Wegener and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 134 (12 February 2003)

Last Updated: 13 February 2003

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 134

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No S2002/80

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION	)
	Re	JEFFREY GORDON WEGENER

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Senior Member J.A. Kiosoglous MBE

Date 12 February 2003

Place Adelaide

Decision

The decision under review is affirmed

(signed)

J.A. Kiosoglous MBE

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' AFFAIRS - operational service - whether generalised anxiety disorder war-caused - meaning of "experiencing a severe psycho-social stressor" - relevant Statement of Principles.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 SS9 120(1) 120(3) 120A,

Statement of Principles, Instrument No. 1 of 2000,

Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193

REASONS FOR DECISION

12 February 2003

Senior Member J.A. Kiosoglous MBE

1. This is an application for review by Jeffrey Gordon Wegener (the applicant) of a decision of a delegate of the respondent dated 22 November 2000 (T10) as affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) dated 13 February 2002 (T2) rejecting the applicant's claimed condition of anxiety disorder as war caused.

2. The Tribunal received into evidence the documents lodged pursuant to Section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (T1-T18), together with nine exhibits, three lodged by the applicant (Exhibits A1-A3) and six lodged by the respondent (Exhibits R1-R6). In addition, the Tribunal heard evidence from the applicant; his wife, Mrs Gwenneth Joy Wegener; and Dr Martyn Robert Ewer, psychiatrist, whilst the respondent called Mr John Terrence Owens, military historian. The applicant was represented by Mr Andrew Burnett, of counsel, and Mr Greg Doube, a departmental advocate, represented the respondent.

ISSUE

3. The issue before the Tribunal is whether or not the applicant's condition of anxiety disorder is war caused within the meaning of Section 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (The Act).

HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION

4. The applicant was born on 19 December 1939 and served in the Royal Australian Airforce from 17 March 1958 to 16 March 1964. He rendered operational service within the meaning of the Act by virtue of his assignment in Ubon, Thailand with Base Squadron Ubon from 14 August 1963 to 6 November 1963.

5. On 25 July 2000 the applicant lodged a claim for the acceptance of anxiety disorder as war caused (T5). A delegate of the respondent refused the claimed condition of anxiety disorder as being war caused on 22 November 2000 (T10). This was affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) on 13 February 2002 (T2). An application was lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 20 March 2002 (T1).

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

6. The parties agreed that the applicable Statement of Principles (SOP) is that relevant for Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD), namely Statement Number 1 of 2000 (T18/100).

7. SOP No. 1 of 2000 provides (inter alia):

"Kind of injury, disease or death

2. (a) This Statement of Principles is about anxiety disorder and

death from anxiety disorder.

(b) For the purposes of this Statement of Principles, "anxiety

disorder" is defined as the anxiety spectrum disorders of generalised anxiety disorder, or anxiety disorder due to a general medical condition, or anxiety disorder not otherwise specified, attracting ICD-10-AM code F06.4, F41.1, F41.8 or F41.9. This definition excludes the other anxiety spectrum disorders: post traumatic stress disorder, acute stress disorder, phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, adjustment disorder with anxiety, panic disorder and agoraphobia.

Basis for determining the factors

3. The Repatriation Medical Authority is of the view that there is sound

medical-scientific evidence that indicates that anxiety disorder and death from anxiety disorder can be related to relevant service rendered by veterans, members of Peacekeeping Forces, or members of the Forces.

Factors that must be related to service

4. Subject to clause 6, at least one of the factors set out in clause 5 must be related to any relevant service rendered by the person.

Factors

5. The factors that must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting anxiety disorder or death from anxiety disorder with the circumstances of a person's relevant service are:

(a) for generalised anxiety disorder or anxiety disorder not

otherwise specified, only

...

(ii) experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor within the

two years immediately before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder; or

...

Other definitions

8. For the purposes of this Statement of Principles:

...

"generalised anxiety disorder" means a psychiatric disorder with the following features:

A. Excessive anxiety and worry (apprehensive expectation), which occur

on more days than not for a continuous period of at least six months, about a number of events or activities; and

B. The person finds it difficult to control the worry; and

C. The anxiety and worry are associated with three or more of the

following six symptoms, with at least some symptoms present for more days than not during the previous six month period:

(1) restlessness or feeling keyed up or on edge

(2) being easily fatigued

(3) difficulty concentrating or mind going blank

(4) irritability

(5) muscle tension

(6) difficulty falling or staying asleep, or restless unsatisfying sleep;

and

D. The focus of the anxiety and worry is not confined to features of any

other Axis I disorder; and

E. The anxiety, worry, or physical symptoms (as described in C. above)

cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning; and

F. The anxiety and worry are not due to the direct physiological effects of

a substance or a general medical condition and do not occur exclusively during a mood disorder, a psychotic disorder, or a pervasive developmental disorder;

...

"relevant service" means:

(a) operational service; or

(b) peacekeeping service; or

(c) hazardous service;

"severe psychosocial stressor" means an identifiable occurrence that evokes feelings of substantial distress in an individual, for example, being shot at, death or serious injury of a close friend or relative, assault (including sexual assault), loss of employment, major financial problems or legal problems;

..."

LEGISLATION

8. Subsections 120 (1) and 120 (3) and Section 120A of the Act set out the standard of proof which applies in relation to the alleged connection between the applicant's anxiety disorder and his operational service. The Tribunal is required to find that the applicant's generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) was war-caused unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for making that finding. Subsections 120(1) and 120(3) of the Act provide:

6. Subsection 120(1) and 120(3) of the Act provide:

"...

120 Standard of Proof

(1) Where a claim under Part II for a pension in respect of the

incapacity from injury or disease of a veteran, or of the death of a veteran, relates to the operational service rendered by the veteran, the Commission shall determine that the injury was a war-caused injury, that the disease was a war-caused disease or that the death of the veteran was war caused, as the case may be, unless it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination.

(3) In applying subsection (1) or (2) in respect of the incapacity of a

person from injury or disease, or in respect of the death of a person, related to service rendered by the person, the Commission shall be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for determining:

(a) that the injury was a war-caused injury or a defence-

caused injury;

(b) that the disease was a war-caused disease or a defence-

caused disease; or

(c) that the death was war-caused or defence-caused;

as the case may be if the Commission, after consideration of the whole of the material before it, is of the opinion that the material before it does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the injury, disease or death with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the person."

