Statement of Principles concerning ascariasis (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 65 of 2025)

The instrument is driven by a small set of core legal and medical concepts that determine its operation. First, ascariasis is given a precise working definition for the purpose of the SoP: infection with Ascaris lumbricoides or Ascaris suum (s7(2)). The instrument notes that Ascaris lumbricoides is the primary human species and Ascaris suum is zoonotic, primarily infecting pigs but capable of infecting humans (s7(2) Notes). It also cites the ICD‑10‑AM code B77 for ascariasis but expressly states that, for the SoP’s application, the statutory definition in s7(2) controls (s7(3)-(4)).

Second, the legal threshold set by the SoP is the “reasonable hypothesis” standard: the RMA states the view that there is sound medical-scientific evidence indicating that ascariasis and death from ascariasis can be related to relevant service (s8). The instrument operationalises that standard by prescribing specific factors which, if they exist and relate to relevant service, as a minimum, are sufficient to raise the reasonable hypothesis connecting the disease or death to service (s9, s10).

Third, the instrument defines the universe of “relevant service” in Schedule 1: operational service, peacekeeping service, hazardous service, British nuclear test defence service (all under the VEA), and warlike or non-warlike service under the MRCA (Schedule 1). This definition circumscribes the service contexts in which the SoP will be applied.

Fourth, temporality and causation features are central. Most exposure factors require that the exposure occurred within two years before clinical onset (s9(1) preamble). The SoP also includes a factor that addresses the inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening (s9(2)), and the Schedule defines “terminal event” in a list of proximate or ultimate causes of death such as pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure or cessation of brain function (Schedule 1).

Fifth, the instrument contains an interaction rule where a factor refers to another injury or disease subject to its own SoP: if so, the terms of that other SoP apply as in force from time to time (s11). Thus overlap with other SoPs is handled by reference to those SoPs.

These concepts determine the evidentiary focus for any claim: which pathogen species, which types of exposure, the relevant time window (two years before clinical onset), the relationship to types of service, and how death is connected to ascariasis through terminal events as defined.

This SoP affects different groups in identifiable ways by changing the evidentiary criteria used when assessing claims under the VEA and MRCA.

Primary affected group: veterans and former members of the Forces making claims under the VEA or MRCA in respect of ascariasis or death from ascariasis. The instrument explicitly applies to “a claim to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA applies” (s5). That means that any individual whose claim engages those statutory provisions will have this SoP applied as part of the medical causation assessment. The instrument does not list claim processing agencies by name, but its operation is within the statutory framework of those Acts.

Secondary affected group: decision-makers who assess entitlement under the VEA and MRCA. The RMA supplies this SoP to inform the medical-fact assessment; decision-makers must use it where the relevant statutory provisions apply. The RMA is the authoring body and determined the SoP under its statutory power (s3). The SoP repeals an earlier Statement (No. 9 of 2017) (s4), so decision-makers must apply the newly stated factors from 22 September 2025 onwards (s2).

Tertiary affected parties: medical and allied health practitioners, treating clinicians, forensic pathologists, occupational health experts, and medico-legal experts who prepare evidence for claimants or for decision-makers. The specified factors in s9 and the Schedule’s definitions (including the temporal requirement of “within the 2 years before clinical onset”) will shape the content of medical reports. For death claims, coroners’ findings or post-mortem reports addressing a terminal event and any contribution by ascariasis will have direct relevance because the SoP defines death from ascariasis as death from a terminal event or condition contributed to by the person’s ascariasis (s7(4); Schedule 1).

Other interested parties: insurers, employers and advisers may be affected indirectly where claims for veteran benefits intersect with other liabilities or compensation entitlements; the SoP may be cited in comparative causation analyses. The instrument’s cross-reference rule (s11) also affects parties when factors implicate other conditions that have their own SoPs.

Geographic and exposure-related implications: the SoP identifies contexts such as being in tropical or subtropical regions with poor sanitation, warm and damp conditions with poor sanitation, or contact with pigs (via inclusion of Ascaris suum in s7(2) and the Notes). That means persons with service in such locations or with occupational exposure to animals may be more likely to meet the SoP’s factors. The Schedule’s definition of relevant service limits applicability to the categories listed, and the instrument’s temporal and causal constraints limit qualifying scenarios.

The SoP does not itself deliver benefit payments. Instead it affects the medical causation assessment that underlies entitlement decisions in the VEA and MRCA framework. The instrument’s repeal of the 2017 SoP changes which medical-factual criteria are current from 22 September 2025 (s4, s2).

This instrument is a Statement of Principles; it does not itself create statutory duties of conduct in the sense of criminal or civil obligations, nor does it create substantive rights of payment. Instead, it specifies the factual and medical factors that must be considered when adjudicating claims under relevant sections of the VEA and MRCA (s5). Within that operational role, the following duties and rights follow from the instrument’s structure.

