Winn and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 76 (24 January 2003)

Last Updated: 28 January 2003

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 76

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No S2000/299

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION	)
	Re	GEOFFREY HOWARD WINN

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Senior Member WJF Purcell

Date 24 January 2003

Place Adelaide

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

(Signed)

WJF PURCELL

(Senior Member)

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' APPEALS - veterans' entitlements - Disability Pension - whether applicant's conditions of PTSD and alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse are war-caused - whether applicant experienced severe stressors during his operational service - reasonable hypothesis

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 sections 120, 120A

Statement of Principles No 76 of 1998

Statement of Principles No 3 of 1999

Statement of Principles No 54 of 1999

REASONS FOR DECISION

24 January 2003

Senior Member WJF Purcell

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Repatriation Commission (the Commission) dated 22 October 1999 which rejected a claim for Disability Pension for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse. The Commission decided that the conditions were not related to the applicant's operational service. The Veterans' Review Board (VRB) affirmed the decision on 17 May 2000.

2. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T Documents) together with exhibits tendered by the parties. Mr Burnett represented the applicant, who gave oral evidence, and called Dr M Ewer, Psychiatrist, as a witness. Mr Doube represented the Commission.

3. The applicant lodged his claim on 19 July 1999, and on 24 September 1999, Dr Ewer prepared a report in which he diagnosed PTSD, and also a major depressive illness. The condition of major depressive illness has not been examined by the Commission; but it is agreed between the parties that if the claims for PTSD and alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse are accepted by the Tribunal, then it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to accept also the condition of major depressive disorder.

4. The applicant, who is now 54 years of age, served in the Royal Australian Navy (the Navy) for 9 years, from the age of 17 until he was 26 years old. He served from 13 February 1965 until 12 February 1974. He rendered 3 periods of operational service within the meaning of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), from 14 September 1965 to 20 October 1965, aboard HMAS Sydney (the Sydney), and from 16 May 1967 to 8 June 1967, and 25 January 1968 to 5 February 1968, aboard HMAS Stuart (the Stuart), a total of 72 days. A perusal of the documentary evidence discloses that the Sydney was anchored in Vung Tau Harbour unloading troops and supplies for 2 days, from 7.30 am on Tuesday 28 September 1965, until 6.15 am on Thursday 30 September 1965. The Stuart was in Vung Tau Harbour for 1 day, on each of the two tours of duty included in the applicant's operational service.

5. As the applicant maintains that his conditions relate to his operational service, the standard of proof is that of reasonable hypothesis in accordance with section 120 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), which, as far as is relevant for the purposes of this review, provides:

"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.

Note: This subsection is affected by section 120A.

(2) ...

(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.

Note: This subsection is affected by section 120A."

6. Section 120A provides:

"120A Reasonableness of hypothesis to be assessed by reference to Statement of Principles

(1) This section applies to any of the following claims made on or after 1 June 1994:

(a) a claim under Part II that relates to the operational service rendered by a veteran;

(b) a claim under Part IV that relates to:

(i) the peacekeeping service rendered by a member of a Peacekeeping Force; or

(ii) the hazardous service rendered by a member of the Forces.

Note 1: Subsections 120 (1), (2) and (3) are relevant to these claims.

Note 2: For peacekeeping service, member of a Peacekeeping Force, hazardous service and member of the Forces see subsection 5Q (1A).

(2) ...

(3) For the purposes of subsection 120 (3), a hypothesis connecting an injury suffered by a person, a disease contracted by a person or the death of a person with the circumstances of any particular service rendered by the person is reasonable only if there is in force:

(a) a Statement of Principles determined under subsection 196B (2) or (11); or

(b) a determination of the Commission under subsection 180A (2);

that upholds the hypothesis.

Note: See subsection (4) about the application of this subsection.

..."

7. The hypothesis propounded by the applicant is that his conditions of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse, and PTSD, relate to his operational service, in that on the whole of the material, the traumatic events which he experienced during his relevant service, connect his conditions with his relevant service. In my view, the material before the Tribunal would, if correct, point to a hypothesis that the conditions were war-caused. There are Statements of Principles in force, and in accordance with those Statements of Principles at least one of the Factors set out in clause 5 of the respective Statement of Principles, must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting the conditions with the circumstances of the applicant's relevant service.