..."

APPLICANT'S EVIDENCE

9. The applicant referred to his written statement (Exhibit A2).

10. The applicant enlisted on 17 March 1958 and was discharged on 16 March 1964. He rendered operational service for one period whilst at Ubon, northern Thailand namely from 14 August 1963 to 6 November 1963. After undergoing recruit training and being stationed at various bases within Australia he was on 14 August 1963 posted at Ubon. He was married in March 1960 and his last posting in Australia prior to going to Ubon was at Edinburgh, South Australia. At that stage he had one child and his wife was pregnant with their second child. His wife accompanied him on his postings within Australia. The only time they were separated was because of service or if posted elsewhere the time it took him to find accommodation when she would then join him. She did not accompany him when he went to Ubon but remained in Elizabeth East in a Housing Trust house allotted to RAAF personnel for the purpose of people living off the Edinburgh base.

11. Whilst posted at Edinburgh and living at Elizabeth East the applicant described his social life as being very outgoing, his wife's parents lived close by at Birdwood and visited each other frequently. He also stated that he and his wife used to go shopping together all the time, to the cinema, to friends' barbecues and friends would attend at their house for birthdays. He described their social life as being very active. They now have a daughter and four sons with the second child being born whilst he was in Ubon.

12. The applicant stated that his duties in Ubon were of a clerical nature except for one occasion when he also undertook guard watch duty. His duties entailed filing and dealing with general correspondence. He considered that he always did well and enjoyed doing that sort of work. The base upon which he served was an RAAF Australian base which had a fence around it. The fence was about nine or ten feet high made of wooden posts and with fencing wire along the bottom and barb wired at the top. There was also a gate allowing entry into the base which was guarded by Thai military personnel.

13. The applicant recalled that he did guard duty singly on one occasion and this was at night. Others also from the clerical section did this but on a rotation basis. He stated that he was issued with a rifle and one round of ammunition which, on instructions, was kept in his pocket. He also stated that he performed this guard duty some 250-300 metres away from the Thai military on guard at the main gate. No others were on guard duty at the same time. He stated that he could not recall being given any specific orders in relation to the purpose of performing the guard duties and assumed that it was for the security of the base and the people contained therein.

14. He stated that on the outside section of the base perimeter fence was a road. On the night he performed guard duties the road was being used by the local Thai people who were mainly on foot with a few travelling on rickshaws/samlors. He stated that very few motor vehicles went past. He described the traffic as being light to medium and that he did not understand the Thai language. As to the lighting in that vicinity he stated that there was some lighting outside the base but that it was not very bright. He stated that some of the people who were on foot walked up to the perimeter fence. He stated that he did not like the idea of standing this guard duty but he had to do it. He further stated that he felt terrible whilst actually performing that guard duty.

15. The applicant, who was aged about 23 years at the time, elaborated his concern by explaining that it was at the time of the Vietnam conflict and he did not know if the people at the fence were enemy or not. He was also afraid in the event that they had a knife or other weapon concealed in their clothing. He stated he found being in that position as being extremely difficult. He also stated that this duty was from 8pm until 6am the next morning. The weather that night was fine but humid. On completing his guard duty he went to bed. When the time came in the afternoon to commence his normal duties he was unable to do so because he felt "terrible".. He stated he was shaking, sweating and just did not feel himself at all. He further stated that he had never felt like that before. When asked how he had felt the day before whilst performing his normal tasks he stated he was fine. He stated that instead of commencing his normal duties he was in fact admitted to the Australian base hospital at Ubon. He believed that at the time of the guard duty he had been at Ubon for some two months.

16. At the time of the guard duty his wife had not yet given birth to their second child. He stated that he felt just like any husband would feel being away from his wife and she being pregnant. He agreed that he felt concern. He also said that the concern in relation to being separated from his wife while she was pregnant was not the same feelings he felt when performing guard duties.

17. He stated that he was in the hospital between two and three days and was given some injections that enabled him to rest. He stated that after that he was transferred to the British Military Hospital in Singapore as he was depressed and tearful. He further stated that he had been escorted to Singapore and was placed in the psychiatric unit of the hospital. The applicant stated that it was his wish at that time to become well and get back to his duties at Ubon as he intended to make the airforce his whole career in life. He stated that his depressive state made him feel like a coward. After being in the British Military Hospital for some two weeks or more he stated he was escorted by a medical orderly to Spas Malaysia (Butterworth), a RAAF base with quite a sizeable base hospital where he was admitted. He stated that he remained there for some two and a half weeks receiving treatment and medication.

18. The applicant stated that at that point he did not know what was wrong with him and that no medical staff had indicated to him what may be wrong with him. He stated that he in fact wondered why he was in the psychiatric unit. After he left the hospital at Spas, under medical escort he was sent back to Australia to the base hospital at Laverton, Victoria. At this base hospital he was told by a doctor that he had "put on an act to get back to Australia early". The doctor never told the applicant the basis for this assertion nor did he ask the doctor what he meant by that. The applicant stated that he thought this to be a very shameful thing to say to him. The applicant stated that at this time his wife had given birth to their second child.

19. On his return to Australia before going on to Laverton the applicant landed in Darwin and stayed the night there. He went to Laverton the next day. He said that the first he knew of the baby's birth was when he was in Singapore. He could not be sure because he said there seemed to be a lack of communication between the RAAF and his wife. He said that she did not even know of his being transferred from Ubon to the British Military Hospital in Singapore. He said she only found out about his being in Australia when he rang her from Darwin. He stated that his condition was such that when he heard of the birth of the child he treated it as being just another occurrence and he lacked enthusiasm.

20. After being at the Laverton base hospital for approximately three weeks he was sent home to Adelaide. He reunited with his wife at the Elizabeth East home and saw his first child and new born second child. He stated that about after a fortnights' recreation leave he reported back to the Edinburgh base for duty. He undertook normal clerical duties for a period of about three months when he was discharged. The applicant stated that he was offered re-engagement during this period. When asked what he meant by this he stated he was offered another period of service at the conclusion of his then six year period. He stated that he declined the offer because of the way he felt, namely that there was no point in continuing on with the air force.

21. The applicant stated that he could recall being on medication in the final phase of his service in the air force. He believed he was on Tofranil, anti-depressant tablets. He was still on this medication when he left the air force and when back in Adelaide he went and saw his family doctor, Dr Mintz, who was also an ex-air force doctor.

