Voelker and Repatriation Commission (Veterans’ entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Voelker against a decision of the Repatriation Commission regarding his veteran's entitlements. The dispute centred on whether Mr Voelker suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), generalised anxiety disorder, and alcohol use disorder, and if so, whether these conditions were war-caused. The case was heard by Deputy President K Bean of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Voelker had experienced a traumatic event or events during his operational service in Vietnam, which is a necessary criterion for a diagnosis of PTSD according to the DSM-5. Additionally, the Tribunal was required to determine if Mr Voelker's diagnosed conditions, including PTSD, generalised anxiety disorder, and alcohol use disorder, were war-caused, necessitating consideration of the "Deledio steps" in relation to the latter two conditions.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Mr Voelker experienced apprehension and felt under threat during his service, and his treating psychiatrist suspected PTSD, there was no direct evidence of a specific traumatic event. Despite counsel for Mr Voelker arguing that he should not be penalised for memory loss and that the Tribunal should consider difficulties in ascertaining facts under subsection 119(1)(h) of the VE Act, the Tribunal found that this provision did not permit substituting a presumption for absent evidence. Citing the Full Federal Court in *Repatriation Commission v Bawden*, the Tribunal held that a finding of a traumatic event is indispensable for a PTSD diagnosis. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Voelker met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, nor that any of his claimed conditions were war-caused.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, refusing Mr Voelker's claims for PTSD, generalised anxiety disorder, and alcohol use disorder.