8. The appropriate Statement of Principles for the condition of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse is Instrument No 76 of 1998 (the Alcohol Abuse SoP). The applicant contends that Factor 5(b) is satisfied: "experiencing a severe stressor within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse". "Experiencing a severe stressor" is defined as:

"... the person experienced, witnessed or was confronted with, an event or events that involved actual or threat of death or serious injury, or a threat to the person's or other people's physical integrity, which event or events might evoke intense fear, helplessness or horror.

In the setting of service in the Defence Forces, or other service where the Veterans' Entitlements Act applies, events that qualify as severe stressors include:

(i) threat of serious injury or death; or

(ii) engagement with the enemy; or

(iii) witnessing casualties or participation in or observation of casualty clearance, atrocities or abusive violence;"

9. The applicant contends in the alternative that Factor 5(a) of the Alcohol Abuse SoP is satisfied: "suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse", the psychiatric disorder being "PTSD". The appropriate Statement of Principles for the condition of PTSD is Instrument No 3 of 1999, as amended by Instrument No 54 of 1999 (the PTSD SoP). PTSD is defined in paragraph 2(b) as:

"(b) For the purposes of this Statement of Principles, "post traumatic stress disorder" means a psychiatric condition meeting the following description (derived from DSM-IV):

(A) the person has been exposed to a traumatic event which:

(i) the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others; and

(ii) the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror; and

(B) the traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in one or more of the following ways:

(i) recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts, or perceptions;

(ii) recurrent distressing dreams of the event;

(iii) acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring (including a sense of reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback episodes, including those that occur on awakening or when intoxicated);

(iv) intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event;

(v) physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event; and

(C) persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as indicated by three or more of the following:

(i) efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, or conversations associated with the trauma;

(ii) efforts to avoid activities, places, or people that arouse recollections of the trauma;

(iii) inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma;

(iv) markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities;

(v) feeling of detachment or estrangement from others;

(vi) restricted range of affect (eg, unable to having loving feelings);

(vii) sense of a foreshortened future (eg, does not expect to have a career, marriage, children, or a normal life span); and

(D) persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma), as indicated by two or more of the following:

(i) difficulty falling or staying asleep;

(ii) irritability or outbursts of anger;

(iii) difficulty concentrating;

(iv) hypervigilance;

(v) exaggerated startle response; and

(E) duration of the disturbance (indicated by the relevant symptoms set out in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)) is more than one month; and

(F) the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning,

attracting ICD-9-CM code 309.81."

10. In relation to the condition of PTSD, the applicant contends that Factor 5(a) of the PTSD SoP is satisfied: "experiencing a severe stressor prior to the clinical onset of post traumatic stress disorder". "Experiencing a severe stressor" is defined as:

"... the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threat of death or serious injury, or a threat to the person's or another person's, physical integrity.

In the setting of service in the Defence Forces, or other service where the Veterans' Entitlements Act applies, events that qualify as severe stressors include:

(i) threat of serious injury or death; or

(ii) engagement with the enemy; or

(iii) witnessing casualties or participation in or observation of casualty clearance, atrocities or abusive violence;"

11. The applicant submits that during his operational service in South Vietnam, he experienced a number of severe stressors whilst aboard both the Sydney, and the Stuart, which can be summarised as follows:

(a) Firing of Guns on USS Princeton, June 1965

The occasion when the Sydney was in Vung Tau Harbour between Tuesday morning 28 September 1965 and Thursday morning 30 September 1965. The applicant was on fire duty on the flight deck when a nearby supporting vessel, the USS Princeton (referred to by the applicant as the USS Preston) started to fire its guns. The applicant maintains that he was terrified. He jumped and hid behind one of the ammunition boxes on the deck. He also was "jumpy", as they had to throw hand grenades over the side, as scare charges, every half hour, and he was terrified also below deck, when the scare charges were set off because he did not know what they were. The applicant says he did not consume alcohol before joining the Navy, and that after this trip to South Vietnam, his drinking increased. He drank every time there was a beer issue, and often drank other people's beer issues as well.

