news1

News

Your Tax Dollars At Work. Believe these ... or not ...
tall tales and true from unsuccessful claims on the public record

Case 1. How about the ex-RAAF bloke who put in a claim for "cervical and lumbar spondylosis" in 1985, 39 years after it happened? He was posted from Pt Cook to Cooktown in August 1945. Rail to Townsville then ship to Cairns then road to Cooktown. The ship left Townsville on 22 August 1945 [7 days after the end of WW2]. He was then posted from Cooktown to Higgins Field where on 8 February 1946 he was "struck by a branch which fell from a tree". He told the Federal Court that during his trip from Townsville to Cairns the ship went outside the three mile limit [for 6 hours] and therefore he was entitled to "war service".
Would you believe that the Federal Court said, "The appeal be allowed with full costs and the matter be remitted back to the AAT for further consideration with law".

Case 2. The ex-RAN bloke claimed Psychoactive Substance Dependence, Diabetes Mellitus and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder. He claimed his eight trips to Vung Tau were the cause and on the HMAS Sydney he had "no bunk, only a hammock and had to sleep on the mess deck" when he wasn't working in the Operations Room and that the 'scare charges dropped' caused him to believe that the ship would be "blown up".
The AAT said that his anxiety disorder was caused by his heavy drinking which started after he was discharged from the RAN in 1970 and that as his family had a history of Diabetes.
Case dismissed.

Case 3. An ex-sailor took his case to the AAT because his claims for PTSD and Psychoactive Substance Dependence were knocked back by the VRB. He was a gunner on HMAS Swan in 1971 and was "scared and petrified" of floating mines and of Vietnamese 'frogmen' attaching mines to the hull during his 'first tour'. [HMAS Swan was allotted for duty for 10 days from 4 Oct 71 to 14 Oct 71]. On his 'second tour' he recalled that he was "going back into it" and regarded himself as "lucky to survive" his first tour. [HMAS Swan was allotted for duty for 5 days from 8 Dec 71 to 11 Dec 71]. It would have taken a superman of a frogman to attach mines to the hull because HMAS Swan was always underway quite some distance off the coast and never anchored at any time.
The AAT dismissed his claim.

Case 4. The 85 year old ex-RAAF type who claimed his dental cavities were caused by "drinking unfluoridated water" and complained he was not able "to maintain the level of hygiene that he would have liked" during WW2. What he forgot about was that when he enlisted in March 1942 his dental chart showed he had 6 teeth missing, 10 teeth already filled and 4 teeth identified for treatment, 3 of which had already been filled.
Claim dismissed by the AAT

Case 5.     The ex-RAAF aircrew man who was posted to Canada from October 1943 to January 1945 for aircrew training [that's a lot of training]. Prior to his enlistment he had 14 teeth filled but he claimed that "due to unpalatable water supplies" he had to drink "Coca-Cola" during this period and this caused cavities in his teeth.
Would you believe that the AAT deemed his teeth cavities were 'war-caused'??

Case 6.     The ex-Army digger claimed that his "ischaemic heart disease" was 'war-caused' 42 yrs after the end of the war.
The Federal Court had no trouble in rejecting his claim.

Case 7.     The widow who claimed her husband's death from "carcinoma of rectum" in 1978 was 'war-caused'. Her late husband served 1942 to 1945 in the RAAF, did not have any 'operational service' and did not serve outside Australia.
The AAT rejected her appeal.

Case 8.     Believe this one .... an ex-Navy CPO claimed his "ischaemic heart disease" was 'war-caused'. He stated that he "took up smoking in order to relax during the passage from Sydney to Fremantle". Fremantle was the last port of call before the HMAS Sydney unloaded at Vung Tau. He also stated that "he was concerned for his own safety" during his time aboard the ship during its 2 trips to Vung Tau which totalled 39 days of 'operational service' of which only 2 days were spent offshore at Vung Tau.
Would you believe that the Federal Court accepted his appeal that his disease was 'war-caused'??????

