Pettrick and Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 54 (4 February 2011)

Last Updated: 4 February 2011

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 54

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No 2010/0996

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENT DIVISION		)
	Re		DEMPHNA PETTRICK

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

John Handley, Senior Member

Date 4 February 2011

Place Melbourne

Decision

The decision under review is affirmed.

................[signed].....................
Senior Member

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – Application by widow of an allied mariner – deceased met and married the applicant 52 years after service concluded – decision on papers after evidence heard from applicant in the Philippines – investigations did not reveal or locate any material to support multiple hypothesis – decision affirmed

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 34J

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 5C(1), 6, 6A(1), 120, 120A, 196B

Repatriation Commission v Deledio [1998] FCA 391; (1998) 83 FCR 82

REASONS FOR DECISION

4 February 2011

John Handley, Senior Member

1. Mrs Pettrick (the applicant) applied to review a decision made by the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) on 16 December 2009. The VRB decided to affirm a decision made by the Repatriation Commission on 10 July 2008, refusing her application for war-widow’s pension.
2. The circumstances of this application are relatively unusual and are briefly described as follows.
3. The parties consented to this review being determined without holding a hearing. The decision which follows has been determined by reference to submissions that were heard from both parties and upon documents they both lodged (refer s 34J Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975).
4. The applicant is unrepresented and resides in the Philippines. Her submissions were heard by telephone with the assistance of a properly accredited interpreter. The Tribunal heard submissions initially on 13 September 2010 but it then became obvious that further evidence in support of the application should be sought. The Tribunal subsequently convened two directions hearings – again by telephone – on 10 November 2010 and 10 December 2010. The purpose of the directions hearings was to review the progress of enquiries that were being made by both parties and by the Registrar, on behalf of the applicant, to obtain further documentary evidence.
5. At the last directions hearing on 10 December 2010, the parties agreed that all enquiries had been completed and a review should be made on the papers that had been lodged and the oral submissions.
6. The documents that have been lodged will be identified throughout this decision.

BACKGROUND

7. The deceased was an allied mariner within the meaning of s 5C(1)(a)(i) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act). Having regard to the circumstances of his service, which will be discussed immediately following, he is deemed to have been engaged in operational service by reason of the qualifying provision found at Item 3 of s 6A(1) of the Act.
8. By reference to a report completed by Commodore A H R Brecht, RAN, (Retired) on behalf of Writeway Research Services, the circumstances of the service of the deceased and other persons who were allied mariners was summarised.
9. It was reported that attempts to resist Japanese expansion into Rabaul, New Guinea and surrounding islands caused a depletion of available vessels to supply ammunition, materials, medical supplies and other related items. Additionally, the presence of coral atolls in the surrounding waters prohibited large vessels entering. Accordingly, General MacArthur decided to locate and acquire, by purchase or by charter, available ships within Australia that could navigate the waters around New Guinea and Rabaul and deliver the provisions described earlier. Those ships eventually became part of the Small Ships Section of the United States Army Services of Supply in the South West Pacific and became known as The Small Ships. Those vessels carried the United States flag but were skippered and crewed by Australian persons, many of whom had been refused entry into the regular Australian armed forces.
10. The late Mr Pettrick was one such person.
11. Records found within the T-documents lodged by the respondent and by documents appended to the report of Commodore Brecht, record the deceased at various times either being engaged on a small ship as either a deck officer or as a ship’s master.
12. The documents lodged and the report of Commodore Brecht show service on four vessels identified below together with the respective periods of service:

USS JACK CAM (S29) - 19 June 1942 to 1 July 1942
USS MOA (S16) - 1 July 1942 to 30 October 1942
USS HOKITIKA (S130) - 2 January 1943 to 26 July 1943
USS KURIMARAU (S105) - 27 July 1943 to 9 March 1944

13. Accordingly, the deceased was an allied mariner because he was:

(a) a master, officer, seaman or apprentice employed in seagoing service on a ship (being a hospital ship, troop transport, supply ship, tug, cable ship, salvage ship, dredge, fishing vessel or fisheries investigation vessel) that was operated by, or on behalf of, a foreign country (s 5C(1)(a)(i) of the Act); and

(b) he was a member of the naval, military or air forces of a Commonwealth country or of an allied country who was domiciled in Australia or an external territory immediately before his or her appointment or enlistment in those forces (refer s 6A(1), Item 3 of the Act).