22. The applicant stated that when in Ubon he at no stage left the base by himself but did so in a group and go to a bar for the purpose of relaxing and socialising with each other. He did not socialise with any of the local Thai people. He stated that because he was with a group of his colleagues he never at all felt threatened by the local people.

23. The applicant started to appreciate his condition when he came to realise he was not socialising with people any more and that he was not treating his wife and family the way he should have been treating them. He stated he has experienced this condition for some 40 years but that it has only been in the last five or six years that he has realised what is wrong with him and that he is still under heavy medication. He is currently taking anti-depressants, Efexor, prescribed by his local general practitioner.

24. The applicant stated that on his return to Australia he never discussed with his wife what happened in Ubon. He stated that on his return his wife realised that he was not the same person that went to Ubon and he did not want her to think that he was a coward or a totally different person to whom she married. He stated that he had always found it hard to discuss his problem as he was worried of what they may think of him.

25. In cross-examination the applicant agreed that he was 20 years of age when he married and his wife was 19 years. At the time of being posted to Ubon he was 23 years of age and the first child was between 2 and 3 years of age. He was unable to recall the date of his second child but thought his wife may have been between 6 and 7 months pregnant when he went to Ubon.

26. The applicant agreed that prior to going to Ubon he had never been separated from his wife. When asked how he felt about the prospect of being separated from his wife just as she was about to give birth the applicant stated that that was part of the line of duty and service life. He stated he did not particularly feel worried about it nor feel agitated. He further stated that he expected to be away for around about 6 months. He was "pretty sure" that the posting was for 6 months and not a year. When asked if the timeframe away could have been different the applicant stated that if such was the case then it would have been a shorter time and not a longer time. He was fairly sure that others stayed there 6 months.

27. He agreed that his duties were clerical. He further described the facilities of the base including the buildings and what they were made from. He also again gave details of the fence around the base. He agreed that he did guard duty at Ubon on only one occasion. He stated that he had done guard duty on an occasion prior to that but that was in Darwin when stationed there. He stated that in Darwin guard duty was done on a roster basis and that he had done it about 5 or 6 times. He agreed that his one stint of guard duty at Ubon took place about 2 months after he arrived there. He agreed that this guard duty may have been in middle October 1963.

28. The applicant stated that he was given a rifle and his instructions were to just do guard duty. He agreed that he had to stand inside the sentry box holding the weapon. He could not recall when he was told he had to do sentry duty but he thought he was just told. He did not talk to others who had done sentry duty about it. When asked if he had been told on arrival in Ubon that sentry duty would be a part of duties on a roster basis, the applicant stated that he could not recollect being told. He stated that the first he heard about it could have been a month or two after he arrived there. He stated that although it didn't strike him as being particularly palatable it was part of the job. As far as he could recollect he agreed that he knew in advance that his turn would come around.

29. When asked about his feelings in advance of his doing sentry duty he stated it was like doing guard duty in Australia except that the population at Ubon was indigenous. He also agreed that to the best of his recollection he was the only one on sentry duty between the RAAF base and the main gate at which there were Thai guards. He stated that he was alone on duty and never spoke to anyone for the whole time between 8pm and 6am the next morning. He stated that he was to the best of his recollection about 250 to 300 metres away from the Thai guards. He believed it to be further than 100 metres away.. When put to him that he told Dr Ewer and the VRB that the distance between him and the Thai guards was 100 metres the applicant stated that he made an error and that he was being asked to recall events that happened 40 years ago. As far as he could recollect the distance was further than 100 metres.

30. The applicant again stated that the traffic flow was light to medium with more people on foot. He stated that some of them came up to the fence and that he was not that far away from the fence on guard duty.. He also stated that the lights were not really bright but he could see the people and that they could see him. He stated that they stopped to talk but he did not understand the language and so they moved on. He agreed that he had previously stated that people were dressed in such a way that they could possibly have concealed weapons such as guns and knives. He described the clothing worn as being very loose fitting and different to the clothing worn in Australia.

31. The applicant was asked during cross examination what was happening at that stage in October 1963 in reference to Vietnam. The applicant stated that he had guessed that there was going to be a conflict in Vietnam. He stated that the basis for guessing that was because of their being shipped to Ubon and he suspected that it was part of the build up of Vietnam. He agreed that Australia did not send troops to Vietnam until 1965, some two years later. He stated that he believed that this was why they had been sent to Ubon in the first place He stated that there had been talk about problems in North Vietnam and that he suspected this himself. He further stated that Thailand was a friendly SEATO country. He was told that Australia was also a SEATO country and he did not dispute this. He stated that he did not think that the RAAF being at Ubon was part of an agreement of exchange between SEATO countries.

32. The applicant stated that with the American base close by and an airstrip used by both the Americans and the Thai he suspected that there was something going to happen. He agreed that nothing happened the night he was on guard duty and that whilst he was on guard no one tried to trespass on the base. He further agreed that no one had tried to pilfer anything and that there was no incident.

33. The applicant agreed that after his guard duties he went to bed to sleep. He could not recall if he had returned the rifle with the one round of ammunition. In going to bed he stated that he had not discussed it with anyone before that. He stated that when he awoke he was feeling bad and it was then that he went to the base hospital. He was unable to recall the time he woke up as it was too long ago but believed it was before lunch. He stated that he thought the guard duty and then going to sleep and waking up feeling bad was before his wife gave birth to their second child.

34. The applicant stated that when he went to the base hospital he told them he wasn't feeling well. He stated he could not recall telling them that he had had a harrowing night and fearful doing guard duty. He further stated that he could not recall saying anything about his anxiety as a result of this uneventful one night of guard duty. He stated that he was unable to recall everything as 40 years had elapsed but believed he must have seen a doctor at the hospital as he was admitted straight away and given injections. He agreed that he was not referred to the hospital but went of his own volition. He also stated that the hospital personnel must have suspected that there was something up. He stated this was the first time he had ever been to hospital in Ubon and that he was unable to recall if he had been to the outpatients department at all for any other treatment, not even for any stress related problem.

35. The applicant stated that he was in the hospital for about 2 or 3 days and was given injections that made him "feel right out of it, lapsing between sleeping and waking". He could not recall being told what might be wrong with him nor did he recall being questioned. In fact he was sure he had not been questioned. He agreed that he was then admitted to the British Military Hospital, Psychiatric Unit, in Singapore. He stated that he was not told why he was sent there. He stated he did not complain about feelings of anxiety about being separated from his wife. He stated he was unable to recall the circumstances when he first heard about the birth of his second child. He thought he may have found this out when in Singapore.

