and that she was never prescribed any pharmacotherapy.
Ms Madams also alludes to the fact that levels of surveillance in the prison were exceedingly high and that this threatened her sense of autonomy and her sense of privacy, particularly being the only female solder under sentence.
During her period of military service, Ms Madams relates two further circumstances involving alleged sexual assault.
Ms Madams stipulates that on one occasion she had been at the boozer on the base and had returned to her own dorm room. She stipulates that on that occasion she had not locked her room door. Ms Madams stipulates that she had fallen asleep on her bed and at some point following her return to her dormitory she had heard the door of one of her colleagues’ rooms opening. She stipulates that she could not hear the main door to the dormitories either open or close and she stipulates that somebody, another soldier’s boyfriend, had come into her room. She stipulates that she was in the process of waking up and that he had removed his pants. She stipulates that this soldier’s boyfriend had ‘jumped on me’ and had ‘tried to kiss my face’. She had stipulated that ‘he was drunk and slobbering. He was rubbing himself on me and rocking’. She stipulates that he had not managed to get her trousers off and that she had screamed. She stipulates that her colleague had come and that this colleague’s boyfriend had ‘jumped off and took off’.
Ms Madams stipulates that this incident had occurred at Latchford Barracks approximately two weeks out of basic training.
Ms Madams stipulates that she had reported this incident to this other soldier’s Duty Sergeant …
Ms Madams stipulates that she had never received any feedback about this complaint that she had made to this Duty Sergeant.
Ms Madams stipulates that on another occasion she and another female soldier, with whom she had been on the medics course, had walked to a lake from the boozer one night in order to smoke. She stipulates that she and the other female soldier were ‘just sitting there’ when another group of guys ‘on a Sergeant’s Course’, ‘definitely not new recruits’ had walked by. She stipulates that there were five men in this group to the best of her recollection. She stipulates that these men were ‘really sleazy’ and started to try and mingle with herself and her female colleague. She stipulates that one of these male soldiers has sat behind her. She stipulates that she had begun to feel extremely fearful and had advised this soldier that she and her friend were gay, although ‘my friend wasn’t’. Ms Madams stipulates that both she and her female friend were pinned down and ‘one guy held my arms and other (sic) guy tried to kiss me’. She stipulates that ‘one guy pinned my arms back and other (sic) guy was feeling me up’. Ms Madams stipulates that screams had alerted the Duty Sergeant on patrol and that this group of five men had ‘bolted’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she had reported the incident to her Duty Sergeant but that she ‘hadn’t heard nothing about it’ subsequently. She stipulates that ‘I’m not sure if it was ever followed up’.”

Dr Joffe’s report refers in detail to the applicant’s family history, including the following:
“ … Ms Madams stipulates that from approximately when she was 5 years old to the age of 14, her mother was involved with another man … She stipulates that he was highly abusive in the context of the reconstituted family, and she describes him as ‘nasty’. Ms Madams stipulates that her mother had eventually left [him] when she was 14 years old as a function of discovery of the reported abuse.”
As regards the applicant’s previous psychiatric/psychological history, Dr Joffe’s report states as follows:
“ In respect of pre morbid personal history of psychiatric illness and/or psychological difficulties, Ms Madams stipulates that she had seen a female Counsellor for a number of visits through a particular agency at the age of 14 following the emergence of the reported abuse. She stipulates that she had found the counselling helpful and she indicates that ‘it was good, it helped me not to blame myself’. Beyond this reported treatment by a Psychologist and/or Counsellor at the age of 14, Ms Madams denies any pre existing history of florid psychological or psychiatric illness. Ms Madams stipulates that subsequent to her discharge from the military, she had become acutely suicidal (in about 2005) and had actually attempted suicide following imbibing alcohol. She stipulates that this had been precipitated by a catch up with Army friends. Ms Madams stipulates that this attempted suicide gave rise to an approximate three or more week hospitalisation where she was treated by both a Psychologist and a Psychiatrist. Ms Madams also refers to at least one and perhaps two episodes of being suicidal whilst in the military. …”
In his report Dr Joffe set out the applicant’s “current psychological complaints” as follows:
“ I note that the following psychological symptomatology was adduced from Ms Madams at the date and time of consultations on 13 and 21 November 2008.
Ms Madams tells me that ‘you try to grow past things, I try my best not to let this all worry me’.
Ms Madams tells me that her appetite is quite variable. She stipulates ‘I do not have a huge appetite and it’s much worse since I come out the Army. Before I was over the 60’s and now I’m usually below the 60’s.
Ms Madams stipulates that she has ‘trouble sleeping’. She stipulates that she ‘must have music or TV to go to sleep otherwise I can’t sleep’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she is inclined to wake up to ‘’flashes’ associated with her incarceration at Holsworthy. She stipulates that she wakes up to flashes of ‘being pulled out my cell’ to flashes of ‘me yelling or being yelled at’, or to sounds of ‘the bangs’ that you hear in jail.
Ms Madams stipulates that these episodes of waking to flashes of her reported experience in Holsworthy occur with the frequency of approximately twice weekly.
Ms Madams tells me that ‘I can’t sleep anymore’ upon waking to these flashes.
Ms Madams stipulates that she can, at times, experience a ‘sharp pain in my chest’.