14. The United States, which engaged the deceased, was an allied country and the deceased was domiciled in Australia immediately before his appointment or enlistment. He did engage in continuous fulltime service outside Australia during the three periods recorded above and by regard to the investigation conducted by Commodore Brecht, the deceased was employed on four different vessels, all bearing the United States flag and were all part of the Small Ships Section of the United States Army Services of Supply.
15. The word domiciled appearing within Item 3 of s 6A(1) is relevant, especially in the present circumstances because the deceased, during his periods of service, was not a citizen of Australia. He was born in England and had been living in Australia (therefore domiciled) immediately before enlistment. He became an Australian Citizen on 26 January 1949.
16. The deceased is deemed to have been engaged in operational service (s 6 of the Act) and the applicant is entitled to the beneficial standard of proof of reasonable hypothesis, subject to her satisfying one or more Statement of Principles (SoP) (refer s 120, s 120A and s 196B of the Act).

THE APPLICATION

17. The late Mr Pettrick was born on 22 July 1918 in England. He married the applicant on 10 January 1996 and died on 13 December 2007 in the Philippines.
18. A death certificate issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar General in the Republic of the Philippines (T-documents p27) record the causes of death as follows:

Immediate cause: Cerebrovascular disease, probably secondary to cerebral embolism
Antecedent cause: Hypertensive ischemic (sic) heart disease, atrial fibrillation
Underlying cause: Pneumonia, sepsis, acute on chronic renal failure secondary to acute tubular necrosis or hypertensive nephropathy, cp arrest expired.

19. The applicant was asked during the telephone discussion on 13 September 2010 to explain the basis for her assertion that a connection existed between the service of her husband and the cause of his death. She responded:

See, I don’t exactly know what the connection is, but I believe that whatever it was, like, the difficulty in breathing and that sort of thing up to the time of his death had something to do with what he did before in his work.

20. The applicant also submitted that her husband suffered from malaria and an ulcer which contributed to a heart ailment. That submission is consistent with an explanation she recorded in her claim for pension found at page 15 of the T-documents.
21. The applicant said she had been advised by a lawyer in the Philippines that a connection did exist between malaria, the ulcer and the heart ailment. She did not know whether the lawyer had medical evidence in support of that assertion.
22. The applicant said that her husband previously smoked cigarettes. She completed three smoking questionnaires. The first questionnaire was completed on 5 March 2008 (T-documents p32) recording that the deceased commenced smoking on a regular basis from the age of 30 until the age of 50 years. It records him smoking one pack per day. In another smoking questionnaire completed on 22 April 2009 (T-documents p82) the applicant recorded her husband having commenced smoking cigarettes on a regular basis from the age of 16 years at one pack per day. The applicant did not complete the question where she was asked whether (and if so when) he ceased smoking.
23. In a third smoking questionnaire received by the respondent on 6 December 2010 the applicant recorded that her husband first commenced smoking cigarettes on a regular basis in 1934 when he was 16 years of age and then at two or three packs per day. In response to a question why did you start to smoke cigarettes on a regular basis, the answer recorded was habitual continues smoking. The form records that the deceased ceased smoking in 1968 when he was 50 years of age.
24. In evidence, the applicant said that her husband had told her that he had stopped smoking cigarettes at the age of 50 and she understood that one packet of cigarettes contained 20 cigarettes. (She agreed he was much younger when he started smoking and it was a mistake to have recorded in the first questionnaire that smoking commenced when he was 30).
25. After the discussion concerning the consumption of cigarettes, the applicant asserted that a connection existed between cigarette smoking and illnesses that contributed to his death.
26. In response to a question by Mr Nyhof, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, the applicant said she was not sure whether her husband increased his cigarette smoking before or only after commencement of service. She said:

I’m not really sure, but according to him when he was alive he did tell me that he used to smoke a lot. It would be more or less a packet a day but most of the time more than a packet a day.

Later she said she did not know whether he increased smoking during service but said he was a chain smoker according to him. When asked why she said that her husband had been a chain smoker she said because that’s what he said and because he said he smoked a packet or more a day.

27. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that the VRB also enquired whether her husband had consumed alcohol. She said he had told her that he did drink alcohol before they had met but he was a social drinker only. Additionally, she said that her husband did not drink alcohol after they married (transcript p10).
28. During the discussion on 13 September 2010 with the applicant, the Tribunal reminded her that a submission had been put to the VRB by her advocate, Mr Baker, that her husband had been blown off a ship.
29. The applicant said that she had heard her husband say that. She said she was not aware that the ship on which he was serving had been blown over, but I believe that it was a bomb of some sort, some explosion close by, and that caused some hearing problem. She said that her husband had told her that it was really frightening because he thought he was going to die in that moment. Additionally, she said she was not aware that her husband had ever seen a psychiatrist or a psychologist or any other suitably qualified person as a consequence of that experience.
30. The VRB transcript records that Mr Baker had been a friend of the deceased and had known him for eight years in the Philippines.
31. At page four of the VRB transcript, Mr Baker is recorded as having notified the VRB members’ that the deceased had told him:

...during the war he had been blown off the boat completely as the bomb landed some 40 metres away or something or other, and blew everybody onboard, including him as the deckhand, over the side and he seemed to suffer from that a bit.

At page five, Mr Baker is recorded as saying that he was not aware that the deceased had had any psychiatric or psychological treatment. He added that so far as he was aware the deceased had not ever notified any other persons of that event and he was not aware whether it had any affect on the deceased.