36. The applicant agreed that on his return to Australia but before discharge he had been offered another re-engagement for six years but he declined this because he didn't feel as though he could go on with it any more. He stated that this offer was put to him by his superior officer at Edinburgh. He stated that he was not advised prior to this that he would not be recommended for re-engagement and that on his discharge certificate it showed his "conduct and everything was exemplary".. He further stated that the discharge certificate showed the reason for discharge as being "termination of period of enlistment".

37. The applicant stated that he had been told by RAAF doctors that he was an immature personality, that was homesick, and that he had carried on like this as he wanted to come back to Australia from Ubon. Having stated this the applicant then went on to say that if such was the case then why had he not fully recovered on his return and that his anxiousness has been ongoing now for 40 years. When put to him that on reading through his Service documents there is a consistent history given by him to medical officers examining him of worry, agitation, anxiety, and concerned with the separation from his wife but no reference of mention of anxiety problems caused by guard duty, the applicant stated he did not mention it to anyone because he didn't want to be known as a coward. He further stated that he had not even mentioned it to his wife for many years. He also stated that he had never had any domestic problems with his wife.

38. The applicant was referred to an outpatient clinical record document (T4/31) and in particular to an entry dated 21 August 1963, being exactly one week after his arrival at Ubon, which stated

"Agitated and worried re no news of wife - She is 9 months pregnant and now one week overdue. Reassured."

The clinical record also indicated that he was given some medication. The applicant in response stated that he could not recall this.

39. A further notation in that document was put to the applicant regarding an entry dated 5 September 1963, namely

"Again worried re wife and lack of news (actually known to be OK 4 days ago). Reassured."

The notation shows that he was again given more medication. When asked if he had any recollection of this the applicant's response was "If it's written there, its written there, that's right."

40. The applicant was referred to another outpatient clinical record (T4/33) and in particular to an entry dated 30 October 1963 wherein there is mentioned that he "had a lot of domestic trouble but at present these seem to have squared themselves out." It further stated that the applicant has always been a nervous individual. He responded when asked if he could recall telling the doctor these things by saying that he and his wife have never had domestic trouble and he would never have said that. He could not account for that notation.

41. It was also put to the applicant that in the same entry it stated

"His domestic affairs he discussed with his CO, Squadron Leader Law at some length. Squadron Leader Law contacted me earlier about his man because of his anxiety state re his family."

In response the applicant stated that any normal person would have some small concern about the family and that you would not be human if you didn't. He also stated in cross-examination that he is allowed to have some anxiety about his own family.

42. It was put to the applicant that when asked if he had discussed his anxiety problems with anyone at all during the course of this illness he had earlier indicated that he had not but that the records showed that he appeared to have discussed it with his CO. The applicant was asked if this was the actual situation. In response he stated that

"If it's written there well I must have."

He also stated that he could not recall doing so. As to what happened with his wife he said that this only happened in recent times which he identified as being when he lodged his claim around July 2000 and could not recall doing so before this.

43. As to his evidence that he had been offered re-engagement in about January-February 1964 just before discharge he stated that to his knowledge he had never been advised that he would not be offered re-engagement. The applicant was referred to an entry in an outpatient clinical record (T4/37) dated 4 December 1963 written whilst he was at the Butterworth base (Malaya) saying that he was interviewed on that day and wherein was written, inter alia,

In conversation he demonstrated insight into his medical situation to the extent that whatever discussion centres about his possible future in civilian life (his Re-engagement has apparently "NOT Recommended")."

In response the applicant stated that he was 100 per cent sure that he was offered it at Edinburgh by a Wing Commander whose name he could not recall.

44. A letter from the Butterworth RAAF base to the Laverton RAAF base hospital dated 17 December 1963 (T4/46) stated therein, inter alia,

"At that unit he was also advised that his re-engagement, due in February 1964, would not be recommended."

When put to him the applicant still maintained that he was offered re-engagement in 1964. He stated that he does not remember ever being advised of no re-engagement.

45. Whilst he could not remember complaining of feeling homesick the applicant stated that he may have done so. He also stated that he could not recall asking why he had been admitted to the psychiatric unit at the British Medical Hospital. He agreed that he was asked some questions but could not recall what they were nor could he recall the history he gave at that time. He was referred to another notation (T4/43) which stated that the applicant was assessed for `mood swings' and

"Background: Australian family. Nothing of psychological significance. Said to have a reasonable record in the RAAF, but now confesses an unhappiness at being separated from his family."

He could not recall saying this. When further put to him

"Opinion: This airman is not suffering from any pathological mental disorder, but is a somewhat immature inadequate type sho is finding that Service life is now conflicting with his family affairs. He has openly confessed to his strong desire to get back to Australia as quickly as possible."

the applicant said that it was the writer's opinion and that he could not recall saying that Service life was conflicting with his family life.

46. When put to the applicant he could recall having said during the hearing that on the birth of his second child it was just another occurrence and he had no enthusiasm because of his condition. He could not recall when he was told of the birth of his second child whilst he was in the Singapore Hospital from 9 to 21 November 1963. He stated he did not know when the child was born but does know now. He said the child was born on 1 September 1963 when he was still in Ubon.

47. The applicant stated that he could not explain the fact that the child was born before his anxiety condition ever arose and about six weeks before he undertook the guard duty. When asked if he accepted that the anxiety condition could not possibly have been anything that could have affected his enthusiasm for the birth of the child, the applicant accepted this. When indicated to him in relation to the clinical record entry (T4/31) that on the day which she gave birth he was aware that she was okay he responded that he could not recall this.

48. The applicant stated that he was unable to recall filling in his discharge medical at the time he was discharged. He was then told that he was required to fill out a questionnaire prior to his discharge (T4/50) and to indicate what disabilities he had suffered from during his service and he did so stating `nerve trouble' in November 1963 to January 1964. The questionnaire at Question 14 also asked if he was claiming disabilities listed therein as being due to service or aggravated by service and to which he entered "NO".. When asked in cross examination if he believed it was due to his service or not the applicant responded "I don't recall".