Ms Madams stipulates that upon waking to these reported ‘flashes’ she feels ‘short of breath’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she is troubled by intrusive recollections pertaining to her period of military service. She says ‘there are so many things that I see, it’s hard to explain. For example at a pub I see a guy and he looked like one of the guards. Then I get anxious and have a panic attack or angina or something like that. Lots of pressure in my chest.’
Ms Madams stipulates that she is unduly perturbed by loud noises, particularly ‘banging sounds’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she is made anxious upon exposure to ‘smells that remind me of my cell’. She goes on to stipulate that ‘it’s hard to explain, but certain air fresheners, for example, make me think, and when I think I get palpitations and I get short of breath like I can’t get enough air in’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she experiences periods of time in daily life where ‘I just don’t seem to care. I don’t seem to care about anything’.
Ms Madams stipulates that her libido is consistently low since her discharge from the Army. She stipulates that ‘I can go for long periods of time without it’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she has become ‘much more uncomfortable around men since my experience in the Army. It’s hard to trust them and my patience with them is very low’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she has become an exceedingly more irritable person since her discharge from the Army. She stipulates that ‘my family can vouch for that. Even some of my friends’.
Ms Madams stipulates that ‘small things irritate me, much more since then’.
Ms Madams stipulates that that she can adopt ‘a sarcastic disposition’ whereas this was not typical of her in the pre-Army situation, reportedly.
Ms Madams stipulates that she continues to ruminate about her experience in the military. She stipulates that ‘it’s a case of why me, what did I do wrong? Why did they make an example of me? What was so bad about me? It feels like they jailed me for the equivalent of a parking ticket. I think I also got a $1,000 in fines’.
Ms Madams reports physiological and psychological anxiety upon exposure to advertisements about the military. She stipulates that ‘the advertisements make me feel sick, literally sick’.
Ms Madams stipulates experiencing subjective feelings of shame when she is exposed to watching military parades on Anzac Day and the like.
Ms Madams stipulates that she is somewhat anhedonic and somewhat socially withdrawn. She stipulates that this is not consistently the case but that ‘often times when friends want to do something I just don’t’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she has become ‘an unemotional person more of the time than before. Sure, I get my breakdowns but generally I don’t feel things like I used to’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she is not particularly future-orientated. She stipulates that ‘I live from day to day and I don’t care about the future. Not like before when I wanted to join the Army’.
Ms Madams denies any current suicidal ideation but admits to at least two periods of feeling acutely suicidal whilst in the military.
Ms Madams stipulates that ‘I’ve lost a lot of confidence. Sometimes I get it back for short periods of time, then I don’t’.
Ms Madams stipulates that there are periods of time when she can feel acutely socially withdrawn. She does however stipulate that ‘there are other times when I really want to go out and do things. It’s quite funny’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she feels highly avoidant with respect to talking about her period in the military and what had happened to her there. She had evidenced this avoidance clinically, and she had evidenced clinically her anxiety upon discussion about these matters.
Ms Madams stipulates that ‘my concentration is bad, very bad’.
Ms Madams stipulates that she experiences patchy short-term memory difficulties.
Ms Madams stipulates that ‘since the Army I feel stupid. I just feel so stupid’.
Ms Madams stipulates that since her military experience, she can feel ‘easily scared, like my heart’s in my throat’.
Ms Madams tells me that she can experience ‘day dreams’ since she discharged from the Service. She stipulates that ‘it’s like I’m switching off, just switching off’.
Ms Madams stipulates that ‘Mum says I pick at my face a lot. I pick at my face a lot’.
Ms Madams reports that she can experience periods of time, sometimes a number of days, during which she feels tired and lethargic. Ms Madams does however stipulate that ‘some days I feel like I’m bursting with energy. It’s quite strange’.
Ms Madams stipulates that her smoking behaviours had increased markedly during her period of time in the military and that she could smoke as many as 50 cigarettes per day.
Ms Madams stipulates that during her current training as a Prison Officer she can experience full blown panic attack or panic attack like symptoms when she is required to enter a cell. She stipulates that in a training exercise some ‘two weeks ago, I sort of had a panic attack. I try and talk myself through it and I ask them not to lock the door’.”
Dr Joffe then discussed his findings and expressed his opinions as follows:
“ DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
I note that the present discussion of findings is both informed by and therefore also constrained by the currently available information. I record also by way of reiteration that I do not have any comprehensive documentation relating to Ms Madams period of Service in the Australian Defence Force. This too, constitutes a limitation on the present investigation.
A brief inferential review of the pre morbid history provided by Ms Madams appears to be suggestive of at least adequate pre morbid health, reasonable pre morbid educational attainment, and reasonable pre morbid relationship history. Additionally, the pre morbid history suggests a significant period of active participation in Army Cadets with the attainment of the rank of Sergeant over a 5 year period. Both an inferential review of the familial history and review of this patient’s expressed adolescent wishes, reveals that there was a significant imperative on the part of Ms Madams to join the ADF and to be subjectively successful in this endeavour. Further inferential review of the pre morbid history suggests that there were aspects of the same particularly in the formative years prior to the age of 14, which were tumultuous and which saw Ms Madams being exposed to not inconsequential abuse, … between the ages of 5 and 14. I simply record that I have taken cognisance of this history.