(b) Diving Team, Vung Tau Harbour, May 1967

The occasion as a member of the Stuart's diving team whilst the vessel was in Vung Tau Harbour for 1 day in May 1967. The Stuart was escorting the Sydney, and the applicant says that diving in the Harbour was totally different from any of his previous diving experiences, because the water was like mud, he could see nothing at all, and the current was exceptionally strong. He was scared of being trapped whilst feeling along the side of the ship. In addition, during the day there was a lot of shooting in the area, and he was fearful, as they had been warned about enemy swimmers and mines.

(c) Hong Kong Diver, 1967

In 1967, the applicant says, a stressful incident occurred whilst the Stuart was in Hong Kong. They received a request from a US Navy destroyer to help recover the body of one of their divers. The diver had been sucked up against the grating of the turbine inlet during a routine search of the ship's hull, which resulted in his air regulator being pulled from his mouth, and because of the suction he could not recover it, or break clear from the inlet grating. By the time the American crew realised there was a problem, and shut down the turbine, the diver had drowned; and when the suction ceased, he sank to the bottom of the harbour. The applicant says that they found and recovered the body, and from then on he was in constant fear of becoming "stuck" in a similar situation, and the likelihood of it being more prevalent in a place like Vung Tau, with strong currents, nil visibility, enemy action and enemy swimmers constantly present.

(d) The Shackleton Plane Incident, Late 1967

The Stuart returned then to involvement with the Far East Strategic Reserve, and the applicant maintains a stressful incident occurred in the Strait of Malacca. An RAF Shackleton aeroplane had crashed en route between Butterworth Air Base and Singapore. The bodies of the pilot and navigator were brought to the Stuart by patrol boat, and were to be taken to Singapore. The trip took about 3 days. The bodies were wrapped in canvas and plastic, then placed in the showers and covered with ice. The applicant says that he was required to go into the area every few hours and to place more ice on the bodies. He found this "horrible and repulsive" to need to go into the showers, and to see the mound of ice and know that there were bodies underneath.

(e) Diving Team, Vung Tau Harbour, second tour of duty, January/February 1968

The occasion the Stuart was in Vung Tau Harbour for 5-7 hours, and the applicant says he was involved in ½ hourly diving duties. The Tet Offensive commenced and "all hell broke loose". There was a big push for everyone to finish what they were doing, to unload as quickly as possible. Professional clearance divers, who were based in Vung Tau, were working independently in and around the Harbour, and told the diving team that enemy divers and mines had been found in the area. This caused the applicant to be very fearful during each subsequent dive. This caused also the applicant's drinking pattern to increase.

(f) The USS Evans (the Evans) Disaster, 1969

An occasion when the Evans and the Stuart were in Subic Bay, Manilla. The Evans was escorting HMAS Melbourne (the Melbourne), which subsequently collided with the Evans, with great loss of life. The Stuart arrived on the scene soon after the event. The applicant was horrified, upset and apprehensive as the Evans had performed the same role as the Stuart, and he feared that the Stuart could also be hit because it would be manoeuvring at night, in the dark.

12. It is clear on the evidence, that 3 of the 6 incidents relied upon by the applicant - the Hong Kong Diver 1967, the Shackleton Plane Incident Late 1967, and the USS Evans Disaster 1969 - did not occur during the applicant's operational service. They are not relevant therefore, for the purposes of satisfying the respective Statements of Principles. They are outlined in these Reasons for Decision for completeness, and because of the emphasis the applicant and the psychiatrist, Dr Ewer, attached to them in the course of their evidence.

13. The Commission submits that none of the events outlined by the applicant satisfies the definition of "experiencing a severe stressor" in either the Alcohol Abuse SoP or the PTSD SoP. None of them is objectively of such a nature as to be an event of such severity, similar to the examples quoted in the definition of a "severe stressor", as to cause ongoing psychiatric scarring. It submits further, that Factor 5(a) of the Alcohol Abuse SoP is not satisfied, in that the veteran was not suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse; it was not until the 1990s that there was any psychiatric condition requiring treatment from a medical practitioner.