EVIDENCE OF GWENNETH JOY WEGENER

49. Mrs Gwenneth Joy Wegener, wife of the applicant, referred to her written statement (Exhibit A3). She stated her occupation to be that of a care worker.

50. Mrs Wegener confirmed that the second child was a son, born on 1 September 1963, and that she vaguely remembered the Padre from Edinburgh calling on her before the birth and again soon after the birth. She thought the second occasion the Padre called on her may have been the day after the birth. She also thought the Padre as being the person that notified the applicant of the birth.

51. She stated in answer to question put to her that she never noticed any indications of anxiety in the applicant prior to his going to Ubon nor showed to be anxious about things nor nervous. She stated that he did not express to her any concerns about going away from her and their first child, a daughter. She stated that the applicant in fact was quite looking forward to it and he liked to travel.

52. She agreed in cross-examination that the applicant had been made aware of the birth of the baby within a short time of the birth. She also stated that as far as she can remember it was the Padre from Edinburgh who notified the applicant that the baby had been born and that she was okay. She stated that the applicant first discussed his problems regarding anxiety disorder with her about five years ago. Prior to that time she believed the applicant had been hospitalised having contracted some sort of tropical virus or something he had picked up.

53. Mrs Wegener stated that when the applicant had returned to Australia she saw him very thin, anxious and uncertain and a changed man. She agreed with the comment in her statement (Exhibit A3) that before he went to Ubon he was outgoing, friendly and hardworking. She stated that the applicant at the time explained his condition to have been caused by a tropical virus. She further stated that he had explained to her that when in Ubon the sanitary conditions were not good and that there was something in the water he drank.

54. She stated that about five years ago the applicant was getting worse and it was at about that time he told her that in Ubon he had had a breakdown, that he found it hard to come to terms with, and then told her about the guard duty incident. The first she and the family knew about the incident and his being in the psychiatric hospital was when the applicant received his service records which she saw. When asked what she recalled about the service records she stated that they suggested the applicant to be immature and homesick. She did not agree with this as he had been away from home before, and as to being immature he seemed to be coping with marriage and working to make ends meet. She stated that these comments just did not seem like the applicant. She said that she and the applicant had never discussed the problems he felt about their being separated while he was in Ubon.

DR MARTYN ROBERT EWER, PSYCHIATRIST

55. Dr Ewer prepared two reports, the first dated 15 November 2000 (T9) and the second dated 16 November 2001 (T16). He also stated that he undertook two reviews of the applicant as a result of which he diagnosed that the applicant was suffering from a generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence.

56. In his first report (T9) Dr Ewer stated that the applicant fulfils the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for a GAD. He believed that the applicant's GAD is directly related to the service in Thailand as he did not suffer an anxiety disorder prior to his active service and that there is a temporal relationship between the stresses described and the emergence of his GAD in the sense that the latter came on directly after the former. Dr Ewer suspected that the applicant was predisposed to developing anxiety and perceived he was under considerable threat whilst performing picket (guard) duty in Thailand.

57. In considering the applicant's impairment rating Dr Ewer attributed 95% of the applicant's impairment to his anxiety disorder and 5% to his alcohol abuse and stated that both are primary conditions. He further stated that the applicant cannot work eight hours per week because of his psychiatric illness which are service related.

58. Dr Ewer reiterated these findings in his second report (T16) in that his view was that the applicant's GAD is related to the eligible service. He further stated that the applicant was not anxious prior to going to Ubon. He also stated that the applicant developed psychiatric problems within a day or two of being alone in the sentry post. He noted this event was an identifiable occurrence and from the account given him by the applicant it certainly evoked feelings of substantial distress. He also emphasised that what one person finds severely stressful may not be stressful to another person. He stated that he believed that the applicant's alcohol dependence is also related to eligible service on the same basis of the reasoning for the GAD. On this occasion he attributed 90% of the impairment to the GAD and 10% to alcohol abuse. He stated that both are primary conditions. He further stated that the applicant cannot work 8 hours per week because of his psychiatric conditions which are service related.

59. In reference to the SOP's (T18/100) Dr Ewer was of the opinion that the applicant's operational service is connected to the anxiety disorder and as a result comes within Factor 5(a) (ii) namely,

"experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor within two years immediately before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder;"

60. Dr Ewer stated in his oral evidence that he was satisfied that the incident of the picket duty was the cause of the anxiety disorder. It was his opinion that the incident satisfies the definition of a severe psychosocial stressor. He explained that the applicant has described an identifiable occurrence, namely the picket duty. He further explained that the applicant then reports substantial distress. It was never denied by the applicant that prior to service he was prone to anxiety but that at no time prior to the incident in Ubon was there anything to show his suffering from a psychiatric disorder. He also stated that people perceive different events in different ways. In the applicant's case the subjective experience of the particular event is one of considerable emotional distress and that soon after the event the applicant developed a number of symptoms which would be recognised as an anxiety disorder. Dr Ewer described the applicant as becoming more anxious, experienced symptoms of depression, was worrying excessively and felt unable to cope with his duties.

61. Dr Ewer was of the understanding that an incident needed to be severe enough that it may lead to a psychiatric disorder. It was his opinion that the incident of the guard duty as described by the applicant falls into that category given the applicant's understanding and perception of events.

MR JOHN TERRENCE OWENS, MILITARY HISTORIAN

62. Mr Owens prepared a report dated 13 August 2002 (Exhibit R2) as well as testifying by telephone. He said that he spent 33 years in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), retiring in 1989 as an Air Commodore. He is now under contract though a company called "Write Way Research Service" doing research into claims. He stated that he adheres to and stands by the contents of his report.

63. Mr Owens was asked whether or not there was any local threat to RAAF units based at Ubon at that time being the last half of 1963, he set out in his report that the RAAF Squadron based in Ubon was there because of the SEATO protocol. They were there in preparation of deployment if required to confront communist aggression against SEATO States. The main task was to counter communist insurgents in Malaya, as it was then. The directive to the squadron when first deployed there set out its operational role which included the defence of Thailand. He stated that his deployment had nothing at all to do with the war in Vietnam which was still a low-level operation at that stage.

64. Mr Owens stated in his report, inter alia, that there was always a "threat" of action from communist insurgents but that in 1963 it was not assessed as high and no incidents at that time are recorded. He further stated therein that the situation at the RAAF base in Ubon, although uncomfortable and entailing hazards greater than service in Australia in peacetime, was not of such a nature that it could be classified warlike. He stated that this situation existed for at least the period May 1962 to June 1965.

