Pierson and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the death of a veteran, Mr. Pierson, who died from complications arising during a scuba diving activity while on shore leave during a naval deployment. The applicant, presumably a dependant of the veteran, sought compensation under the *Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004* (Cth), arguing the death was a "service death." The respondent, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, contested this classification.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the veteran's death constituted a "service death" under section 28(1) of the Act. This involved two key questions: first, whether the veteran was on duty for the entire duration of the HMAS Leeuwin's deployment, and second, whether crew members were considered on duty while on shore leave in Yap. The applicant relied on a memorandum from the Executive Officer of HMAS Leeuwin, which stated that crew members were "always on duty" during the deployment and were to remain cognisant of their role in supporting government intent and maintaining the reputation of the Navy and Australia. The Commission, however, argued that this memorandum should be read in its entirety and that the statement about being "always on duty" did not automatically render the entire period at Yap as rendering defence service.

The Tribunal reasoned that the memorandum, when read in context, indicated that the deployment had dual purposes of regional engagement (an operational objective) and crew respite. While acknowledging the Commission's submission that not every moment of a deployment is necessarily considered defence service, the Tribunal found that the directive for crew members to always consider their role and reputation in all activities during the deployment supported the applicant's contention. The Tribunal concluded that it was reasonably satisfied that the veteran's death was a "service death" within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter with a direction that the veteran's death was a "service death" under section 28(1) of the Act, making relevant dependants eligible for compensation.