14. The applicant gave lengthy oral evidence. His cross-examination was searching, but fair. I found him an unimpressive witness, who I consider has adapted and reconstructed events in an attempt to bring his circumstances within the terms of the relevant Statements of Principles. This does not mean that I disregard the whole of his evidence, but that I prefer to rely on other more satisfactory and objective evidence in areas of dispute in the evidence.

15. The other witness was Dr Ewer, who relied for his opinions, on the veracity of the applicant's account of events, and I take that into account in my assessment of the weight to be given to Dr Ewer's opinions and evidence.

16. The applicant said in evidence that he was Petty Officer, Engineering, and Marine Technician, on board the Stuart. After his service at sea, he transferred to HMAS Cerberus, on 30 November 1969, and served there until his discharge on 12 February 1974. He worked then for the South Australian Public Buildings Department as an airconditioning mechanic until 1976, when he became Fire Safety Officer at the Mobil Oil refinery at Lonsdale.

17. The applicant gave evidence that he worked at Mobil for 16 years. His marriage broke down in 1991, and he suffered also a physical breakdown and had 3 months sick leave. Some time after his return to work he was made redundant. By 1993 he had formed a defacto relationship with the lady who became his second wife; and during that year he was involved in bitter dispute with his estranged wife. The applicant was armed, neighbours called the police, and a siege ensued. The applicant remarried in 1996. There are 2 children of the marriage, but the applicant and his wife have separated. As Mobil wanted the applicant to assist them on a contract basis, he established a business, servicing fire extinguishers. Unfortunately, the business did not prosper, and he was declared bankrupt in 1997. He obtained then, casual employment in the building trade, as a general chippy, carpenter. He last worked in 1999.

18. Dr Ewer reported on 24 September 1999, in part, as follows:

"...

Mr. Winn told me that he was exposed to a number of traumatic experiences during his time off the shores of Vietnam. These experiences affected him both at the time and subsequently. The experiences that Mr. Winn spoke to me about were:

1. Mr. Winn told me that on one occasion he was on the flight deck of the Sydney. Unexpectedly, an American Destroyer next to the Sydney started firing five inch shells towards the shore. Mr. Winn was caught completely off-guard by this and he told me the sound was deafening. He thought that his ship was being attacked. He ran and hid. He told me that he feared for his life. Whilst he was settling himself down he looked at the Destroyer and could not believe the flames that were coming out of the barrels of its guns.

2. Another experience which disturbed Mr. Winn was having to dive underneath the Stuart to check it for mines. He told me that he was required to swim into an intake for the turbines. The intake was a tunnel which was only two feet in diameter. Mr. Winn would swim into this to search for mines. He feared getting stuck in the intake and running out of oxygen. He felt frightened whilst performing these duties.

3. Mr. Winn told me that he heard about an American cargo ship being hit by explosives floating along the Saigon River. The ship was sunk. Mr Winn told me this information frightened him when the vessel he was on went into the Saigon River. He told me that he saw many objects floating towards the vessel he was on and he feared they were explosives. Mr. Winn told me that other soldiers suspected the same and it was common practice to throw hand grenades to blow the objects up.

4. Mr. Winn told me that the crew of the Stuart and of the USS Evans were enjoying some recreation time together on shore. Both the Evans and the Stuart performed similar duties by accompanying the HMAS Melbourne. Soon after spending time with the men of the Evans, it was "cut in half" by the Melbourne. The Stuart arrived on the scene soon after this event occurred. Mr. Winn saw part of the Evans still afloat. People were still in the water. Eighty men were killed. Mr. Winn was horrified by this experience. Mr Winn found the experience even more disturbing because his ship had previously performed the duties the Evans was performing. He thought to himself that it could have been his ship that was cut in half. Mr. Winn was particularly apprehensive when the vessel he was on was asked to accompany the Melbourne in the future. He feared that his ship could be hit because they were manoeuvring at night in the dark.