In relation to Ms Madams’ current presentation, it is my opinion that she evidences difficulties, broadly speaking, in the arenas of both mood and anxiety. Most specifically, with respect to the question of anxiety, Ms Madams evidences features of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Immediate Onset, Chronic, which features include ruminations pertaining to her period of military service, intrusive recollections pertaining to her period of military service, reported hypnogogic flash-backs to her period of military service, and both psychological and physiological anxiety upon exposure to situations reminiscent of aspects of her period of military service. In addition to these reliving features, Ms Madams does appear to evidence at least some avoidance/numbing features, including aversion to thinking and/ or speaking about the most difficult aspects of her military service, aversion to certain smells and sounds, intermittent periods of social withdrawal, intermittent periods of anhedonic functioning, diminished libido, lack of planfulness with respect to the future, apparent dissociative episodes, and some numbing of emotional responsiveness. Additionally, Ms Madams appears to evidence at least some autonomic hyper-arousal features, including sleep disturbance, impoverished concentration, marked increases in general levels of irritability, and some proclivity for startle, particularly in response to banging noises. Further to the question of anxiety, it is my opinion that Ms Madams evidences some of the signs and symptoms of having experienced episodes of Acute Panic Attack, which appear to be situational and which appear to be in response to circumstances of confinement. It is not however my opinion that Ms Madams meets full DSM-IV-TR criteria for full blown Panic Disorder, and it is not inconceivable that some of this patient’s acute anxiety phenomena experienced situationally might be subsumed under the diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Immediate Onset, Chronic. In the terms of explaining the aetiology of the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder related symptomatology, it would appear that the subjective experience of denigration whilst in the military, at least two experiences of alleged sexual assault, and most certainly the experience of incarceration as a female at Holsworthy Barracks, can certainly all be implicated, although it is not inconceivable that there might be interaction effects between the perceived evocative aspects of experience during military service and prior traumata. In addition to the described anxiety phenomena, it is my opinion that Ms Madams experiences difficulties in the arenas (sic) of mood, although it is quite difficult upon limited exposure to this patient to be absolutely precise about the nature of the mood complaints. Rather than to venture a specific mood diagnosis at this juncture, I would prefer to note the following: that Ms Madams certainly appears to experience periods of depressed mood characterised by marked diminution in libido, sleep disturbance and diminished appetite; that Ms Madams has experienced episodes of suicidal ideation and at least two episodes of suicide attempt historically; that Ms Madams experiences periods of markedly diminished confidence; that Ms Madams can experience herself as less useful than she might like; that Ms Madams can experience quite significant feelings of guilt and shame; and that Ms Madams can be not particularly future orientated. In addition to these mood complaints suggestive of dysphoric or depressed mood, there are also some indications about the post morbid history provided which might suggest that Ms Madams can experience periods of marginally elevated mood. These reports with respect to mood elevations appear to relate to periods of time during which Ms Madams is rather gregarious, periods of time during which Ms Madams can feel quite energetic and ‘bursting with energy’, and periods of time when Ms Madams’ confidence appears to be restored, if not quite robust. As stipulated, with limited exposure to Ms Madams as a patient, it is not entirely inconceivable that there might be some sort of cyclothymic process present, but I would defer any sort of definitive diagnosis with respect to the question of mood in favour of noting that Ms Madams does experience not inconsequential depressive periods as well as possible (at this juncture) periods of slightly elevated mood.
It is my opinion that this patient’s mood complaints are secondary to her subjective experience of traumatisation and also to her subjective experience of herself as having failed or somehow not made the grade with respect to her functioning in the ADF. I am not suggesting that this is an objective assessment of Ms Madams’ performance in the ADF but rather the extent to which she is troubled by the treatment she perceives that she has received during her Defence Force service, and during the perceived most difficult aspects of it. Additionally, this patient’s mood difficulties appear to be related to Ms Madams’ loss of a vocation with which she had been strongly identified for more than half a decade as a teenager and subsequently.
…”
Dr Joffe’s report concludes as follows:
“ RECOMMENDATIONS
1.It is suggested that Ms Madams be entitled to attend an initial course of 6 – 8 sessions of psychotherapy at three weekly or monthly intervals. Such sessions would be of 50 minute duration. This course of psychotherapy should be reviewed at its end, at which time further recommendations might be made.
2.I defer to the treating medical practitioners with respect to the indications or otherwise for pharmacotherapy in this case.
I trust that this report provides a provisional indication with respect to my diagnostic thinking in relation to Ms Madams and her broader circumstances associated with the period of service in the ADF. …”
Report of Dr Anthony Mander
Dr Anthony Mander, Consultant Psychiatrist, prepared a report, dated 9 April 2009, in relation to the applicant, at the request of the respondent following its receipt of the applicant’s claim for compensation for PTSD (T9).
Dr Mander’s report sets out the applicant’s history as follows:
“ CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO CLAIM
Ms Madams told me that she had always wanted to join the Army having been an Army Cadet for six years from the age of 12-years. She eventually joined at aged 20-years in 2000 and told me that she enjoyed basic training at Kapooka but then had significant problems following this.
Ms Madams told me that she could not grasp her course material in her favoured course, that being of a Medical Assistant and said that she was humiliated by instructors belittling her. She states that they slammed books on the table and that they would say that everyone else could get it ‘why can’t you’. She denies that the course material was beyond her and said that her difficulties were as a result of a lack of support. She told me that she eventually got to a position where she did not try anymore because after being told that she was dumb ‘you tend to believe it and give up’. She was put into the Holding Platoon and saw a Psychologist at this point. She said that although she was ‘down’ because all she had wanted to do was be a Medic in the Army ‘it’s not as if I was going to jump off a bridge or anything’.