32. Commodore Brecht reported that the small ship Kaurimarau was attacked twice on the same day in November 1942 causing injury to a crewman, the death of the Portlock Harbour Master (Portlock is located between Milne Bay and Oro Bay), and significant structural damage to the vessel. However the deceased did not join Kaurimarau until July 1943. In November 1942, the deceased was not serving on board small ships (refer paragraph 12 earlier).
33. Commodore Brecht also reported (pages 7 and 8) that enquiries made of retired small ships Captain, Mr E A Flint, confirmed that air attack by Japanese was a feature of the work undertaken by small ships and it was possible the deceased may have experienced an attack during his period of service.
34. However no evidence has been found of Japanese attacks on small ships (except the Kaurimarau). Additionally no evidence was found of – nor did Mr Flint have any knowledge of – Japanese atrocities carried out against the crew members of small ships. No evidence was found of attack on small ships by Japanese submarines however it was acknowledged that such a threat existed.
35. Mr Baker also told the VRB members that he was aware that the deceased had previously smoked cigarettes but had not ever seen him do so and was not aware when he ceased smoking. He recalled that he did observe the deceased drink a very light glass of alcohol maybe once a week. He said the deceased did have a congestion problem, had poor eyesight as a result of a failed operation, had a very bad skin cancer on the top of his head and quite a few little afflictions on the top of his head. He said one of the skin cancers was the size of a 50 cent piece if not larger (VRB transcript p4). He said he had assumed that the skin cancers were associated with being out in the sun a lot and later said that the deceased had told him that he had been in the open when he was on deck. Mr Baker assumed that the deceased did not wear a hat (VRB transcript p6). Mr Baker also told the VRB members’ that the deceased was very skinny because he had had malaria at one time and he also complained of chest pain occasionally and erratic heart beat (VRB transcript p8).
36. It was obvious during the discussions with the applicant on 13 September 2010 that there was a considerable absence of evidence concerning the circumstances of the service of the deceased, together with an absence of evidence from persons who may have known him prior to his marriage to the applicant and doctors who treated him in Australia. We eventually received a letter from the applicant giving the names and addresses of relevant persons. Additionally, there was an absence of medical evidence. The applicant (and the respondent) also provided the Tribunal with the name of the doctor who treated the deceased in his lifetime when he resided in Australia and the names of doctors who treated him in the Philippines.
37. The Registrar wrote to those persons and requested a statement or any information which may have assisted the applicant in this review.
38. Letters were written to Mr Baker, Mr K Stien, L and R Jeffers, Mrs B Douchcov, P and B Parker and Mr L Taylor.
39. Ms Douchcov contacted the Tribunal on 5 October 2010 and left a telephone message that she was unable to assist the applicant. She said that she was unaware of any doctors who had treated the deceased in Australia, nor did she know of any other persons who might assist the applicant.
40. Mr Taylor wrote to the Tribunal on 8 October 2010. He said he was a neighbour of the deceased in Queensland but he never discussed the circumstances of his service.
41. Mr Stien wrote on 4 October 2010 and advised that the deceased had been an employee of his parents between 1965 and 1975. He had also met the deceased. However, his parents have since died and he was unable to offer any assistance.
42. Ms Jeffers is the sister of Mr Stien who also wrote on 4 October 2010, advising that the deceased was an employee of her late father and was a close family friend. She did not refer at all to the deceased’s service but suggested that by reason of him having lived in North Queensland in the 1960s he may have been treated at local hospitals which she identified. (Mr Nyhof subsequently wrote to those hospitals at Mossman, Innisfail and Tully after he was given a copy of the letter from Ms Jeffers but was advised that records of the deceased – if he had ever been treated at those hospitals – were no longer kept).
43. The applicant forwarded copies of letters to the Tribunal that she had received from a Mr Zahn dated 21 February 2010. The letter was written apparently in response to a request that she had made for support in her application. The letter recorded that Mr Zahn had last seen the deceased in the early 1980s, he was then a fit man and he had no recollection of the deceased ever complaining of any illness or injury from war-service. The applicant also forwarded a letter written by Mr Stein in June 2009, notifying her of the death of his mother in May 2009. There is no reference in that letter to the service of the deceased.
44. The Tribunal did not receive any replies to its request for information from Mr Baker or from P and B Parker.
45. Letters were also written to Dr Gonzales, Dr Ramirez, Dr Duay and Dr Rosario in the Philippines. There has not been any response from any of those doctors.
46. The Registrar wrote to Dr Meng Yew Yeo who was believed to have treated the deceased in Australia. Dr Yeo wrote on 23 September 2010 enclosing a copy of the clinical notes of his clinic. He advised that he knew the deceased as a friend but did not ever treat him. He said a former colleague, Dr Joseph Young, had treated the deceased. He also advised that Dr Young had left his clinic.
47. The clinical notes appended to his letter commenced on 19 September 1983 and the last consultation was in July 1993. The records are remarkable for the frequency of attendance by the deceased upon Dr Young for treatment, excision and referral to plastic surgeons concerning skin cancers variously described as either a solar keratosis or basal cell carcinoma. There are a number of blood pressure readings recorded, namely 130/80 in October and November 1985, 120/70 in October 1992 and 160/80 in July 1993.
48. In February 1984 Dr Young has recorded worried about possible heart problem. In July 1985 he recorded the deceased suffering from an upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) with the presence of bronchitis and wheeze. Similar entries are found in February 1991 and April 1991.
49. Although the notes from Dr Young are difficult to read (they are handwritten) I cannot interpret any entry which would point to the presence of cerebrovascular disease, hypertension (except for the entry in July 1993), ischaemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation or renal failure. Elevated blood pressure, on one occasion only, would not satisfy the clinical definition of hypertension because it could not be a usual blood pressure reading (refer SoP No 35 of 2003).
50. In 1983, when the deceased first attended Dr Young, he would have been 65 years of age. In 1993, when he last attended Dr Young, he would have been 75 years of age. It can however be readily assumed that at the age of 65, and more probably at the age of 75, the deceased would be expected to have a degree of cerebrovascular disease and/or ischaemic heart disease. I note that Mr Baker referred to the deceased having an erratic heart beat (VRB transcript p8) which I assume to be atrial fibrillation. That information was learnt from the deceased when he was in the Philippines, which would have been some time after 1993. There is no reference at all to renal failure or malaria in the file of Dr Young. Mr Baker did not refer during submissions to the VRB of the deceased notifying him of renal failure.
51. The T-documents contain a medical certificate completed by Dr Gonzales who is recorded on the death certificate as being the private physician of the deceased. His certificate is dated 10 March 2008 (T-documents p36). It records the causes of death as listed on the death certificate and also records that the deceased was an inpatient of the Manuel J Santos Hospital between 3 and 13 December 2007, the latter date being the date of death.
52. The T-documents (p59) contain a medical certificate from the Duay Hospital, completed by Dr Duay, recording that the deceased was treated for two days in November 2007 for community acquired pneumonia. That treatment – I assume as an inpatient – was in the month before he died.
53. There is also a discharge summary of the Manuel J Santos Hospital. It is handwritten and save for the name, address and date of birth of the deceased, (refer T-documents p60) almost all of the document is illegible. Adjacent to a space reserved for recording the admitting diagnosis/clinical impression the words appear to be CVA (cerebralvascular accident) and cerebroelembolism. It records the date of admission as 3 December 2007. I assume this document records the treatment of the deceased immediately prior to his death. The date of discharge is left blank. The admission date and the hospital name is consistent with the certificate completed by Dr Gonzales (refer earlier).
54. An undated document received by the Tribunal by facsimile on 18 January 2011 appears to be a report interpreting an ECG test. (It is undated and I assume it was conducted whilst the deceased was an inpatient immediately prior to his demise. It bears the letterhead of the Manual J Santos Hospital). It records:

Atrial fibrillation w/ rapid ventricular response. Non specific ST-T wave changes probably rate-related & complete right bundle branch block. Please correlate clinically.

55. At page 58 of the T-documents is a certificate from the St Anne Clinic written by Dr Ramirez that records the deceased was treated between September 2004 and February 2005 for the condition of Impacted Cerum, (R)/Otitis Media.

KIND OF DEATH

56. In the absence of adequate medical evidence there is no alternative but to find the kind of death (s 120A(4) of the Act) that is, the cause of death, as being those causes recorded in the death certificate.
57. It would appear that the deceased did suffer a cerebrovascular accident by regard to the recorded cause of death of cerebrovascular disease, probably secondary to cerebral embolism. Alternatively there may have been a myocardial infarction by the reference to CP arrest (cardio pulmonary).
58. Hypertensive ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation are probably described properly as antecedent causes although atrial fibrillation, if the arrhythmia was profound, could also be a cause of death.
59. In the circumstances I would prefer to conclude for the purposes of this review that all of the illnesses and diseases, recorded on the death certificate were either individually or in combination responsible for the cause of death and I make that finding on the balance of probabilities.
60. There is no medical evidence to support a finding of a cause of death arising out of the conditions of malaria or skin cancers or an ulcer. In fact, I can find nothing from the medical evidence (admittedly minimal) pointing to the deceased ever having been treated for malaria or an ulcer.
61. The deceased did have extensive treatment for his skin cancers from Dr Young but there is nothing from the limited material from the doctors in the Philippines or by reference to the death certificate indicating any connection between skin cancers and death.
62. The hypotheses advanced by the applicant were of the deceased having died by having previously smoked cigarettes which she associated with his operational service. She described her husband as having difficulty in breathing (transcript p7) and also referred to him having a heart ailment. The latter condition may have had an association with cigarette smoking by its contribution to coronary artery disease, although that association was not advanced by the applicant. In fairness, the applicant is not a medical practitioner and she did not have medical evidence which supported that proposition. Equally, it might be said that the deceased suffered hypertension, which may have had an association with cigarette consumption. Renal failure might also have had an association with cigarette consumption. It is possible that ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation would have had a similar association.
63. Accordingly, despite the vague or loose manner in which the hypothesis was formulated, I am satisfied that such a hypothesis does exist. Accordingly, the first step in the Deledio analysis is satisfied (refer Repatriation Commission v Deledio [1998] FCA 391; (1998) 83 FCR 82 at 97).
64. The assessment period in the present application commenced when the applicant lodged her claim, on 16 January 2008.
65. Subsequent to that date, a SoP for cerebrovascular accident has existed namely, Instrument No 51 of 2006. The applicable SoP for hypertension is Instrument No 35 of 2003 as amended subsequently by Instruments No 3 of 2004 and No 11 of 2008 which refer only to additional factors referrable to the consumption of alcohol. The SoP for ischaemic heart disease is Instrument No 89 of 2007 amended by Instruments No 43 of 2009 and No 96 of 2010. The only SoP for atrial fibrillation is No 19 of 2003. The only Instrument for renal failure is Instrument No 39 of 1998 entitled Renal Artery Atherosclerotic Disease. The kinds of injury defined within that Instrument includes renal failure.
66. The second stage of Deledio having been satisfied it is then necessary to examine the reasonableness of the hypotheses at stage three.
67. Without examining them in detail a number of hypotheses could be found to be reasonable because they would be consistent with the templates of a number of applicable SoPs in connection with the cigarette smoking alone - either by the number of cigarettes smoked or the duration of the period of smoking namely:
    • Instrument No 51/2006, factor 6(o)(ii)B (cerebrovascular accident); or
    • Instrument No 89/2007 factor 6(g) (ischaemic heart disease)
    • Instrument No 19/2003 factor 5(b) (atrial fibrillation with ischaemic heart disease being a sub hypothesis); and
    • Instrument No 39/1998 factor 5(a) (renal artery atherosclerotic disease).
68. I am therefore satisfied that there are at least one or more reasonable hypotheses of connection between the service of the diseased with the causes of his death.