5. On another occasion whilst off the shores of Malaya the vessel Mr. Winn was on picked up two bodies. They were taken to the ship's showers and covered in plastic. Mr. Winn had to put fresh ice on them every two hours.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF SERVICE

Mr. Winn told me that he experienced a range of symptoms during his operational service. He experienced intense feelings of fear, helplessness and of horror. To try and quell these symptoms he abused nicotine and alcohol.

After the experiences that I have described Mr. Winn noticed a number of changes in himself. He felt alienated from others and he could only relate to people after abusing alcohol. He was sleeping poorly and he stayed up much of the night watching television to pass the time. He was troubled by flashbacks and irritability and he often felt depressed. He continued to abuse nicotine and alcohol.

...

PAST PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY

Mr. Winn did not smoke at all prior to the traumas I have described. He started smoking after the traumas and he often smoked twenty cigarettes a day as well as a cigar or two. He continued to smoke after the traumas.

Mr. Winn denied drinking alcohol prior to going to Vietnam. During shore leave, off the shores of Vietnam, he drank very heavily. He said "alcohol was all we had". He told me that men were ostracized if they did not participate in heavy drinking. Mr. Winn continued to abuse alcohol after Vietnam. His alcohol abuse has been complicated by three motor vehicle accidents. There have been many occasions when he has been so intoxicated that he has fallen over and vomited. On other occasions he has been so intoxicated that he cannot recall what has occurred when he is again sober. He has missed work through alcohol abuse.

Mr. Winn started to abuse marijuana in Malaya in 1966.

Mr. Winn told me that he suffered a "nervous breakdown" in 1991. He saw a Psychiatrist for two months. He had another "breakdown" in 1999. He was admitted to the Psychiatric Ward at the Repatriation Hospital and he was told that he suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. ..."

19. Dr Ewer said in evidence that he regarded the USS Evans incident (which did not occur during the applicant's operational service) as the most traumatic of the events, followed by the diving team incident in Vung Tau Harbour, and the gunfire on the USS Princeton.. Dr Ewer gave evidence to the effect that on the history provided by the applicant, he was exposed to a number of traumatic experiences during his service in South Vietnam, and that he had not been exposed to other traumatic experiences that would lead to the type of symptoms he outlined.

20. Dr Ewer gave evidence that he recorded the applicant as telling him that the vessel he was on went into the Saigon River; and he feared objects floating towards the vessel could be explosives. The applicant said in evidence, however, that neither the Sydney nor the Stuart sailed into the Saigon River. Dr Ewer recorded also, that the applicant suffered a "nervous breakdown" in 1991. He was not aware that at that time the applicant was involved in a bitter marital breakup, which culminated in the 1993 incident with the applicant being involved in a siege with his wife, family and the South Australia Police. This episode led to the confiscation of the applicant's weapons, and his being barred from carrying firearms. Dr Ewer was not aware that the applicant became a bankrupt in 1997.

21. It became clear in the course of his evidence that Dr Ewer knew only of the stressors that the applicant said he experienced during his service in the Navy some 20 years before the later events. Dr Ewer stated however, in his report, that the applicant had not been exposed to other traumatic experiences that would lead to the type of symptoms he outlined. In September 1999, Dr Ewer, it would appear, did not take a detailed history from the applicant in relation to his experiences over the 25 years since he left the Navy.

22. Turning to those incidents which allegedly occurred during operational service:

(a) Firing of Guns on USS Princeton, June 1965

The applicant says that he was scared to death when the Princeton opened fire, he was not sure what the noise was. He had never heard or seen a gun fire before. He jumped behind the ammunition box. He got a "blast" from the Leading Seaman. He resumed his duties immediately and within a short time realised that the ship was not firing at the Sydney. As to the scare charges, the applicant says that he thought the noise below deck was something hitting the Sydney.. An officer spoke to the young recruits later and explained that the sounds were normal, and that they were from our side. I do not consider that these incidents satisfy the definition of a "severe stressor" in the relevant Statements of Principles. I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that these incidents do not satisfy either of the definitions in the relevant Statements of Principle.