Ms Madams got the choice of two further courses and chose computing, but again could not manage this. She said that she had no interest in it ‘I was pretty much forced into it’. Following this she was again back in the Holding Platoon and told me that while there she had no assigned tasks and simply went to a room each day with nothing to do.
Ms Madams believes that she was singled out by a particular Sergeant because she is homosexual. She said that he made her life ‘a nightmare’ and that she got blamed for ‘anything’. She said that she went to military jail and only after I pushed her did she admit that this was for disobeying orders, but it was ‘nothing that you would even get a ticket for from civilian Police’. She cannot remember what year she was in prison but told me that she was due to be there for 11 days but eventually stayed for nearly a month. Again it took some persistence to get her to admit that this was because she had again disobeyed orders. She said that you were not allowed to talk and that even though she broke the rules ‘they were stupid rules’. She said that she was made to ask to go to the toilet and that sometimes these requests would be denied and the guard would simply laugh at her. She told me that she tried to commit suicide by tying a sheet around her neck. This was despite the fact that there was a camera in her cell. She said that the guards grabbed either end of the sheet and pulled her into the parade ground where they dumped her ‘it was freezing’. She told me that her experience in prison was ‘one of the only things in this world that makes me upset’.
Ms Madams describes other episodes of being treated badly, for instance having a medicine ball thrown at her back, having her cell purposely rifled just before inspection so that she then failed and she said that although it was the whole Army that upset her because they let her down, it was the jail that has had most effect on her.
She took an overdose of paracetamol and said that she was admitted to a general Service Hospital where she was kept for two weeks but had no treatment. She specifically said that she did not see a Psychiatrist or a Psychologist and that she was simply forgotten. She said that she asked to talk to somebody but they ‘didn’t do anything’. She said that on discharge from the Hospital she was ‘going nuts’ but could not get so (sic) see a Psychologist until she saw one externally after discharge.
On discharge from the Army she said the Military ‘didn’t give a shit about me’.
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESPONSE
Ms Madams denies any major psychological problems prior to being in the military jail and blames all her subsequent problems on this four week experience. She denied any significant past psychiatric history that could be contributory, despite seeing a Psychiatrist on two occasions at Princess Margaret Hospital when she was aged 12-years because of a possible eating disorder.
Subsequent to her experience in jail she describes a multitude of psychiatric problems. She told me that she gets nightmares of her time in jail, sleeps poorly but functions well if there are no reminders or no recent nightmares associated with her time in prison. She told me that she can be reminded by smells and sights such as seeing someone walk down the street that looks to be in the military. At these times she describes panic attacks. She said that her heart rate would increase, her breathing would feel hot and difficult to get a breath and she would sweat, and that these acute symptoms could last 10-30 minutes. On occasions she has had to leave what she is doing and go home. Although she fears further panic attacks, there is no specific avoidance behaviour. Indeed she works as a Prison Officer in Hakea Prison. She told me that her concentration is alright, depending on what she is doing. In other words it is fine if she is interested in the topic. She can get ‘snappy’ and said that she can be impulsive. Her appetite ‘varies’. She describes her mood as being ‘usually pretty good’.
Ms Madams denies any history of illicit drugs but drinks heavily with a binge drinking pattern. She could not estimate exactly how much she drinks although she did not consider it a problem. She has not lost time off work or had physical symptoms as a result but she did have a drink driving charge four years ago.
She seems to have little in the way of interests outside of work other than her dog and staying around the house.
PREMORBID PERSONALITY
Ms Madams described her personality prior to joining the Army as outgoing, a ‘huge’ sense of humour and ‘lived for the Army Cadets’. She said that she was confident in herself. She has known about her homosexual status since she was aged 12-years and told me that this has not been a problem for her. Her mother had accepted this and she was able to access counselling groups at school regarding homosexuality. She said that prior to her time in the Army she was somebody who ‘loves life and everything about life’.
PAST PHYSICAL HISTORY
Ms Madams told me that she had fractured the fifth metatarsal in her left foot doing a triathlon in the Army and this restricts her ability to do sport.
She is not on any medication for either physical or psychiatric reasons.
PAST PERSONAL HISTORY
Ms Madams has an older and younger sister. She told me that her father left home when she was born and she has had little contact with him over the years. The father of her younger sister lived in the household for about 12-years and she did not describe any problems with him other than him being someone who wanted to be in control.
After school she undertook an apprenticeship as a cabinet maker.
She has worked continuously since leaving the Army. She spent a year in an aircraft maintenance engineering apprenticeship but left because she was the only female on the course and found this difficult. She worked for court security for a while but most of her jobs have been as a nursing assistant before she joined the Prison Service in late 2008. She undertook a three month training and orientation and has been a Prison Officer in the male section at Hakea Prison subsequently.
Ms Madams told me that she has seen a variety of Psychologists over time and returned to Perth two years ago in order to live with her mother and sister. She has been in a relationship over the last eight months and has recently seen Dr Marc Joffe, a Psychologist, who has provided an extensive report on her.”