69. It is not necessary to examine whether there are other hypotheses on the material heard and lodged by regard to the consumption of alcohol and the stressors to which the deceased was exposed whilst serving on the small ships. For reasons which follow in the fourth Deledio stage of analysis, identification of such hypotheses are unnecessary.
70. Findings of fact may only be made at stage four of Deledio in order to determine whether I can be satisfied beyond doubt that the death was not war caused (s 120(1) of the Act). If not so satisfied, the claim must succeed. If I am so satisfied, the claim will fail.
71. Additionally, a factor within one or more of the SoPs causing or contributing to the death will only be related to service if it satisfies one of the subsections of s 196B(14) of the Act.
72. As in all applications made by widows the best witness – the deceased – is no longer available to give evidence. Widows are clearly at a disadvantage, no less in the present application, where there is an absence of evidence, both factual and medical, to support the hypotheses.
73. The applicant asserted that a connection existed between service and smoking cigarettes. The applicant lodged three smoking questionnaires and it was only in the third questionnaire lodged during the currency of these proceedings that she recorded that he smoked more than one packet of cigarettes per day. The first questionnaire recorded the deceased having commenced smoking at age 30 but the applicant conceded in evidence (transcript p8) that that was a mistake. The second and third questionnaires record him having commenced smoking at age 16, which would have been in 1934. He commenced operational service in 1942. There is nothing which points to the deceased having increased his consumption of cigarettes during service or subsequently by reason of service.
74. There is a consistency throughout the three smoking questionnaires of the deceased having given up cigarettes at the age of 50 which would have been in 1968 and which would have been 24 years after service concluded. There is nothing which points to the deceased having continued to smoke cigarettes after service by reason of his service as opposed to his cigarette habit which commenced eight years before operational service commenced.
75. I cannot in these circumstances make any finding of fact that there was a contribution, either wholly or by way of aggravation, arising out of the operational service of the deceased.
76. Additionally, or perhaps in the alternative, the deceased was alleged to have been the subject of attack whilst onboard a vessel which was either bombed or where a bomb exploded in close vicinity which caused him and/or others to be thrown overboard and from which he suffered emotional consequences.
77. Commodore Brecht completed a very thorough report and could find nothing which pointed to the deceased ever having been exposed to such a catastrophe. He did find a report that the vessel Kurimarau did come under attack in November 1942. The deceased did serve on that vessel but from 27 July 1943 only. He was not in service between 21 October 1942 and 1 January 1943.
78. There is no material which points to the deceased being exposed to any form of attack throughout his service as an allied mariner.
79. Accordingly, I do not find as a fact that such an attack occurred and I do not find as a fact that the deceased was subjected to any form of attack or bombing or having been thrown overboard as alleged.
80. Should it be thought that an association exists between a catastrophe of that type and/or smoking of cigarettes giving rise to the presence or worsening of one of the diseases which was ultimately responsible for his death, it follows, as a fact that such a finding cannot be made.
81. There were references in the material to the deceased having consumed alcohol, however, those few references indicate that if he did drink, it was socially and in minimal quantities. Nothing from the material points to any connection between service and drinking alcohol, indeed, it is not known whether the consumption of alcohol occurred before or during service and in any event, whether there was any contribution by the service.
82. In all of those circumstances, having found as a fact that a connection does not exist between service and smoking of cigarettes and consumption of alcohol and having found that the allegation of having been exposed to attack or an explosion or being thrown overboard is unsupported, there is nothing which also points to a combination of cigarettes or alcohol having an association with a stress or an anxiety which might be expected following a catastrophe of that type.
83. In all of the circumstances the decision under review will be affirmed.
    

I certify that the eighty-three [83] preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of:

John Handley, Senior Member

Signed: ...........................[signed].............................................

Associate Grace Horzitski

Date of Hearing 13 September 2010,

Date of Hearing in the papers 14 January 2011

Date of Decision 4 February 2011

Advocate for the Applicant Self-represented

Solicitor for the Respondent Mr E. Nyhof, Department of Veterans' Affairs