Poppi and Repatriation Commission

[2008] AATA 480

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 480

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2007/1086

Veterans' Appeals DIVISION		)
Re		UMBERTO POPPI

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

Date10 June 2008

PlaceBrisbane (heard in Cairns)

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

......................[Sgd]........................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements – qualifying service – whether applicant was in field operations against the enemy – whether applicant incurred danger from hostile forces – applicant claims he guarded unexploded bombs in Townsville in June 1942 – Tribunal finds that neither the applicant’s service records nor authoritative historical accounts of the bombing in Townsville support his claims that he guarded unexploded bombs in June 1942 – Tribunal finds that even if applicant’s service records wrong he did not incur danger while guarding the bombs – applicant claims he participated in secret rescue mission to New Guinea – Tribunal finds that applicant’s service records do not support his claim that he participated in secret mission – Tribunal considers it unlikely that applicant was involved in a secret rescue mission – applicant did not render qualifying service – decision affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), s 7A

Repatriation Commission v Thompson [1988] FCR 212; (1993) 44 FCR 20

REASONS FOR DECISION

10 June 2008 Senior Member Bernard J McCabe         

1.      Mr Umberto Poppi, the applicant, was a soldier during World War II. His service records suggest he underwent training after he enlisted in April 1942 but did not see any service overseas. The records say he was discharged on 30 July 1942 so that he could return to work in the cane fields in north Queensland. In those circumstances, the Repatriation Commission, the respondent, says Mr Poppi is not eligible to receive a number of benefits under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the VEA”).

2.      Mr Poppi claims he did serve overseas in late 1942 after the time he was supposedly discharged from the Army. He says he participated in a secret rescue mission behind enemy lines in New Guinea. He also says he undertook guard duties in Townsville shortly after that city was bombed by the Japanese in 1942. On that basis, he says he has rendered qualifying service within the meaning of s 7A(1)(a) of the VEA.

3. I am required to decide the dispute to my reasonable satisfaction. For reasons I will explain, I am not satisfied the applicant rendered qualifying service within the meaning of s 7A. The decision under review must therefore be affirmed.

The legislation

4. Section 7A(1)(a) says that a person serving in the armed forces during World War II is to be taken as having rendered qualifying service if he or she:

·     was in the field in military operations against the enemy; and

·     incurred danger from hostile forces of the enemy.

The deployment to Townsville

5.      I will deal firstly with the applicant’s claim that he undertook qualifying service when he was tasked to stand guard over two unexploded bombs that had been dropped by the Japanese in the Townsville area during the course of an air raid. The applicant was unable to specify the date of his deployment to Townsville. He said he and other members of his unit were travelling through the city en route to their homes during their first leave period after being called up for service. Mr Poppi says he recalled leave had been granted six weeks after the recruits commenced basic training in western Queensland.

6.      Mr Stoner, for the respondent, pointed out that Army records showed the applicant was called up for duty on 16 April 1942. If that is so, and Mr Poppi’s leave was granted six weeks later, he was present in the city sometime around early-to- mid June. That is difficult to reconcile with the authoritative historical accounts provided by the respondent that say Townsville was not bombed by the Japanese until the end of July 1942. Either Mr Poppi’s recollection is wrong or the date of enlistment is recorded incorrectly in his Army records. I accept Army records are fallible, but Mr Poppi is trying to remember events that occurred a long time ago and he acknowledged he is not good with dates. I think I should prefer the records in the absence of other evidence that calls them into question.  That suggests the events did not occur as Mr Poppi has described.

7.      As it happens, I do not think Mr Poppi could succeed with respect to this aspect of his claim even if I accept his account of what occurred. Mr Poppi says there were two unexploded bombs on or near the beach. He said he was instructed to watch over the bombs and prevent anyone from approaching them until a bomb disposal team arrived from Melbourne. He said in his evidence that he was physically located some distance from the devices when he carried out his duties. Standing guard in those circumstances does not suggest he incurred danger in the sense that he was “exposed, at risk of or in peril of harm or injury”: see Repatriation Commission v Thompson [1988] FCA 212; (1993) 44 FCR 20 at 24 per Davies, Wilcox and Foster JJ.

8. It follows that I am not satisfied the applicant’s reported activities in Townsville amount to qualifying service within the meaning of the VEA.

The secret mission

9.      Mr Poppi says he was undertaking training as a machine gunner at his unit’s encampment near Hughenden when he was approached by his commanding officer, Captain Webb. Captain Webb asked whether Mr Poppi was interested in volunteering for a secret mission. The applicant said he asked questions about the mission and learned it involved a plan to rescue several Australian servicemen from captivity in Japanese-held New Guinea. He and three other enlisted men, led by Lieutenant Forbes, agreed to undertake the mission.

