Tribunal: Senior Member Josephine Kelly
The applicant, Mr Long, served in the Australian Army from 23 September 1981 until 22 October 1984. He had a long history of pension claims for various conditions related to his military service. The latest claim for a pension was for the conditions Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD), alcohol use disorder and depressive disorder. A delegate of the Repatriation Commission refused the claim and the Veteran’s Review Board (VRB) affirmed that decision. Mr Long applied to the AAT for a review of this decision.
For Mr Long to receive the veteran’s pension, there must be a connection between his conditions and his service in the army[1]. To determine if a connection exists, the AAT must refer to what are called “Statement of Principles” (SoPs). SoPs are issued by the Repatriation Medical Authority for each kind of disease that can be considered connected to military service.[2] Each SoP essentially sets out the factors that must be satisfied for the conditions to be deemed connected to the military service for the purposes of the pension.
The AAT had to determine if the claimed conditions were connected to Mr Long’s military service by considering the relevant SoP’s.
Mr Long explained the circumstances of his military service that he believed led to his PTSD, alcohol use disorder and depressive disorder. Briefly, they included the military culture of drinking and associated peer pressure, and an incident where he witnessed another recruit being severely beaten in their bed. He also claimed that he was beaten quite badly after a boxing match he was selected to compete in against a champion boxer.
The AAT was unclear about the kind of injury or disease Mr Long was suffering from. This was because Mr Long had seen two different psychologists, Dr Brash and Dr Smith, who gave conflicting diagnoses.
Dr Brash diagnosed Mr Long with PTSD and depressive disorder, which he believed were caused when Mr Long witnessed the violent incident outlined above, which Dr Brash said left him totally “horrified and frightened”. Dr Brash accepted that Mr Long had a difficult family history. Dr Brash also diagnosed Mr Long with alcohol use disorder, which was in remission. Dr Brash did not refer to an SoP in his report.
Dr Smith agreed that Mr Long had alcohol problems that were in remission. However, he was not satisfied that Mr Long suffered from PTSD but diagnosed him with Persistent Depressive Disorder. Dr Smith considered the SoP relevant to Persistent Depressive Disorder[3] and was not satisfied that the psychological impairment was related to his military service. Dr Smith recorded a more detailed report of Mr Long’s troubled history and believed that his Persistent Depressive Disorder was caused by a number of different factors. Dr Smith also diagnosed Mr Long with Substance Use Disorder but he did not believe he satisfied the SoP for this condition either.[4]
The AAT accepted Dr Smith’s opinions and concluded that Mr Long had Depressive disorder and Substance Use Disorder. Based on Dr Smith’s evidence, the AAT found that Mr Long did not satisfy the SoPs for either condition and therefore neither condition was connected to service. The AAT varied the original decision deciding that Mr Long suffered from Persistent Depressive Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder but neither condition was connected to his military service.
Read the full written decision on AustLII.