Veterans' Review Board
Home | About the VRB | Contact us | Members and Staff | Publications | Factsheets | ADR trial | Links | Notices | Vacancies | Site map

Jordan and Repatriation Commission

[2012] AATA 292

TRIBUNAL Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Brisbane
MEMBERS R G Kenny (Senior Member)
DECISION The decision under review was affirmed
ISSUES Whether applicant rendered British nuclear test defence service under s69B of he Veterans’ Entitlements Act

Facts

Mr Jordan served with the Royal Australian Navy from 12 September 1951 to 10 September 1957. He lodged a claim with the Commission on 22 October 2010 for malignant neoplasm of the colorectum, malignant melanoma of the skin and pleural plaque. On 1 December 2010 the Commission rejected that claim and on 22 June 2011 the Veterans’ Review Board affirmed that decision.

Issues before the Tribunal

The issue to be determined by the Tribunal was:

The Tribunal’s Consideration

It was submitted on behalf of Mr Jordan that on 5 September 1956 and 30 August 1956 while serving on HMAS Cootamundra he rendered British nuclear test defence service.

On the first of those dates a 44 gallon drum containing radio active waste material was taken on board the Cootamundra in Sydney, taken to sea and dropped overboard some 100 miles from the coast. It was then submitted that the waste material had been produced in British Government nuclear tests in Australia in the 1950’s.

In relation to the second date, he submitted that Mr Jordan was exposed to further radio active material on board the Cootamundra when two scientists joined the vessel and conducted experiments at sea using radio active isotope carbon – 14.

The Tribunal noted there was no dispute concerning the dates of Mr Jordan’s service or the events described. However, the tribunal noted that the claim would be rejected on timing.

Noting the provisions of S69B(3) and the three periods within which eligibility may be established. The relevant periods are:

Neither 5 September 1956 or 30 August 1956 fall within these periods prescribed by s69B(3).

Formal decision

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.

Editorial note

Please refer to updates on BNT service in the Verbosity special issue 2012.

All Practice Notes