10.     The applicant said the small rescue party set out for New Guinea about eight days later. Their training for the mission before they departed did not appear to amount to much. Mr Poppi said he recalled a series of meetings and conversations about the job that lay ahead. All of the recruits were inexperienced. Mr Poppi surmised he had been chosen because he had some experience before the war in the bush when he was a pig-shooter. The fact he had recently recovered from a bout of dengue fever that was sufficiently serious to require hospitalisation did not appear to be a factor. He was unable to explain why the Army would choose to use inexperienced recruits to undertake a mission that should have been left to experienced soldiers like commandos.

11.     Mr Poppi said the rescue party was flown in a small plane to an isolated airstrip located behind enemy lines in New Guinea. The respondent’s experts queried whether this could have been accomplished within the time and over the distances alleged by the applicant. But Mr Poppi insists the flight occurred, even if he was unclear what sort of aircraft was used and the amount of time it took to complete the journey.

12.     Each member of the rescue party carried a pistol without any spare ammunition. They were also provided with poison pills so they could commit suicide if they were in danger of being captured. The respondent denied there was any record of Australian soldiers being issued with suicide pills. Mr Poppi also testified that he was instructed to shoot the rescued prisoners if there was a chance of them being recaptured during the course of their escape. That was a startling revelation.

13.     In addition to their weapons, each soldier carried enough food and water to last for ten days. They also carried additional supplies to sustain the five serviceman they intended to rescue on the five-day return journey. Each solider must have been burdened with an exceptionally heavy load. Mr Poppi confirmed the rescue party did not encounter any fresh water or food sources at any point during the mission.

14.     The members of the rescue party scattered immediately after the plane landed. They then set off on their mission which involved a five-day trek through the jungle to the place where the Australian servicemen were being held by Japanese troops. The applicant said he cut a path through the jungle with his machete. The soldiers had to lie low when Japanese troops passed by. The applicant said he did not actually see any troops, but he heard them as they made their way down a jungle path towards the airstrip each day. It is not clear how the applicant knew the troops were bound for the airstrip. He also said he did not see any members of the native population as he hacked his way towards the objective.

15.     When the rescuers reached their objective, they found the five servicemen unguarded. The captives were apparently in very poor health. Even so, Mr Poppi says the party of ten returned the way it had come, taking care to avoid Japanese troops en route. They reached the airfield five days later. The rescue aircraft flew into retrieve them the same afternoon. Mr Poppi said the rescue party did not have access to a radio, so it is unclear how the pilot of the aircraft knew it was safe to land at a sealed airstrip behind enemy lines. In any event, the applicant says the rescuers and the servicemen were returned to Australia.

16.     Mr Poppi said he returned to his unit after he landed. Captain Webb instructed the applicant and his comrades that they were not to tell anyone about the mission for 50 years. Mr Poppi says he obeyed that order and did not recount his experience to anyone until 1992.  Members of his family provided statements confirming that he told them about his adventures around that time.

17.     I accept Mr Poppi was a genuine witness who told a story he believed to be true, but I am not satisfied the events occurred as he described, or at all. I start with the fact that Army records do not refer to the mission. Indeed, the records suggest Mr Poppi was discharged from the Army to work in the cane fields by the time he was supposedly engaged in the mission. There is a confusing reference in the records to something occurring at the end of 1942, but it may be an error or it might refer to the disposition of the relevant file, as opposed to movements of Mr Poppi. There are no other reports that corroborate Mr Poppi’s account. That is surprising: Mr Stoner pointed out the Army was unlikely to suppress reports of a successful rescue mission during the dark days of 1942 when good news was in short supply. It also beggars belief that the Army would entrust an important mission of this kind to a small band of lightly-armed, minimally-trained recruits without any relevant experience of jungle warfare or first aid. The account of the mission – the issue of poison pills, one man with a machete cutting through the jungle, the unusually heavy load of supplies, the malnourished prisoners being sustained by chocolate and a pilot that blithely lands his aircraft on a sealed airstrip behind enemy lines – is also unlikely.

Conclusion

18.     The law requires that I be reasonably satisfied that Mr Poppi did undertake qualifying service. I cannot say for sure that his story is untrue; maybe it did happen just as he says. But I am not positively persuaded that the events described by Mr Poppi took place in New Guinea in 1942.  In those circumstances, and in light of my conclusions about his experiences in Townsville when he says he guarded unexploded bombs, the decision under review must be affirmed.

I certify that the 18 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Bernard J McCabe

Signed: ..........................[Sgd]...........................................................
  Michael Buckingham, Associate

Date of Hearing  28 May 2008
Date of Decision  10 June 2008

Applicant was self-represented, assisted by Mr M Foster

Solicitors for the respondent     Departmental advocate