Dr Mander’s report then refers to his mental state examination of the applicant, Department of Defence documentation regarding the applicant’s Army service (which had been provided to him by the respondent), and Dr Joffe’s report (a copy of which had been provided to him by the applicant), and concludes as follows:
“ OPINION
The major problem in assessing this young woman is the contradictory nature of her history. In essence, she paints a picture of somebody who was functioning well, who was abused in the Army for no good reason and who suffered psychologically as a result, made worse by the lack of care from the Army.
However, the contemporaneous notes from the Army show an entirely different picture. This young woman had problems right from the outset and was turned down in 1998 for an Army placement. She had ongoing disciplinary problems and multiple contacts with Army Psychologists. Her overdose in the setting of disciplinary action and her attempt to hang herself whilst being fully aware that she was being observed via camera, certainly suggest a high degree of emotional vulnerability.
Her story changes on a significant number of factors rendering it virtually meaningless in making an assessment.
Ms Madams told me quite clearly that apart from some minor problems with eating at aged 12-years she had had no significant psychiatric intervention and no major problems at home. Yet to others she has described sexual, physical and verbal abuse and extensive psychiatric input. It is clear that she has had substantial input from Army Psychologists and that they went out of their way to assist her in safely getting back to civilian life, yet she claims no support from them. Critical incidents that she has described to others, such as two occasions where she was potentially subjected to sexual interference, were not even mentioned in my interview with her. This lack of reliability which is referred to in her Service documents, especially the June 2001 report of Captain McCormack renders any conclusions provisional at best.
Taking all the information available it would seem to me that this young woman has had extensive psychiatric problems for a very early age. She is referred to as quiet, anxious, failing to observe disciplinary boundaries, struggling academically and having social problems. This pattern cannot easily be characterised but it is certainly of no surprise that she could not cope with Military discipline and that she was an anxious young woman.
I consider that she remains an anxious person and it is of some surprise and some credit to her that she has managed to become a Prison Officer. This has many disciplinary features similar to the Army and maybe therefore there is an element of maturation now taking place which enables her to function more effectively. Her eight month relationship, and living back with her mother and sister may also be providing support and stability which is helpful to her.
I do not agree with the diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Her experiences are not out of keeping with Service life, even if some of them occurred as she describes. It is clear that she was quite unsuited for Service life and for her time in prison to be extended from 11 days suggests that her behaviour was substantially difficult for Military prison authorities to deal with. In addition there is no avoidance behaviour, perhaps most obviously shown by the fact that her current chosen career is to work in a prison!
In conclusion then, I think that she was a woman who functioned marginally in a number of areas and that this was clearly present at assessment in 1998 well before she joined the Army. Her anxiety symptoms and tendency towards panic attacks would be secondary to some of her functional difficulties. I think she was well aware (but cannot now admit) that she was well out of her depth in the courses she attempted. I suspect the demands entailed in learning to be a prison officer are of a somewhat lesser degree allowing her to cope with this successfully. I do agree with Dr Joffe that she does not have a Panic Disorder as she does not have the avoidance and overall fear of panic characteristic of that Disorder. While she undoubtedly has difficulties in a number of areas and would benefit from psychiatric intervention, I do not consider that she has a primary psychiatric disorder but rather a series of personality difficulties that do not easily fall into any one Personality Disorder category.
In answer to your specific questions:
1.Diagnosis(es) answering the claimed condition.
I do not believe that this woman has a specific Psychiatric Disorder. She has some anxiety symptoms secondary to functional difficulties that were particularly obvious in the Army and relate to various disciplinary, social and academic problems. As I have indicated, she had multiple problems prior to the Army which she fails to acknowledge, rendering her history unreliable.
2.The likely date(s) of clinical onset.
Not applicable.
3.Any aetiological factors.
I believe that this young woman has some significant personality difficulties which she may be beginning to grown (sic) out of as she matures. They do not easily fall into one particular category.