Case 9.     The widow who claimed her husband's war-caused disability of a "ligamentous injury to the right knee" was the cause of his death. She said it was because of his injury that her husband couldn't get out of the way when a car crashed into their house.
The AAT dismissed her appeal.

Case 10.     The ex-RAAF bloke who stated he "first experienced acute back pain during service at Point Cook in March 1945". He claimed his "ankylosing spondylosis" was 'war-caused'.
The Federal Court, said it wasn't.

Case 11.     The widow who claimed her husband's death in 1989 from "carcinoma of the colon" was 'war-caused' because he ate a 'high fat diet' for 18 months in New Guinea during 1943/44.
The AAT dismissed her appeal.

Case 12.     A Veteran died in 1977 and his widow remarried again later that year and the marriage lasted until she divorced her second husband in 1983. In 1992 she had the hide to reapply for a "war widows pension" in relation to her first husband's death.
The AAT also dismissed her appeal.

Case 13.     This bloke served in the RAAF from 1965 to 1968. he was allotted for duty in Vietnam but due to illness didn't go. Guess what?
His claim for entitlement as a Veteran didn't hold water.

Case 14.     The ex-Navy bloke who served from Jan 1973 to July 1974 (no operational service) applied to the AAT for a review of a decision that he was not entitled to a pension under the VEA.
He should have saved his breath. The AAT confirmed he was NOT entitled.

Case 15.     The 77 year old ex-Army bloke who served in New Guinea during WW2 and caught malaria. He claimed it was the cause of his "rheumatoid arthritis".
The Federal Court didn't agree and dismissed his appeal.

Case 16.     The Aussie bloke who served in the British Army February 1945 to March 1948 in India, Burma and Singapore.
His claim for entitlement under the VEA was knocked back by the VRB.

Case 17.     The ex-sailor who said that the increase in his smoking habit was "war-caused" when he served on HMAS Parramatta during its first escort trip to Vietnam. the ship was allotted for service from 25 May 1965 to 14 June 1965, a total of 20 days, and spent just 3 days in Vietnamese waters.
The Federal Court dismissed his appeal.

Case 18.     The bloke who served with the Occupation Forces in Japan from December 1946 to March 1948 and was stationed at Hiro which is approx. 12kms from Hiroshima. He claimed his "Chronic Lymphatic Leukaemia" was war-caused by irradiation from the atomic bomb explosion.
Sure. The Federal Court dismissed his appeal.

Case 19.     The ex-RAAF bloke who had 'operational service' during WW2 claimed that by drinking un-flouridated water for 2 years, it caused cavities in his teeth.
Would you believe he took his case to the AAT on 15 December 2000 and it was knocked back. Again.

Case 20.     The ex-Navy type who put in a claim for PTSD. He was on board HMAS Melbourne in April 1966 when a Sea Venom (2 seater plane) missed the deck on landing and crashed into the sea. He claimed his PTSD was caused when he saw the "pilot trying to escape through the canopy" as the plane sank.
Both the pilot and the observer ejected from the plane at sea level (wonder who he saw?).
The AAT dismissed his claim.

Case 21.     Another ex-RAAF ground crew bloke who claimed his "Lumbar-Spondylosis" was caused when he jumped off the wing of a plane during WW2 and his claim was knocked back. Would you believe he appealed the decision.
The Federal Court told him, "appeal dismissed."

Case 22. The 20 year old Navy rating on HMAS Derwent's last trip that spent 10 hrs off the front beach of Vung Tau while "The Ferry" was unloading/loading. He put in a claim for PTSD because the radar picked up an "unidentified" aircraft and he "panicked out of fear that the aircraft might have been hostile". The aircraft 'squawked' friendly 40 secs later. Would you believe he has lodged an appeal to the Federal Court because his claim by the AAT on 21 Aug 00 was knocked back?

