RCB Introduction to Complaint 2

RIFLE COMPANY BUTTERWORTH SUPPORTERS GROUP

46 WOODEND RD SHEIDOW PARK SA 5158

[Download the full document by clicking here.]

PART TWO

COMPLAINT TWO

1. We contend that DHAT (at the time of issuing TOR and collecting evidence was administered under the Defence Act, although at the time of publication of the report was administered by the DHAAT Act) are guilty of offences under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977-Sect 5. 1, which states:

(a)   that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with making the decision:

(b)   that procedures required by law to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed:

5. 2 (a) taking an irrelevant consideration into account in the exercise in power

(c)    failing to take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of power;

2. We also contend that the Inquiry Report was fatally flawed because it did consider evidence and report on evidence supplied to it by the RCB Supporters Review Group. Major evidence countering the report conclusions should discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

3. The following conclusions can be made from the evidence supplied to the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal by several persons.

1. Service in RCB was “Warlike Service” due to firstly its role was to “Protect Australian Assets” from Communist Terrorist elements in Malaysia between 1970 and 1989.
2. There was a threat from an armed adversary.
3. Members of RCB were governed by aggressive ROE (similar to SEC DET Iraq) not personal protection like Peacekeeping Operations
4. Intelligence briefings supported the “Threat Assessment”.
5. Training in “Casualty Evacuation” and “Combat First Aid” was conducted.
6. Policy decisions of Mohr and Clarke support the findings.
7. Opinions from some senior officers support the “War Like” assertion.
8. Opinions should be based on 1973 scenarios not 2011 as stated by Mohr and Clarke.
9. Senior officers in the approval process and DHAAT have intentionally ignored written evidence and lastly,
10. The precedent of awarding the AASM for “War Like” service was not tested against similar service at RAAF Base Ubon.

[Download the full document by clicking here.]