…”
THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
The applicant’s oral evidence may be summarised as follows:
·she confirmed that Dr Joffe’s report accurately recorded the history she gave to him regarding her experiences in her Army service, and she affirmed that history;
·she acknowledged that she told Dr Joffe (when she saw him in November 2008) that she had no pre-existing history of psychological or psychiatric illness, but that was not true;
·she agreed that she told Dr Mander (when she saw him in April 2009) that she did not have any “major psychological problems prior to being in the military jail” and that was true because her previous problems were not “major” problems;
·she told Dr Mander that she had had an “eating disorder”;
·she acknowledged that she had been admitted to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital on 21 June 1999 with “constant thoughts of death and dying … depressed mood, feelings of anxiety, anger and guilt” and having experienced “self deprecatory auditory hallucinations”;
·she acknowledged that, in Army enlistment forms, she falsely denied ever having any mental health issues because, if she had ticked “Yes” to such questions, she “would not have got a look in” and she did not want to be rejected by the Army again (having previously unsuccessfully applied to join the Army in 1998);
·she said that she did tell the Army psychologists about her childhood problems and her previous anorexia but that she did not tell them about her two recent (in 1999) admissions to hospital for psychological problems;
·she acknowledged that she had falsely answered “No” to the question: “Is there any Medical Condition or history that you failed to declare at recruiting?” in the Medical Induction Declaration Form dated 1 March 2000;
·she said that she had been sent to see Army psychologists because she was “struggling” academically, not because of disciplinary issues;
·as regards the disciplinary offences to which she pleaded guilty on 18 October 2000, she said that she “didn’t do them … others did” but that she pleaded guilty because she “had no choice”;
·likewise, as regards the offences to which she pleaded guilty on 15 November 2000, she said that someone else was responsible and her plea of guilty was “not by choice”;
·although the relevant documentation indicates that she was sentenced to a total of 10 days’ detention, she maintained that the sentence was extended to one month;
·it was put to her that there is no record of her allegation that she was sexually assaulted while in detention, and she responded: “of course not”;
·as regards the offence of “prejudicial behaviour” to which she pleaded guilty on 23 February 2001, she admitted that she had made a false statement to a superior officer because she did not want to go on a particular course because an officer on that course had “tried to sleep with” her two nights before and she did not want to go near him;
·she confirmed that that information had been presented to the military court;
·as regards her discharge from the Army, she said that she was “not keen on leaving the Army” but that she was “keen on getting away from certain staff”;
·although she acknowledged that she signed a document confirming that she had no representation to make against her discharge, she said that she did write a “show cause document” because she did not want to get out of the military and she was not discharging at her own “discretion”;
·she noted that her “show cause document” was not included in the Department of Defence documents presented to the Tribunal;
·she confirmed that she saw Mr Spencer, a civilian psychologist, on 26 and 29 June 2001 and she acknowledged that there is no mention in his report of any suicide attempts or sexual assaults in the Army, but she explained that she had not mentioned those matters to him because he was “connected with the military” and “was not going to believe” her;
·she acknowledged that there is no contemporaneous evidence of her allegations regarding her mistreatment in the Army, and added: “of course you’re not going to find any of that”.
EVIDENCE TENDERED BY THE APPLICANT
A letter (undated) from Jean Madams states as follows:
“ …
My name is Jean Madams and I am the mother of Naomi Madams
Firstly I would like to say is I don’t understand why this has all taken so long and why my daughter is still fighting for acceptance and liability at the hands of the defence force.
My daughters whole life she wanted nothing but to be in the Military (Army) and did all she could to get there. Now after hearing everything and seeing the affects of her time in the Military it was the worst decision of her life. What went so wrong?
All I hear from her is they won’t accept liability because she had a so called Mental Illness prior to joining the Military. Yes she was abused and went through a terrible period in her young life but she grew past that by joining Army Cadets and working towards her Military career. Never growing up was my daughter ever told she had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder she was depressed with an eating disorder. Its been since her time in the Military that Psychologists and Psychiatrist have diagnosed her with that.
The Military turned out to be anything but what she dreamed of. My daughter was continuously bullied because of her sexuality which futher lead to constant sexual harassment towards her by male soldiers.
Then to the day my daughter went to Military Jail that changed her life and not for the better. I received a phone call when she arrived there. She was crying saying I did nothing wrong mum I begged them to kick me out if I was that bad she said. She pleaded for them to not send her. I didn’t hear from her again for quiet sometime not a very nice feeling for a mother after a phone call like that.
Once I did speak to my daughter again she called me from hospital saying she tried killing herself cause of things that had happened in jail and the military all together but never went into detail.
My daughter finds it hard to talk a lot about the Military but I know enough and have seen enough. And still as a young lady she fights on, fighting for compensation for the trauma the service put her through. Least she isn’t alone with all the talk on the media lately this is just another brick in the wall.
Many times myself and her partner Kelly have been to the hospital sitting by Naomis bed cause she has taken a bad turn and couldn’t take anymore and tried taking her life. Financially this has affected everyone close to her through having many days off work including herself. Naomi will be fighting this for the rest of her life along with taking medication just to help her function.
This had been a longer fight than it should have been as she couldn’t afford legal representation. If myself or her partner were financially stable we would have funded her legal costs so it wouldn’t have got to this.
Please I ask you to look past my daughters childhood as we all had one either good or bad and look at the now. She deserves to be compensated not just for the financial gain that may come out of it but the sense of relief its over they are sorry this has happened to her and well done we are proud of you as much as I am for standing up and fighting till the end.
…” (sic) (Exhibit A1)
Jean Madams was not required by the respondent for cross-examination.
An email from Kelly Galloway, sent on 15 November 2011, states as follows:
“ I am writing in regards to my relationship with Naomi Madams. Sir I have been dating Naomi for 4 yrs and have found it extremely difficult and upsetting to see such a young caring person suffering so much internal pain from her Army days. Naomi constantly wakes up crying through the middle of the night because of nightmares, this is not new this has been going on from the day we met and has not got better all I can do is reassure her the days are in the past and everything is ok but who am I trying to convince, things are not ok, this women is traumatized. She was raped and jailed within her years in the Army and she went there for a better life. This was her dream Carer she worked hard to get into and it was what was going to change her life. Little did she no it did change her life but for the worse and gave her a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder many years ago. The abuse was reported to superior after each event and no one wanted to no, it was pushed aside and forgotten. Naomi has seen Psychiatrists in the past but is very reluctant opening up to men for fear of disbelief and for them to think like all the other men have.
