Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Columnists/Gillespie_Ian/2005/11/04/1291742.html
For 2 1/2 decades, Gerald Austin served in the Royal Canadian Navy. He sailed aboard destroyers, frigates, an aircraft carrier, a cruiser and a minesweeper. He saw combat in Korea, earned seven medals and watched three of his children follow in his footsteps and join the Armed Forces.
Austin is a navy man, through and through. And for more than 10 years, he has proudly flown the Royal Canadian Navy's ensign from the flagpole in his yard.
No more.
Austin has hauled down his beloved flag. He is withdrawing from three veterans' associations. And although the 72-year-old resident of Ailsa Craig says he'll honour a previous commitment to hand out poppies at a London mall, he insists he won't march at next Friday's Remembrance Day ceremony in Victoria Park.
This is the Year of the Veteran. But as far as Austin is concerned, his 25 years of proud service have ended in anger and betrayal.
"I've lost faith in the system," he says. "I don't want to be any part of it."
Austin's struggles started three years ago, when he realized he was often asking people to speak more loudly. He had trouble hearing phone conversations. His wife often told him to turn down the sound blaring from the TV set.
Austin figured all those years as a "weaponeer" might have had something to do with his hearing loss. After all, he'd spent most of his military career firing giant guns, including large-barrelled anti-aircraft weapons that poured out a deafening stream of 120 rounds a minute.
And during much of that time, Austin says he and he shipmates rarely wore proper protective gear. Sometimes, he says, they'd stuff cotton batting in their ears. Often, they did nothing.
"Once a shoot was over, a lot of us would be hard of hearing for a while," recalls Austin. "But we didn't stand around and compare our hearing loss."
About three years ago, Austin had his hearing checked at a Clinton clinic and was told he needed a hearing aid. Convinced his problem could only be the result of his naval career, Austin visited the local Veterans Affairs office to see if he could be reimbursed for a hearing aid.
Instead, he was told he had to apply for a disability pension.
Always one to play by the rules, Austin applied -- even though he didn't want or need another pension. Austin's request was turned down.
So, he tried again. Again, he was turned down.
Then last week, Austin's final appeal was heard. (He'd have to hire his own lawyer to pursue it further.) His background file had now grown to more than 50 pages, including a testimonial from his family doctor and a report from a certified hearing specialist who confirmed Austin's hearing loss and stated that "most people will not notice the results of noise exposure for years after leaving the noisy environments until age-related loss is coupled with the noise-induced loss."
Again, Austin's appeal was denied, even though an advocate from the local Veterans Affairs Department concluded he was entitled to the pension.
In its conclusion, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board ruled that at the time of Austin's discharge, tests showed no hearing loss (although Austin's hearing specialist argued the tests were "unreliable").
The board also ruled that "wherein medical opinions indicate that hearing loss continues to deteriorate after noise exposure, this information has previously been rejected by the Department and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board."
Medical opinions indicate that hearing loss continues to deteriorate after noise exposure.
Although she wouldn't comment specifically on Austin's case, Veterans Affairs spokesperson Janice Burke, who is based in Charlottetown, P.E.I., says "if someone is exposed to noise . . . what we use in our jurisdiction is that when you remove that person from that noise, there's normally not a further deterioration as a result of that exposure."
So according to Veterans Affairs, all those experts who say hearing loss can develop years after the actual actual damage is incurred are wrong. According to Veterans Affairs, all those years firing big guns didn't damage Austin's hearing.
It sounds like Austin isn't the only one who's a bit deaf.
For 2 1/2 decades, Gerald Austin served in the Royal Canadian Navy. He sailed aboard destroyers, frigates, an aircraft carrier, a cruiser and a minesweeper. He saw combat in Korea, earned seven medals and watched three of his children follow in his footsteps and join the Armed Forces.
Austin is a navy man, through and through. And for more than 10 years, he has proudly flown the Royal Canadian Navy's ensign from the flagpole in his yard.
No more.
Austin has hauled down his beloved flag. He is withdrawing from three veterans' associations. And although the 72-year-old resident of Ailsa Craig says he'll honour a previous commitment to hand out poppies at a London mall, he insists he won't march at next Friday's Remembrance Day ceremony in Victoria Park.
This is the Year of the Veteran. But as far as Austin is concerned, his 25 years of proud service have ended in anger and betrayal.
"I've lost faith in the system," he says. "I don't want to be any part of it."
Austin's struggles started three years ago, when he realized he was often asking people to speak more loudly. He had trouble hearing phone conversations. His wife often told him to turn down the sound blaring from the TV set.
Austin figured all those years as a "weaponeer" might have had something to do with his hearing loss. After all, he'd spent most of his military career firing giant guns, including large-barrelled anti-aircraft weapons that poured out a deafening stream of 120 rounds a minute.
And during much of that time, Austin says he and he shipmates rarely wore proper protective gear. Sometimes, he says, they'd stuff cotton batting in their ears. Often, they did nothing.
"Once a shoot was over, a lot of us would be hard of hearing for a while," recalls Austin. "But we didn't stand around and compare our hearing loss."
About three years ago, Austin had his hearing checked at a Clinton clinic and was told he needed a hearing aid. Convinced his problem could only be the result of his naval career, Austin visited the local Veterans Affairs office to see if he could be reimbursed for a hearing aid.
Instead, he was told he had to apply for a disability pension.
Always one to play by the rules, Austin applied -- even though he didn't want or need another pension. Austin's request was turned down.
So, he tried again. Again, he was turned down.
Then last week, Austin's final appeal was heard. (He'd have to hire his own lawyer to pursue it further.) His background file had now grown to more than 50 pages, including a testimonial from his family doctor and a report from a certified hearing specialist who confirmed Austin's hearing loss and stated that "most people will not notice the results of noise exposure for years after leaving the noisy environments until age-related loss is coupled with the noise-induced loss."
Again, Austin's appeal was denied, even though an advocate from the local Veterans Affairs Department concluded he was entitled to the pension.
In its conclusion, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board ruled that at the time of Austin's discharge, tests showed no hearing loss (although Austin's hearing specialist argued the tests were "unreliable").
The board also ruled that "wherein medical opinions indicate that hearing loss continues to deteriorate after noise exposure, this information has previously been rejected by the Department and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board."
Medical opinions indicate that hearing loss continues to deteriorate after noise exposure.
Although she wouldn't comment specifically on Austin's case, Veterans Affairs spokesperson Janice Burke, who is based in Charlottetown, P.E.I., says "if someone is exposed to noise . . . what we use in our jurisdiction is that when you remove that person from that noise, there's normally not a further deterioration as a result of that exposure."
So according to Veterans Affairs, all those experts who say hearing loss can develop years after the actual actual damage is incurred are wrong. According to Veterans Affairs, all those years firing big guns didn't damage Austin's hearing.
It sounds like Austin isn't the only one who's a bit deaf.