65. Mr Owens also commented in this report of the likelihood of the applicant's duties including guard duty. He stated that responsibility for overall base security at Ubon belonged to the Thai military. He further stated that there is no official record of RAAF personnel being used for guard duties in 1963, or of the applicant in particular. Notwithstanding this, there is the view that it was possible that ground crew and base support personnel probably did guard duty and that this would have been most likely in the aircraft parking area and of a routine, bothersome nature. He also stated that though no official record exists, the applicant may have been rostered for guard duties and, if so, such would probably have been on the aircraft flight line.

66. In his oral evidence Mr Owens in reference to deployment to Ubon stated that during the period of concern in this current matter the RAAF Squadron was not at that stage linked with any activities in Vietnam. He agreed that the service in Ubon in relation to the Act is divided into two periods. The first period May 1962 to June 1965 being standard operational service and the period from June 1965 being the higher war-like service.

67. Mr Owens stated that Ubon was a relatively rural sort of area and in the period of August 1963 until November 1963 it was very much like an exercise deployment that the RAAF would have done in those days in places like Darwin. It was not a high-threat area and in fact it was "pretty peaceful".. He stated that the only difficulty people would have had was the fact they were separated from their families for the time or duration of the deployment in Ubon. There is no record of any specific threats to RAAF personnel in Ubon. He stated that Thailand was part of SEATO and was an ally of Australia at that stage.

68. Mr Owens agreed that the applicant has maintained that he considers that the stressor that caused the anxiety disorder was the one night of guard duty. He also agreed with his report which indicates that it was certainly possible that the applicant undertook guard duty while at the RAAF base in Ubon. Mr Owens had put to him that the applicant was given a rifle and one round of ammunition; the fact that he was on guard duty for a period of 10 hours from 8pm until 6am; and a description of the fence and the location of the guard duty. He found many of the allegations of the applicant as being unusual and in particular with the lengthy time of guard duty standing alone in a sentry box. He stated that the normal amount of time for guard duty is a period of 2 to 4 hours when one would then expect to be relieved. As to being armed he found this most unusual and generally all personnel were unarmed. He further stated that in the event of an alarm there was a practice procedure in operation which required personnel to go to the armoured section for a weapon and for the issue of ammunition if the threat was considered high enough.

69. In cross-examination Mr Owens stated that it was possible that the applicant was carrying a weapon but not have any ammunition. He stated that it was not unusual for people on guard duty to carry unarmed weapons. He agreed that he spoke to other people who were technical officers in Ubon and they were not aware of any personal danger during the time. He stated that the whole perception of the level of threat and the danger of the situation would vary from person to person, and it would depend on the person's assessment of their own situation.

70. In re-examination Mr Owens agreed that the perceived hazards did not include coming from local Thai people. However, he emphasised that it was dependent how one perceived and assessed the level of threat. He stated that local Thai people were very quiet, peaceful and easy going. He said that each person would have had a different perception of any danger to themselves. He also stated that the effect on people would depend on each persons personality and make up. He stated, however, that Ubon was generally regarded as quite a peaceful situation.

APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS

71. Mr Burnett submitted that Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193 outlines a four stage process in relation to making a conclusion. He submitted that firstly, it must be determined whether there is a reasonable hypothesis that arises connecting the circumstances of the relevant service with the claimed condition. He submitted that secondly, it must be determined whether a statement of principles exists, and thirdly, whether the hypothesis fits with the template of the SOP's and if it does then, fourthly, whether the reasonable hypothesis is disproved.

72. In relation to the first point Mr Burnett submitted that a reasonable hypothesis arises from the evidence put before the Tribunal with respect to the applicant's claim for anxiety disorder. He submitted that it arose from the severe psychosocial stressor experienced during the applicant's service in Ubon and that stressor was the requirement to stand guard duty on a particular night. He submitted that this meets the definition of severe psychosocial stressor as defined in clause 8 of the SOP's. He further submitted that the hypothesis raised with respect to the incident is reasonable with the claim condition.

73. As to the existence of a SOP's the Tribunal is satisfied that such does exist and being Instrument No. 1 of 2000. This is in accordance with the second requirement.

74. Mr Burnett submitted that the applicant suffered a severe psychosocial stressor during his operational service giving rise to an anxiety disorder and hence, meets the third requirement.

75. Mr Burnett submitted as to the fourth requirement whether or not the reasonable hypothesis developed in the first requirement has been disproved. He submitted that the applicant's claim should succeed unless one or more of the facts necessary to prove it are disproved beyond reasonable doubt or that the truth of the fact is inconsistent with the hypothesis. He further submitted that the facts have not been disproved beyond reasonable doubt nor is the truth of any fact inconsistent with the hypothesis.

76. Mr Burnett agrees in his submission that there is medical evidence that the applicant sought treatment prior to the guard duty incident. He submitted that between 21 August 1963 and 5 August 1963 there were three entries relating to concerns by the applicant about his pregnant wife. There are also a further two entries which relate to heat rash and an arm abrasion. He also submitted that the next mention of anxiety type concerns appears with an entry dated 30 October 1963 being approximately eight weeks after the last reported anxiety problem. He submitted that this latter date fits in with the date of the guard duty and being about 30 October 1963.

77. Mr Burnett submitted that from the medical records it was clearly possible to indicate the date of 30 October 1963 when the applicant was diagnosed with fits of depression. The applicant never returned to his normal duties in Ubon from that point onwards. Mr Burnett submitted that that was the day that the applicant decompensated and that the issues prior to that, in particular the family concerns some 8 weeks earlier were the matters he was anxious about. He further submitted that there was a considerable period of time between the applicant last reporting being anxious and the commencement of the anxiety condition. He submitted that the anxiety condition started on 30 October 1963 and is accordingly unrelated to the concerns with the family situation.

78. Mr Burnett submitted that the situation in Ubon was completely different to that if serving in Australia. He submitted that Mr Owens in his evidence stated that there was communist insurgence throughout that region. He further submitted that there were risks and the applicant was a young man and that he was aware of those risks and this should be taken into account by the Tribunal. He also submitted that the applicant became disabled from 30 October and never recovers. He submitted that this is when the anxiety disorder developed as opposed to the applicant just simply being anxious which he was in relation to his family. When this was put to Dr Ewer, he stated that he is of the opinion that being anxious and having an anxiety disorder are not the same.

