Renton and Repatriation Commission

[2007] AATA 1621

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1621

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  Q 200600936

VETERANS’ APPEALS  DIVISION		)
Re		Donald Keith Renton

Applicant

And Repatriation Commission

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member B J McCabe

Date2 August 2007

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The decisions under review are affirmed.

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

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements – service related conditions – causation – date of onset of alcohol dependence – not war-caused – decisions under review affirmed

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82

Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331

Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

REASONS FOR DECISION

2 August 2007 Senior Member B J McCabe         

1.      Mr Donald Renton suffers from a number of conditions, including generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence. He says those conditions are related to his war service in Vietnam. He applied for a disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act1986 (the Act). The Veterans Review Board accepted the applicant’s anxiety condition was war-caused but affirmed the Repatriation Commission’s decision to reject the claim in respect of alcohol dependence. Mr Renton has now asked the Tribunal to reconsider his claim.

2.      The parties agree the applicant suffers from an alcohol dependence condition. I accept the medical evidence to that effect. The question is whether the condition is related to his war service. That determination must be made having regard to s 120 of the Act. The Full Federal Court in Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 said it was necessary to follow a four-step reasoning process in the application of s 120 where a claim is made in respect of periods of operational service. I do not make findings of fact until the final step.

3.      At the outset of the hearing, the applicant suggested (and the respondent agreed) the outcome of the case turned on my assessment of the veracity of the applicant’s story – in other words, I was encouraged to accept the first three steps in the Deledio process were not in issue. The applicant pointed out the third step in particular was satisfied because the applicant had been shot at outside a bar in Saigon in 1970. I was told he experienced a severe stressor within the meaning of the relevant statement of principles. The outcome of the case turned on whether I believed the applicant’s account of what happened that night – in other words, whether I accepted the fourth step in the Deledio process was concluded in the applicant’s favour. I was also told it would be necessary for me to determine the date of onset of the applicant’s condition. The applicant said the condition either began after (and because of) the incidents he described in Saigon, or – if he was found to have already been a heavy drinker when the incidents occurred – his drinking substantially increased afterwards so that the incidents could be said to have aggravated a pre-existing…