(b) Diving Team, Vung Tau Harbour, May 1967

The applicant said in evidence that upon his return from his first visit to South Vietnam, he undertook a 3-week diving course, at Rushcutter, which he enjoyed, and described as the highlight of his career. It gave him prestige; as 14 volunteers commenced the course, and only he and 2 others completed the course. He said that the diving duties in Vung Tau were not like the practice dives he had undertaken. He had difficulty hanging on to the chains attached to the other divers in a "half necklace" formation, and they could not see each other. He also had to check the turbine openings, which were 2 feet in diameter. In the course of his evidence however, the applicant said that he was not required to swim into the intake tunnels, but to feel inside the grating covering the entrance to the turbine, and that he was not frightened of diving until the later incident in Hong Kong in 1967 when the American diver drowned. On the evidence, the applicant continued diving duties for more than 4 years following this visit to South Vietnam. He ceased diving in late 1971 because of an ear condition. He does not maintain that he ceased diving because of fear of diving duties. I do not consider this incident satisfies the definition of a "severe stressor".. I am satisfied on the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that this incident does not satisfy the definition in either of the relevant Statements of Principles.

(c) Diving Team, Vung Tau Harbour, second tour of duty, January/February 1968

The applicant says that because of the death of the American diver, he had a particular fear of being drawn into the turbines of the vessel, and was apprehensive also because of the reports of enemy divers and mines in the area. As I have said earlier in these Reasons for Decision, the applicant continued his diving duties until prevented by ear problems, some 3-4 years later. Upon his return from South Vietnam, he applied to remain on sea duty, and not return to land base duties. On the evidence he undertook 9 further training courses during his career in the Navy, the last of which was "Instructional Technique", in which he recorded a pass, on 16 February 1973, a year before he left the Navy. He continued also to obtain promotions through the ranks, becoming a Petty Officer on 11 April 1970, nearly 4 years before he left the Navy. I do not consider these incidents satisfy the definition of "severe stressors". I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the incident does not satisfy the definition of "severe stressor" in the relevant Statement of Principles.

23. The applicant told Dr Ewer that he had not drunk alcohol until his first trip to Vietnam. In his statement [Exhibit A1], he said that he had consumed alcohol by the time he finished his training, that after his first trip to Vietnam his drinking habit increased, he was having difficulty sleeping, and relating to people. The applicant's statement reads, in part, at page 10:

"After the traumas in Vietnam but before the collision between the Melbourne and the Evans (in 1969) I was drinking aftershave on the ship.

At times I would heat up boot polish and mix it with coca-cola to supplement my alcohol intake.

Also on ship I was involved in making alcoholic mead out of honey and alcohol by fermenting pumpkins.

I had a number of drunken disorderly charges prior to this incident with the Evans in 1969.

I was incarcerated because of my alcohol abuse in the Navy."

24. In the course of his oral evidence the applicant said that when he left school, his first job was as a sales assistant at Harris Scarfe, and that he drank alcohol on social occasions before joining the Navy. He said in evidence also, that his time in Melbourne, after his return from his first trip to South Vietnam, was the happiest of his career. He was undertaking a 3 months' engineering course and was able to drive to Adelaide and see his girlfriend. The documentary evidence does not disclose any record of drunk and disorderly charges whilst the applicant was serving in the Navy, nor is there any record of his being incarcerated because of his alcohol abuse. On the evidence, he continued to undertake training courses and to obtain promotion through the ranks.

25. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that Factor 5(a) of the PTSD SoP is not satisfied; and that neither Factor 5(a) nor 5(b) of the Alcohol Abuse SoP is satisfied. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that there is not sufficient ground for determining that the applicant's conditions of PTSD and alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse were war-caused. The material before the Tribunal does not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting the conditions with the circumstances of the particular service rendered by the applicant.

26. For these reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the 26 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member WJF Purcell

Signed: .......................................................................................

Associate

Date/s of Hearing 16/17 May 2002

Date of Decision 24 January 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 DVA