Travers and Repatriation Commission

[2005] AATA 1040

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1040

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2004/1054

VETERANS'  APPEALS  DIVISION		)
Re		MICHAEL TRAVERS

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Bell, Senior Member
Dr J D Campbell, Member

Date20 October 2005

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

................[sgd]................

Ms N Bell
  Presiding Member  

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Vietnam Veteran - Claim for Alcohol Dependence and Generalised Anxiety Disorder Conditions to be Recognised as War Caused – Eligible and Operational Service – Application Failed in Last Stage of ‘Deledio’ Test – Decision Under Review Affirmed

Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986, section 120

Statement of Principles Instrument No 1 of 2000

Statement of Principles Instrument No 76 of 1998

Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261

Hardman v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCAFC 83

Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1993) 175 CLR 408

East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517

Repatriation Commission v Lees (2002) 36 AAR 484

White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 39 AAR 67

REASONS FOR DECISION

20 October 2005 Ms N Bell, Senior Member
Dr J D Campbell, Member

1.      Mr Travers served in the Australian Army for 2 years from 3 February 1966.  His service from 17 February 1967 until 13 December 1967 was operational service, including service in Vietnam, and eligible war service within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act).

2.      Mr Travers claims that he suffers from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence and claimed a disability pension for these conditions.  The Repatriation Commission accepted his claim and paid a pension at 60% of the General Rate.  Mr Travers applied to the Veterans’ Review Board seeking an increase in the rate but, before the matter was reviewed by the Board, the Commission cancelled his pension on the basis that his generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence are not war caused.   The Board affirmed that decision.

3.      Mr Travers claimed that a number of stressful incidents during his service caused the onset of symptoms of generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence in 1968.  In the alternative, Mr Travers contended that, in addition to generalised anxiety disorder, he first suffered alcohol abuse and later alcohol dependence.  He also contended, in the further alternative, that his alcohol dependence or abuse arose out of his psychiatric disorder.

4.      The Commission agreed that Mr Travers suffers from generalised anxiety disorder but contended the condition had its clinical onset in approximately 1980.  The Commission also agreed that Mr Travers suffers from alcohol dependence but did not concede that he suffers from alcohol abuse.

5.      The Commission disputed that the stressful incidents contested by Mr Travers occurred as described by him or at all and disputed that they affected him in the way he claimed.

6.      The date of clinical onset of Mr Travers’ conditions is important because, as will be seen below, this is a requirement in certain of the Statements of Principle (SoPs) that play a crucial role in the assessment…