�
VeRBosity
Journal of the Veterans' Review Board
�Selected Decisions of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
�
Post traumatic stress disorder - experiencing a stressor - voyages to Vung Tau
Re D Howard and Repatriation Commission
Handley & Re
V97/197
17 September 1998
[Full Text]
�
Mr Howard applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision that his generalised anxiety disorder and hypertension were not war-caused. At the hearing, the diagnosis of "generalised anxiety disorder" was amended to "post traumatic stress disorder". He submitted that the circumstances of his service in Vietnam involved "experiencing a stressor" as defined in the Statement of Principles (SoP) No 15 of 1994 (as amended) relating to post traumatic stress disorder. The SoP includes as factor 1(a) relating to service:
"experiencing a stressor prior to the clinical onset of post traumatic stress disorder;"
The expression "experiencing a stressor" is defined in the SoP as:
"experiencing a stressor means the following (derived from DSM-IV):
(a) the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the person's, or other people's, physical integrity; and
(b) the person's response to that event involved intense fear, helplessness or horror;"
�
Background
Mr Howard served in the Royal Australian Navy from 1958 to 1967. He told the Tribunal of several stressful incidents associated with visits to South Vietnam on board naval vessels. The first incident was in 1962 when he was serving on HMAS Vampire. He went ashore at Saigon to play soccer but had to return quickly to the ship after a security scare.
Mr Howard later served on HMAS Sydney as an able seaman/fireman during two visits to Vietnam in 1965. He said that on the first voyage in June�1965, unloading of the Sydney took four days. During that time he had firefighting duties and was also required to carry out sentry duties supplied only with binoculars, a 303 rifle and a whistle. He believed that the ship was at risk of attack as he was aware that the Viet Cong were releasing mines from Saigon harbour which were intended to float with prevailing tides towards the Sydney. The Viet Cong also engaged divers to attach mines or explosive devices to the underside of the ship. He said that an explosive device was located on a propeller of the ship. Personnel on board the Sydney dropped charges from time to time into the surrounding waters to scare Viet Cong sappers. He said that the devices were "going off all the time" during the four days that the ship was berthed at Vung Tau and were audible on board the ship.
Mr Howard recalled that the Sydney was stationed only 1,000 metres off shore and United States helicopters were strafing the shoreline which was visible from where the Sydney was anchored. He said that he was in fear throughout the four days that he was first at Vung Tau and that he had "some idea" of what was happening on shore based on his experiences in 1962.
In September 1965, he again sailed to Vietnam on board the Sydney. He recalled that there was heavier air activity around Saigon harbour while they were anchored. This included helicopter fire and discharge of rockets from both aircraft and from the USS Preston, an escort vessel. Strafing continued on shore. He was again in fear of underwater enemy activity by Viet Cong sappers despite charges being dropped overboard into the water.
Mr Howard said that the second voyage was far more stressful than the first. He recalled that there was far greater activity on shore and the opportunity of Sydney to defend itself was very limited because it was fitted with only four Bofors guns, which he said were outdated.
Mr Howard was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Sydney in May 1966 which resulted in severe facial lacerations. However, he denied that the accident amounted to a major traumatic event which could have contributed to his post traumatic stress disorder. The veteran's wife gave evidence that his mood deteriorated after his trips to Vietnam in 1965.
�
�Opinion evidence
Mr T Corran, clinical psychologist, was of the opinion that the effect of both journeys to Vung Tau on board Sydney provided a connection with the subsequent diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder. He dismissed any connection between the motor vehicle accident and the PTSD. He said that none of the motor car accident symptoms were observed and that all of the veteran's symptoms were consistent with his service on board Sydney. He was aware that the veteran was on board Sydney for relatively short periods on both occasions and had been briefed in advance of the journey but it was his opinion that the accounts of shelling and firing and the sounds of those incidents would be enough to create a perception of fear and threat and precipitate the onset of PTSD.
Professor J Grey prepared a report based on contemporaneous accounts of the two voyages of Sydney to Vung Tau. On the information available to him, unloading on the first voyage took three days and on the second voyage took two days. Reports from HMAS Duchess recorded monsoon conditions during the first voyage which would have caused poor visibility.
Reports read by Professor Grey disclosed no contact with enemy forces. He acknowledged that there would have been security precautions including provision of sentries, dropping scare charges and routine underwater searches. He agreed that the veteran could have observed and heard the discharge of five inch guns on the Preston despite it being anchored approximately 1 mile away, but said that the veteran would not have been able to see the impact of the five inch mortars on land. He was of the opinion that the Sydney was not under threat during the two voyages to Vietnam.
Dr L Walton, consultant psychiatrist, was of the opinion that the veteran suffers from post traumatic stress disorder but he regarded the motor car accident as the most significant event because of the facial lacerations and scarring and consequent social embarrassment. He said that he would not regard episodes of on shore strafing by United States helicopters as being a stressor or threatening because there was no returned fire. It was his opinion that the veteran did not suffer "serious stressors" by reason of his Vietnam service.�
�
�Tribunal's conclusions
The Tribunal followed the approach laid down by the Full Federal Court in Repatriation Commission v Deledio. (See 14 VeRBosity 45). The Tribunal noted that the hypothesis advanced by the veteran was that he was at risk or threat of injury or death by enemy activity in Vietnam. The Tribunal concluded that the hypothesis was not reasonable. It observed:
"It has to be acknowledged however - and without any disrespect to the applicant - that so far as we are aware as may be gleaned from the documents and from the applicant's evidence, he did not confront, at any time, enemy forces nor were any explosive devices ever detonated by the enemy, nor indeed is there any evidence that he ever fired a single round from his own rifle. There was an episode as the applicant recalled of a grenade being located at or near the rudder of his ship but it did not explode. The only occasion that he was on land was on the first voyage whilst a member of the crew of Vampire, but then only for a very short period of time. Whilst he was aware of strafing on shore, he did not observe enemy forces and whilst he heard the release of a five inch mortar from Preston located approximately 1,000 metres away, he did not observe it land on shore. His vessel was not fired upon nor did it fire upon any other person or vessel. On the applicant's evidence he was in Saigon harbour for a total 7 days over 2 different voyages. On the respondent's evidence it was 5�days. On all the material before us, we cannot conclude that it points to a hypothesis, which is reasonable, connecting the operational service with PTSD."
The Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for finding that Mr Howard was "experiencing a stressor" as defined in the Statement of Principles. Therefore, the hypothesis did not fit the template in the Statement of Principles and was not reasonable.
�
Formal decision
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
[Ed: Mr Howard has lodged an appeal to the Federal Court against the Tribunal's decision.]
