Pendock and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application by Mr. Pendock for a disability pension under the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (Cth). The dispute centred on whether Mr. Pendock's conditions, including alcohol use disorder, substance use disorder, major depressive disorder with suicidal ideation, spondylolisthesis, and spondylolysis, were attributable to his military service. The case was heard by Dr. Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the evidence satisfied the criteria set out in the relevant Statements of Principles (SoPs) for each of Mr. Pendock's claimed conditions, and whether these conditions could be established on the balance of probabilities as being attributable to his service. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether certain "category 2 stressors" as defined in the SoPs, such as social isolation, relationship breakdown, or serious legal issues, had occurred within the relevant timeframes and were connected to his service.

The Tribunal's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the medical evidence and Mr. Pendock's personal history in relation to the specific requirements of each SoP. For alcohol use disorder, the Tribunal accepted Dr. Carter's estimation of the onset of the condition in December 1983 but was not satisfied that a category 2 stressor had occurred in the six months prior to this date, finding the assertions of "bullying, harassment and intimidation" and "work stress" to be unsubstantiated for the relevant period. The Tribunal also noted that Mr. Pendock had voluntarily sought re-engagement in the Army during 1984, which did not align with a claim of social isolation. Similar considerations were applied to the other claimed conditions, with the Tribunal finding that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the requisite factors in the respective SoPs could be met on the balance of probabilities.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not reasonably satisfied that the conditions of alcohol use disorder, substance use disorder, major depressive disorder, or spondylolitic spondylolisthesis were attributable to Mr. Pendock's service. The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.