79. Mr Burnett submitted that Dr Ewer gave the opinion that the guard duty described by the applicant was sufficient to meet the definition of a severe psychosocial stressor. He further submitted that Dr Ewer pointed out in his second report (T16) that what is not a severe psychosocial stress for one person may well be a severe psychosocial stressor for another person.

RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS

80. Mr Doube submitted that there are two possible explanations for the applicant's anxiety disorder. He submitted that there is the story given by the applicant on 1 November 2000 to Dr Ewer, some 37 years after the incident, concerning the one night of guard duty. As to this explanation, Mr Doube submitted that this is not supported by any of the documentation and requires the Tribunal to speculate on numerous issues in order to accept that as a valid record. He further submitted that as opposed to that, there is the story that the anxiety disorder was caused by the applicant's separation from his family and that such is supported by the documentation at the time.

81. Mr Doube submitted that the sole issue is whether or not the applicant experienced a severe psychosocial stressor as claimed, namely the guard duty, and the respondent would submit that this test which is defined in the SOP clearly indicates that this requires both an objective and a subjective element in order to be satisfied. He further submitted that the objective element is the one that requires an incident of the severity required to cause in the current case an immediate ongoing and enduring anxiety disorder. Such objectively severe conditions are set out in the SOP (T18/104) and includes experiencing a loss such as divorce or separation which can cause an anxiety disorder.

82. As to the applicant's claim that he was offered re-engagement, Mr Doube submitted that two entries in the service documents (T4/37 and 46) show that this was not so. He submitted that the applicant's statement regarding re-engagement cannot be relied upon.

83. As to anxiety Mr Doube submitted that the applicant never spoke with anyone about it during the time he was in the RAAF and never to anyone afterwards until very recently. Mr Doube submitted that the applicant told his CO, as documented, that his anxiety is clearly caused by separation from his family and not caused by guard duty. He further submitted that there's no need to speculate because there is clear evidence in the documentation that within a short time of his arrival in Ubon the applicant was experiencing anxiety, worry and agitation.

84. Mr Doube submitted that when put to the applicant during his oral evidence about guard duty the applicant accepted that he was aware that that was part of the normal duties he would have to undertake while in Ubon. He also submitted that when asked further about it, the applicant stated that he did not like the prospect of doing it "but if you had to do it, you had to do it". It was submitted that this is hardly indicative of a level of apprehension of undertaking guard duty in a situation of subjectively perceived threat as alleged by the applicant.

85. Mr Doube submitted that following the guard duty the applicant had indicated that he went to bed, slept for a while, and woke up feeling terrible as a result of which he attended at the hospital and remained there whilst in Ubon. He submitted that this conflicts with Dr Ewer's evidence in that the applicant told Dr Ewer that he presented himself for work and that it was a senior officer who recognised his state and sent him back to his room from where, presumably, he was taken to hospital.

86. Mr Doube submitted that the applicant's account is untrue as some 8 weeks prior to undertaking the guard duty and some eight weeks before he could possibly have been suffering an anxiety disorder, attributable to the night of guard duty, the applicant stated in his evidence that when the birth of his second child occurred he treated it as just another occurrence because he had no enthusiasm due to his anxiety disorder caused by the guard duty. He submitted that the birth was 1 September 1963 and Mrs Wegener gave evidence that the Padre had informed the applicant within a day of the birth that everything was alright.

87. It was submitted by Mr Doube that he had specifically asked the applicant whether or not he had been to the outpatients department prior to the guard duty incident about anxiety problems. He submitted that the applicant answered that he had not and yet the service documents show this is not true. It was further submitted that the applicant claimed he did not know why he was sent to the psychiatric unit in the British Medical Hospital in Singapore. It was also submitted that at the time of discharge the applicant acknowledged that he was suffering from nervous trouble but in answering the question whether this was due to his service, the applicant answered "no".

88. Mr Doube submitted that prior to 30 October 1963 the service records indicate a notation by a service doctor that the applicant has been treated for an anxiety state having a number of domestic problems which precipitated the nervous condition. It was further submitted that an entry dated 25 November 1963 (T4/35) whilst at Butterworth states that the applicant's wife is still in Australia and that he feels home sick and lonely, as well as having confessed to a strong desire to return to Australia (T4/37). He submitted that there were other records and referred, inter alia, to that of a psychiatric specialist (T4/43) which states that the applicant confesses to unhappiness at being separated from his family.

89. Mr Doube submitted that Dr Ewer in his evidence acknowledged that he is entirely reliant upon the applicant's story in drawing up an opinion. Dr Ewer stated that when he did his first opinion he had none of the documentation regarding the applicant's service records and the applicant made no mention to him about the issue of being separated from his wife who was pregnant at the time. He submitted that Dr Ewer's report was quite valid on the information given him. However, as he was not in possession of relevant details, Mr Doube submitted that his opinion is effectively worthless. He submitted that Dr Ewer had acknowledged that he was entirely reliant upon the applicant's story.

90. Mr Doube submitted that there was another anomaly in Dr Ewer's reports regarding alcohol consumption. Mr Doube further submitted that if the applicant's story was to be believed that he suffered his anxiety disorder on 30 October 1963 then clearly the applicant had no opportunity to indulge in excessive alcohol intake, to decompensate by using alcohol and to go in to town and drink rice wine. He submitted that this conflicts with what he told Dr Ewer whom he told he recalls abusing rice wine in Thailand by getting drunk to help him (the applicant) feel better.

91. Mr Doube submitted that after the guard duty incident there was no opportunity for the applicant to indulge in alcohol intake let alone excessive alcohol intake. He further submitted there was no opportunity for the applicant to decompensate using alcohol and rice wine and getting drunk to help him feel better. He also submitted that on the evidence before the Tribunal the applicant suffered periods of anxiety and depression well before any guard duty in October 1963 and that these episodes were related to family and domestic matters. He also submitted that the guard duty itself was not objectively a stressor, as it was part of the applicant's normal duties and that it would be an error in interpretation of the severe psychosocial stressor to accept that in the current situation.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

92. It was not disputed by the respondent that the applicant suffers from a GAD of which alcohol abuse played a part. The question before the Tribunal is whether the GAD was caused by the applicant's operational service, under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.. The manner in which the Tribunal is to approach this was laid down in Deledio, and which is as follows:

1. The Tribunal must consider all the material which is before it and determine whether that material points to a hypothesis connecting the injury, disease or death with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the person. No question of fact finding arises at this stage. If no such hypothesis arises, the application must fail.