I have been to so many hospital visits in the middle of the night where Naomi has wanted to end her life because of the Army and the fact Justice has not been done to put her mind at peace and try to move on. Naomi has been fighting this for 7 years (always alone) all the evidence is there to prove her horrific time in the army, taped while raped, wrongful jail, men telling her all she needs is a good man and these people are married with families. I am extremely proud of her she has come through everything to stand her ground and fight for justice, no women should ever go through what the Army has put her through. It has been a very tough time because fighting on your own is the hardest thing but we both no the truth and she deserves recognition of the wrongful treatment she experienced and hoping no other women will ever experience this in a lifetime. The stress through this case is making her unwell she says she cant keep fighting I have told her to keep going you are towards the end, her fear is there will be no Acceptance of Liability and no compensation for the mental, physical abuse and continuing medical appointments to her Psychiatrist because unfortunately when the case is over Naomi will relive the traumatic time for the rest of her life.
Naomi has been fighting for compensation and what’s more Acceptance of Liability. Recognition of her traumatic time in a Service that is meant to make people better people has ruined a Young Women’s life. Naomis sexuality (that wasn’t her choice) seems to think the men in the service have a right to change her with a real man. This is upsetting and not acceptable.
Sir I just ask and beg for you to read the evidence and understand what Naomi has gone through is life changing and does need recognition because a young girl joined the force to give her the life she dreamed of and the diagnosis is a women with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder set of by smells and reoccurring visions and nightmares that unfortunately she will live with for life.
…” (sic) (Exhibit A2)
Kelly Galloway was not required by the respondent for cross-examination.
THE EVIDENCE OF DR ANTHONY MANDER
Dr Mander, Consultant Psychiatrist, confirmed that he assessed the applicant on 6 April 2009 at the request of the respondent and that he prepared a report, dated 9 April 2009, in relation to that assessment (see paragraphs 43–44 above).
Dr Mander was referred to statements he made in his report that the applicant’s history was “contradictory” and that “her story changes on a significant number of factors rendering it virtually meaningless in making an assessment”. He said that, for the purpose of making a psychiatric assessment of a person, that person’s history is “absolutely vital”.
Dr Mander reiterated his opinion that the applicant does not have a specific psychiatric disorder. He said that his reference to the applicant’s “anxiety symptoms” was based on contemporaneous Army documents (which had been provided to him by the respondent) which indicated that she suffered anxiety symptoms at times during her Army service, but that he did not observe anxiety symptoms when he saw her. He added that the only matters he observed during the session were that she was “a bit tearful at times” and she seemed “a bit on edge”. As regards the anxiety symptoms experienced by the applicant during her Army service, Dr Mander said that the Army documents indicated that those symptoms lasted only as long as the relevant stressor continued.
Dr Mander was referred to the hospital records relating to the applicant’s admission to Albury Base Hospital in August and December 2001 and her admissions to Gold Coast Hospital in January and August 2005. He noted that there were no references to the applicant’s Army experiences in those hospital records. He said that the information in those records was more consistent with “affective instability” related to her personality traits. Having regard to all of the documentation, he reiterated that the applicant does not have a psychiatric disorder but he opined that she has Borderline Personality Disorder. He further opined that the applicant’s Borderline Personality Disorder was pre-existing when she commenced her Army service and that it had not been aggravated by her Army service.
THE RELEVANT LEGISLATION
This matter falls to be determined under the SRC Act.
Pursuant to s 14(1) of the SRC Act, compensation is payable in respect of an “injury … if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment”.
Until 12 April 2007, the word “injury” was defined in s 4(1) of the SRC Act as follows:
“ injury means:
(a)     a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or
(c)an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, that employee’s employment), being an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include any such disease, injury or aggravation suffered by an employee as a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee or failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment.”
and the word “disease” was defined in s 4(1) as follows:
“ disease means:
(a)     any ailment suffered by an employee; or
(b)     the aggravation of any such ailment;
being an ailment or an aggravation that was contributed to in a material degree by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation.”.
From 13 April 2007, the words “injury” and “disease” have been defined in the SRC Act as follows:
“ 5A    Definition of injury
(1)In this Act:
injury means:
(a)a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or
(c)an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) and without limiting that subsection, reasonable administrative action is taken to include the following:
(a)     a reasonable appraisal of the employee’s performance;
(b)a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee’s employment;
(c)a reasonable suspension action in respect of the employee’s employment;
(d)a reasonable disciplinary action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee’s employment;
(e)anything reasonable done in connection with an action mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);
(f) anything reasonable done in connection with the employee’s failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment.
5B      Definition of disease
(1)In this Act:
disease means:
(a)     an ailment suffered by an employee; or
(b)     an aggravation of such an ailment;
that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee.
(2)In determining whether an ailment or aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree, by an employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee, the following matters may be taken into account:
(a)     the duration of the employment;
(b)     the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, the employment;
(c)     any predisposition of the employee to the ailment or aggravation;
(d)     any activities of the employee not related to the employment;
(e)     any other matters affecting the employee’s health.
This subsection does not limit the matters that may be taken into account.
(3)     In this Act:
significant degree means a degree that is substantially more than material.”

The word “ailment” has at all material times been defined in s 4(1) of the SRC Act to mean:
“ any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development)”.
ANALYSIS
The following issues arise for consideration and determination in this case, namely:
·whether the applicant has suffered a “disease” (being a mental ailment or an aggravation of a mental ailment), as defined in the SRC Act; and, if so
·whether that disease was suffered by her “as a result of a reasonable disciplinary action taken against [her]” or “as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of [her] employment” (as the case requires), within the meaning of the applicable definition of “injury” in the SRC Act.