Case 23. The ex-nasho who had a history of epilepsy seizures before operational service in 1970/71 and then in 1998 had the hide to file a claim and state that his epilepsy was "war caused".
He didn't get it.

Case 24. The soldier who "officially borrowed" a generator from his unit for use on a private camping trip hurt his back when lifting it on return to unit.
Believe this. The AAT determined that the injury, "lumbar sacral intervertebral prolapse" was defence caused.

Case 25. The ex-Digger who put in a claim for "general anxiety disorder". His reason?? He used to play the bugle at military funerals in Japan in 1952 for several months and it upset him.
He didn't get it. The Federal Court dismissed his appeal.

Case 26. The ex-Army soldier who put in a claim that his "adenocarcinoma of the prostate" was war caused. His operational service amounted to boarding a LST in Caboolture on 14 June 1943 and arriving in Townsville on 18 June 1943.
Would you believe that the Federal Court set aside the AAT's decision and ordered the matter re-heard?

Case 27. The woman who worked as a civvie for the US Army Exchange Service (PX) for 16 months in Vietnam and wanted a "Service Pension"?
She didn't get it.

Case 28.     The sailor who put in for the "Extreme Disablement Adjustment" because he said conditions on board HMAS Sydney included "sleeping on the mess deck in the company of rats".
He didn't get it.

Case 29.     The woman who divorced her husband in 1979 and then put in for a "War Widows Pension" in 1982 when he died?
She didn't get it.

Case 30.     The ex-nurse who served in the Australian Army Women's Medical Service at Bonegilla in Victoria from Jul 44 to Aug 45 claimed her varicose veins were 'war-caused'.
She didn't get it.

Case 31.     The sailor who served on HMAS Vampire and lodged a claim for "Chronic Phobic Anxiety"? Although allotted for duty from 14 May 69 to 25 May 69, HMAS Vampire spent only 15hrs and 9mins in Vietnamese waters on 19 May 69.
He didn't get it.

Case 32.    The CMF soldier who visited Vietnam between 23 Jul 69 and 6 Aug 69 and claimed entitlement for a "generalised anxiety disorder" because he was billeted near a hospital where dead and wounded soldiers were brought in by helicopter.
Would you believe that the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for re-determination?

Case 33.     The ground crew member who served in the RAAF for 3 yrs in World War II who spent less than 3 months in the Northern Territory and claimed for "operational service." During this time he did a trip to Melville Island for a day.
He didn't get it.

Case 34.     A former RANR officer who served in the reserve from 1950 to 1991 and joined HMAS Sydney for the 10th trip to Vietnam as part of his training commitment claimed his smoking habit led to Ischaemic Heart Disease. He claimed his smoking habit increased because he was afraid "a torpedo might hit the ship" and "being in danger of being shot by snipers from the shore".
He didn't get it.

Case 35.     The woman whose first husband died on active service in Vietnam in 1966 and was granted a "War Widows Pension". She remarried 2 years later, divorced her second husband in 1983 and then re-applied to have her War Widows Pension reinstated.
She didn't get it.

Case 36.     The sailor who stated that his ship, HMAS Sydney, was "unloading in Saigon harbour for 4 days" and he was armed only with "a .303 rifle and a whistle" and claimed for PTSD.
He didn't get it.

Case 37.     The Veteran who shot and killed 2 Sergeants in Vietnam (Christmas Day '70) said the shooting was the cause of his PTSD.
He didn't get it.

Case 38.     The Navy gunner who claimed for PTSD and said he used "his Browning machine gun" to sink a Vietnamese boat and the survivors were then machine gunned while he was serving on board HMAS Duchess on 28 Nov 68. There is NO mention of such an incident in either the ship's log or reports of proceedings.
He didn't get it.

This is published in the public interest, particularly that of the Vietnam Veteran Community. All information presented here is fact and the truth. Reports from private citizens are supported by statements of fact and statutory declarations.