It is RCG policy that claims for alcoholism or other diseases arising out of the habitual consumption of alcohol or illicit drugs should not be entertained.
Habitual consumption of alcohol is not and never has been an ADF employment related factor. Excessive consumption of alcohol has no nexus with ADF employment. It is not something that the employer required the employee to do, nor is it reasonably incidental to such employment.
Furthermore, the ADF prohibits and penalises the consumption of alcohol in the workplace, actively discourages over-indulgence in alcohol and those programs of discouragement are of long standing.
However, where a person has a diagnosable addiction to alcohol or illicit drugs as a result of a service related incident (such as witnessing a traumatic event on service) or other service caused factor (including for example an accepted condition such as PTSD), that condition is a disease and provided the evidence meets the appropriate standard of proof may be accepted so long as it can be shown that the alcohol or drug consumption was not of the client's own free will. This would be a medical question. This would usually be determined as a sequela.
Addiction to alcohol or drugs as a condition may only be accepted if there is a definite causal link to service, for example, witnessing a traumatic event and there is evidence to show that the claimant did not exercise free will in the consumption of alcohol or illicit drug to the point of addiction. Addiction to alcohol or drugs purely as a result of consumption of alcohol or drugs during service alone will never result in a claim being accepted.
Where claims for alcoholism and related diseases are presented to Delegates, clients typically assert that a nexus with employment exists in that:
However, these assertions are not to be accepted as demonstrating any nexus between disease and employment.
Peer pressure, if present, is a social interaction between the client and his/her social group – i.e. a private matter – and does not involve the employer or the employment. In any case, and despite 'peer pressure' (if present) it is the client's free decision as to whether he/she was to drink or not, i.e. an act of free will.
The ADF strongly denies that it has ever encouraged the consumption of alcohol, (let alone the over-consumption) either by means of pricing policy in messes or otherwise.
Consumption of alcohol whilst on duty is prohibited and there are penalties where a transgression is detected. Note that the reasoning in the decision in Williams v Comcare (2003), which relates to the sale of tobacco in ADF canteens, can also be applied to the sale of alcohol. The Tribunal found that the employer's making a product available for sale did not make the actual purchase by the employee anything other than the employee's own choice. The act of consumption can not arise out of or in the course of employment.
Despite assertions of 'stress' or 'pain' – and even if these influences can actually be shown to be present – the decision to resort to alcohol should not be regarded as reasonable or inevitable or endorsed by the employer. RCG does not accept that it is reasonable to expect the Commonwealth to pay for the effects of such alleged 'self medication' when conventional forms of medical treatment were readily available to the employee.
The decision to drink alcohol is generally the client's own. However in some cases, where alcohol consumption has resulted in a disease state diagnosable as an addiction, the decision to drink may not be the client's own. As highlighted above, if for example a member witnesses a traumatic event and they turn to alcohol or drugs as a coping mechanism, depending on the evidence and medical opinion on the case, it may be determined that the claimant had no control over their resulting escalated use and addiction. In this instance the addiction may be accepted as a disease, provided there is a material or significant contribution of service. Further an addiction to alcohol/drug may arise say due to a psychological condition, for example PTSD. Again this depends on the medical evidence as to whether the drug/alcohol use was actually of the claimant's own choice or not. If the consumption of alcohol or drugs is the claimant's own choice then it is not as a result of service.
If the accepted medical condition (or a service related incident) makes it impossible for the claimant to exercise free will in the use or abstinence of alcohol, then there can be considered to be a reasonable connection from the claimant's service and/or primarily accepted condition to the condition(s).
Generally though, the decision to drink alcohol to excess i.e. regularly to the point of inebriation where it is the claimant's own free will, can be said to invoke the exclusion under S14(3) i.e. 'serious and wilful misconduct'.
Any injury or disease suffered by a member or ex-member of the ADF as a result of that member's consumption of alcohol or illicit drugs should in most cases be considered to be a result of a personal choice by the member. It follows that alcohol consumption can not be considered to have been reasonably required, expected or authorised by the ADF in order for the member to carry out his/her duties. Consequently, those claims generally are not to be accepted for compensation purposes. There are only two exceptions to this general policy:
Links
[1] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20326%23comment-form
[2] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20078%23comment-form
[3] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20276%23comment-form
[4] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20414%23comment-form
[5] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20190%23comment-form
[6] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20423%23comment-form
[7] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20243%23comment-form