Thomas and Repatriation Commission

[2005] AATA 184

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 184

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2004/649

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		JOHN THOMAS

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member PM McDermott

Date7 March 2005  

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.  

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

PM McDermott
  Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – pensions benefits and entitlements - whether applicant’s accepted conditions of generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence/abuse are war caused – incident not a severe psychosocial stressor – incident not a severe stressor – decision under review affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 s119, 120, 120B.

White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 39 AAR 67; [2004] FCA 633
O’Neil v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1492
Delahunty v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 309

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193

REASONS FOR DECISION

7 March 2005 Senior Member PM McDermott

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant in this matter, Mr John Thomas, has operational service as a national serviceman in Malaya from 10 August 1966 until 25 August 1967.  He also has eligible defence service in the Australian Army from 7 December 1972 to 12 January 1982.

2.      The applicant has accepted service-related disabilities relating to an internal derangement of his right knee, allergic rhinitis and bilateral sensor neural hearing loss with tinnitus. 

3.      On 4 September 2002 the applicant lodged a claim with the respondent for “generalised anxiety disorder” and “substance dependence - alcohol”. On 12 February 2004 a delegate of the respondent determined that the applicant’s conditions of generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence or abuse were not war caused and this decision was affirmed by the Veteran’s Review Board on 1 June 2004.  For his claim to be accepted the applicant’s conditions must be war caused in relation to either operational or eligible defence service.

The 1981 Incident

4.      The applicant gave evidence that in mid 1981 he was driving to work at 7am in order to attend a gym parade at Enoggera Barracks.  He was proceeding along Enoggera Road when a cyclist went immediately in front of his vehicle. The applicant was proceeding at a speed of about 50 km per hour. 

5.      The cyclist was propelled though the windscreen of the applicant’s vehicle and, after hitting the steering wheel, fell to the road away from his sight.  The applicant then thought that he had killed the cyclist.  After he stopped he saw the cyclist who was “spinning”.  The applicant called the police who knew of the cyclist and who then took the cyclist away.

6.      This incident does not appear to have been documented in any available service record or police report.  The absence of any service record does not  necessarily disadvantage the applicant: see Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986, s119 (1)(h)(ii). I accept that the incident occurred and that it occurred while the applicant was performing eligible defence service.

7.      After the applicant arrived at work one of his work colleagues had commented that he looked like he had “seen…