Has the applicant suffered a “disease”?
On the basis of the medical evidence referred to in paragraphs 7–11 above, the Tribunal is satisfied, and finds, that, in the period 1997–1999 (prior to the commencement of her Army service), the applicant suffered the following psychiatric disorders:
·eating disorder (anorexia nervosa); and
·major depression.
On the basis of Dr Mander’s evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied, and finds, that, prior to the commencement of her Army service, the applicant was also suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder.
There is no medical evidence before the Tribunal that either the applicant’s pre-existing eating disorder or her pre-existing major depression has subsequently been aggravated, whether during the period of her Army service or since her discharge from the Army. Furthermore, on the basis of Dr Mander’s evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied, and finds, that the applicant’s pre-existing Borderline Personality Disorder was not aggravated by her Army service. There is, indeed, no medical evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has suffered an aggravation of Borderline Personality Disorder, whether during the period of her Army service or since her discharge from the Army and, accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has suffered such an aggravation at any material time.
As regards the question whether the applicant has suffered PTSD (the psychiatric condition in respect of which she has claimed compensation), the Tribunal attaches greater weight to the report and evidence of Dr Mander, Consultant Psychiatrist, than it attaches to the report of Dr Joffe, Consultant Clinical Psychologist.
As regards Dr Joffe’s report, the Tribunal notes that Dr Joffe acknowledged that he did not have the benefit of perusing “any detailed documentation pertaining to” the applicant’s Army service and that his assessment of the applicant was necessarily limited by that lack of relevant information. Dr Mander, on the other hand, had been provided by the respondent with copies of the applicant’s service medical records, and extensive reference is made to those records in his report.
Dr Joffe’s assessment and opinions, as expressed in his report, were based largely, if not entirely, on his acceptance of the history given to him by the applicant regarding the “difficulties” experienced by her in the course of her Army service, as set out at length in his report. Dr Mander, on the other hand, noted inconsistencies between the history which the applicant gave to him and the contents of her contemporaneous service records, and he regarded her as a generally unreliable historian.
The Tribunal had the benefit of being able to peruse not only the applicant’s contemporaneous Army service records but also material relating to her psychiatric history both before and after her Army service. The evidence before the Tribunal also included, of course, the abovementioned reports of Dr Joffe and Dr Mander, the statements of Jean Madams and Kelly Galloway, and the oral evidence of the applicant and of Dr Mander. Having regard to the whole of the evidence before it, including the evidence regarding the applicant’s past and present psychiatric status, the Tribunal has substantial reservations regarding the reliability of the applicant’s evidence. That being the case, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept the applicant’s various assertions of “bad” treatment of her in the course of her Army service – including, in particular, her allegations of sexual assault and of ill treatment during her period of detention – in the absence of any contemporaneous material supporting those assertions and allegations or any independent or objective material corroborating or substantiating those assertions and allegations. No such supporting or corroborating material is in evidence before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept that the history given to Dr Joffe by the applicant regarding the “difficulties” experienced by her in the course of her Army service – as set out in his report and on which he based his “provisional” diagnosis of PTSD – is true and correct. The Tribunal, therefore, regards Dr Joffe’s “provisional” diagnosis of PTSD in the applicant’s case as unreliable and it does not accept that diagnosis. The Tribunal prefers, and accepts, the opinion of Dr Mander that the applicant does not have PTSD.
The Tribunal also accepts Dr Mander’s opinion that the applicant does not have a specific psychiatric disorder, but that she does have an ongoing Borderline Personality Disorder.
It follows from the foregoing discussion that the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has not suffered a “disease” (being a mental ailment or an aggravation of a mental ailment), as defined in the SRC Act either before or after 13 April 2007, and it so finds. The Tribunal is likewise satisfied, and finds, that the applicant has not suffered a mental “injury”, as defined in the SRC Act either before or after 13 April 2007.
CONCLUSION
Having regard to the Tribunal’s abovementioned finding that the applicant has not relevantly suffered a “disease” or an “injury”, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant suffered a disease or an injury “as a result of reasonable disciplinary action …” or “as a result of reasonable administrative action …”, within the meaning of the applicable definition of “injury” in the SRC Act. The Tribunal notes, however, that it is satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings taken against the applicant in September/October 2000, October/November 2000 and February 2001 and the imposition of the punishments upon her as a consequence of those disciplinary proceedings (see paragraphs 26–28 above) constituted “reasonable disciplinary action” or “reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of [her] employment”.
The Tribunal concludes that the applicant has not suffered a mental “injury”, within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 14(1) of the SRC Act and that, accordingly, compensation is not payable to her in respect of her claim for compensation dated 13 February 2009.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 70 (seventy) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President S D Hotop.

..............[sgd D Brodie]..........................
Administrative Assistant
Dated 17 February 2012

Dates of hearing 13–15 December 2011

Applicant In person

Counsel for the Respondent Mr C Clark

Solicitors for the Respondent Sparke Helmore

Division	VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION
File Number	2011/0999
Re	Naomi Madams
APPLICANT
And	Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
RESPONDENT

Tribunal	Deputy President S D Hotop
Date	17 February 2012
Place	Perth

Dates of hearing	13–15 December 2011
Applicant	In person
Counsel for the Respondent	Mr C Clark
Solicitors for the Respondent	Sparke Helmore