Sandford and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB), which affirmed the Repatriation Commission's refusal of Mr Raymond Sandford's claim for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to be accepted as service-related. Mr Sandford, who served in the Royal Australian Navy between 1969 and 1979, including operational service in Vietnam, sought compensation for PTSD.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Sandford had a diagnosis of PTSD, and if so, whether that PTSD was war-caused or defence-caused, having regard to the applicable Statements of Principles. The court also needed to consider the appropriate rate of pension if the claim was successful. A key aspect of the determination involved distinguishing between "operational service" and "eligible defence service" and the different standards of proof that applied to each.

The court noted that the Repatriation Commission conceded that Mr Sandford had a valid diagnosis of PTSD. The court accepted the views of Dr Holm, given his historical connection with Mr Sandford, and also noted that an updated report from Dr Garg acknowledged the PTSD diagnosis. The court explained that the distinction between operational service and eligible defence service was significant because only operational service attracted the more generous "reasonable hypothesis" standard of proof under sections 120 and 120A of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), whereas eligible defence service was assessed under the less generous "reasonable satisfaction" standard of proof in sections 120(4) and 120B of the Act.

The court found that Mr Sandford had rendered both operational service in Vietnam and eligible defence service. The determination of whether the PTSD was war-caused or defence-caused would proceed by reference to the relevant Statements of Principles, with the applicable standard of proof depending on the type of service.