2. If the material does raise such a hypothesis, the Tribunal must then ascertain whether there is in force an SoP determined by the Authority under s 196B(2) or (11). If no such SoP is in force, the hypothesis will be taken not to be reasonable and, in consequence, the application must fail.

3. If an SoP is in force, the Tribunal must then form the opinion whether the hypothesis raised is a reasonable one. It will do so if the hypothesis fits, that is to say, is consistent with the "template" to be found in the SoP. They hypothesis raised before it must thus contain one or more of the factors which the Authority has determined to be the minimum which must exist, and be related to the person's service (as required by ss 196B(2)(d) and (e)). If the hypothesis does contain these factors, it could neither be said to be contrary to proved or known scientific facts, nor otherwise fanciful. If the hypothesis fails to fit within the template, it will be deemed not to be "reasonable" and the claim will fail.

4. The Tribunal must then proceed to consider under s 120(1) whether it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the death was not war-caused, or in the case of a claim for incapacity, that the incapacity did not arise from a war-caused injury. If not so satisfied, the claim must succeed. If the Tribunal is so satisfied, the claim must fail. It is only at this stage of the process that the Tribunal will be required to find facts from the material before it. In so doing, no question of onus of proof or the application of any presumption will be involved." (at 97-98)

93. The Tribunal takes into account the evidence as a whole including the applicant's account of events and the testimony of Mrs Wegener and Dr Ewer. As to the applicant's evidence this showed that the applicant was either a poor historian or chose to recall what suited his case. The Tribunal is mindful that the events took place some 40 years ago in a country that was "strange" to a young 23 year old man and hence one could accept a degree of memory loss of events.

94. The Tribunal is satisfied, and it was not disputed by the respondent, that the applicant during his stay in Ubon did on one occasion at night undertake guard duty. The Tribunal is further satisfied that such occurred about 30 October 1963. However, there is considerable conflict in the applicant's evidence as to events as they transpired. On the one hand there is the applicant's oral evidence in which he maintained that the guard duty precipitated his GAD for the reasons set out in the evidence. This is unsupported in any way by the medical and other documentary evidence of the early and subsequent years. The documentary evidence in no way relates to his GAD being caused by his operational service.

95. In fact the documentary evidence relates to his separation from his family and in particular to his then pregnant wife. In addition the applicant referred to the poor communication between him and his wife which was the fault of the RAAF and in particular of details concerning the birth of his second child. He stated that he was first informed of the birth when at the British Medical Hospital in Singapore. The evidence of Mrs Wegener was that she believed the applicant had been informed on or about 1 September 1963, this being some 8 weeks prior to the guard duty incident.

96. Dr Ewer in his evidence was quite correct in the view of the Tribunal in forming the opinion that the applicant's GAD was caused through his operational service and arising from the stressor of the guard duty incident. However, Dr Ewer in his oral evidence was quite clear that in reaching his opinion he relied entirely on the history given him by the applicant and that he had not seen nor read much of the documentation of information provided in medical records.

97. The applicant stated that prior to the guard duty incident he had never attended the base hospital in Ubon, not even as an outpatient. However, the applicant's medical records indicate that he attended on at least five occasions of which three entries between 21 August 1963 and 5 August 1963 relate to concerns about his pregnant wife. The next reference to anxiety is following the guard duty on 30 October 1963. The applicant described the sequence of events following the guard duty and which description conflicted with the account given to Dr Ewer, and in particular relevant to alcohol abuse. On the evidence given by the applicant to the Tribunal then the history given to Dr Ewer of the partaking of the rice wine would have been impossible. The Tribunal is satisfied that the explanation given to the Tribunal is more feasible and accepts this in preference to the explanation given to Dr Ewer.

98. The Tribunal whilst being aware of the explanation by the applicant of his not ever mentioning the cause of his GAD being related to the guard duty incident is nevertheless perplexed that he never spoke with anyone about it during the time he was in the RAAF. Even more so he still did not say anything to anyone afterwards until about in the last five years. During his service all reference to anxiety was related to family and in particular separation from his wife. In fact the applicant, on the documentation before the Tribunal, started experiencing anxiety, worry and agitation a short time after his arrival in Ubon.

99. The issue of re-engagement also is clearly one of conflict. On the one hand the applicant is quite certain he was offered the opportunity of re-engagement but could not recall when and by whom other than it being his superior officer. However, the documentary evidence is quite clear that no offer of re-engagement was forthcoming. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant's account of events relating to re-engagement is correct.

100. Taking into account the evidence as a whole and in applying Deledio the Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidentiary material "points to a hypothesis" that the GAD is war-caused. The Tribunal is not satisfied and finds that the hypothesis raised by the applicant in relation to the guard duty as described by the applicant is not proven.

101. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is in force a SOP in relation to GAD. The relevant SOP is Instrument No. 1 of 2000.

102. The hypothesis raised by the applicant is that outlined in his evidence and contends that the guard duty event constituted a "severe psychosocial stressor" under factor 5(a)(ii) of the SOP and that he suffered the onset of clinical symptoms within two years. For the reasons previously outlined the Tribunal rejects this contention and is not satisfied that the applicant fits the definition of "severe psychosocial stressor". The Tribunal is not satisfied that the hypothesis linking the applicant's GAD to his operational service is reasonable under the Act.

103. The final step is whether any factor essential to the hypothesis has been disproved beyond reasonable doubt. On balance, and taking the evidence as a whole into account, the Tribunal is satisfied to this exacting standard that the events relied on by the applicant to establish the hypothesis linking his war-service to his GAD did not occur. Hence the applicant fails under the Act in establishing his GAD is war-caused.

DECISION

104. Accordingly, the decision under review with respect to generalised anxiety disorder is affirmed.

I certify that the 104 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr J.A. Kiosoglous MBE

Signed: (signed)

John Howell, Associate

Dates of Hearing 17 & 18 October 2002

Date of Decision February 2003

Counsel for the Applicant Mr A. Burnett

Solicitor for the Applicant Lempriere Abbott McLeod

Counsel for the Respondent Mr G. Doube

Solicitor for the Respondent Department of Veterans' Affairs