Re Stonehouse and Repatriation Commission

[2004] AATA 707

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 707

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2002/283

VETERANS' APPEALS  DIVISION		)
Re		DOUGLAS STONEHOUSE

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Bernard McCabe
Major-General J Stein, Member

Date 2 July 2004

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

BJ McCabe
  Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS AFFAIRS – pensions and entitlements – applicant claims anxiety disorder is service related – whether applicant experienced a severe psychosocial stressor – meaning of the term severe psychosocial stressor – whether clinical onset occurred within two years of severe psychosocial stressor – decision affirmed

VETERANS AFFAIRS – pensions and entitlements – applicant claims alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence is service related – whether applicant experienced a severe stressor – whether applicant suffers alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence – decision affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Demczuk v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 1188
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
O’Neil v Repatriation Commission (2001) 34 AAR 290
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879
McKenna v Repatriation Commission [1999] FCA 323
Krause and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 359
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300

REASONS FOR DECISION

2 July 2004   Senior Member Bernard McCabe
Major-General J Stein, Member   

1.        This is an application for review of a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (the VRB) of 14 February 2002.  The VRB affirmed the Repatriation Commission’s decision of 13 September 2000 as varied by the Commission on 28 September 2001. The Commission decided the applicant’s conditions of anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence or abuse are not war caused.

2. The matter was heard by the Tribunal on 9-10 March 2004. The applicant was represented by Mr Harding. The respondent was represented by Mr Kelly, a departmental advocate. The documents submitted pursuant to s37 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 were tendered in evidence.  Also in evidence were:

• Statement of the applicant dated 2 July 2002;
• Undated statement of J. Durick;
• Two statutory declarations of Mervyn Ward dated 12 March 2002
• A statement of Mervyn Ward dated 1 August 2003;
• A statement of Ian Hunger dated 30 July 2003;
• A statement of Malcolm Wheat dated 10 August 2003;
• A statement of William Krause dated 28 July 2003;
• A statement of William Reilly dated 22 July 2003;
• A report of Dr Wainwright dated 28 October 2002;
• A report of Dr Carter dated 8 May 2003;
• A Writeway Research report dated 7 March 2003

• An extract from a Naval Ratings Handbook.

Several witnesses also gave evidence at the hearing:

• The applicant;
           • Joseph Durick;
           • Mervyn Ward;
           • Ian Hunter;
           • Malcolm Wheat;
           • William Krause;
           • William Reilly;

• Dr Janice Carter; and

• Dr Wainwright.

The Facts

3.          The applicant served with the Royal Australian Navy from 14 January 1963 until 13 January 1972.  For the purposes of the Veterans’…