Duties of the Repatriation Medical Authority:

• The RMA has determined the content of the SoP under its statutory power and states that there is sound medical-scientific evidence linking ascariasis to relevant service (s3, s8). The instrument itself is the RMA’s exercise of that function; it imposes no explicit ongoing duties beyond being the enabling instrument for claim assessment.

Duties of claimants and advisers (practical obligations arising from the SoP’s criteria):

• To raise a reasonable hypothesis linking ascariasis or death from ascariasis to relevant service, at least one of the enumerated factors in s9 must be shown to exist and be related to the person’s relevant service (s9, s10(1)). That imposes an evidentiary obligation on claimants to present facts supporting one or more of the specified exposures or the clinical management factor.
• Where the clinical-management factor in s9(2) is relied upon, subsection 10(2) limits its application to cases of material contribution to or aggravation of ascariasis where the condition was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the person’s relevant service. Practically, this requires claimants relying on s9(2) to demonstrate the chronology and that lack of appropriate management materially contributed to worsening (s10(2)).

Rights of claimants:

• If a claimant establishes a factor under s9 that is related to relevant service (as defined in the Schedule), a reasonable hypothesis is raised. This operates as a threshold evidentiary test in the claims process (s9, s10). The SoP thereby benefits claimants who can marshal the requisite evidence tying exposure or lack of management to their service.

Rights and duties in relation to overlapping conditions:

• Where a factor in s9 refers to an injury or disease that is covered by another SoP determined under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA, the factors in that other SoP apply according to its terms as in force from time to time (s11). This imposes a duty on decision-makers and claimants to consult and apply the relevant other SoP where overlap exists.

Treating clinicians and medical experts have a practical duty to address the factors specified if they prepare reports for claim purposes. The SoP supplies the medico-legal issues experts should treat: whether the person was exposed as per s9(1)(a)-(e), timing relative to clinical onset, whether appropriate management was unavailable before worsening (s9(2)), and whether any terminal event contributing to death was linked to ascariasis (s7(4); Schedule 1).

Procedural and administrative duties under the VEA/MRCA remain external to this instrument; this SoP is an evidentiary input. It does not provide appeal rights, time bars, or payment rules; those are governed by the VEA and MRCA. The instrument’s Schedule supplies definitions of terms such as relevant service, MRCA, VEA, and terminal event, which are necessary to determine whether duties and rights under the SoP are engaged.

This Statement of Principles does not create criminal offences, civil penalties, or administrative sanctions within its text. It is an evidentiary and determinative instrument designed to guide medical causation assessments under the VEA and MRCA. The instrument’s sections provide medical-factual criteria rather than rules prescribing penalties or enforcement mechanisms.

Enforcement mechanism, insofar as the instrument operates, is indirect and administrative: the SoP is applied by decision-makers when determining claims under the VEA and MRCA. The instrument specifies that it applies to claims to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA applies (s5). Any enforcement consequence (grant, refusal, or other administrative outcome) flows from the operation of those Acts and the decision-making processes they establish, not from the SoP itself.

The RMA’s view that “there is sound medical-scientific evidence” forming the basis of the SoP is recorded in s8. That statement indicates the evidentiary threshold that the RMA has applied in deciding to issue this SoP. The SoP then prescribes the factors that, if established and related to relevant service, will raise a reasonable hypothesis linking ascariasis or death from ascariasis to service (s9-s10). The SoP’s legal force is that it operates as definitive medical evidence for the relevant causation question in claims processes; statutory procedures outside this instrument will determine administrative outcomes and any subsequent judicial review or appeal.

Because the instrument does not itself set out penalties, there is no enforcement agency named within it to impose sanctions for non-compliance with the SoP. Non-compliance in practical terms would mean failure to produce evidence meeting the SoP’s factors; the consequence of that is likely the rejection of a claim by the relevant decision-maker under the VEA or MRCA framework. Any challenge to a decision that applies the SoP or disputes its application would be managed under the VEA/MRCA dispute resolution and review mechanisms, which are not detailed in this instrument.

In short, the SoP functions as a determinative evidentiary tool used by decision-makers rather than as a statute that creates offences or direct penalties; enforcement therefore occurs through its effect on entitlement decisions under the VEA and MRCA, not through sanctions written into the SoP.

The instrument is explicitly made under subsection 196B(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (s3), and it applies to claims under specified provisions of the VEA and the MRCA (s5). The SoP therefore operates within and in aid of the statutory framework established by those Acts. It does not itself amend or repeal provisions of those Acts; rather it provides the medical-fact matrix that adjudicators will use when applying the relevant provisions.

Cross-reference to the VEA and MRCA:

• The instrument states it is made under s196B(2) of the VEA (s3) and applies to claims to which s120A of the VEA or s338 of the MRCA applies (s5). Consequently, where those statutory provisions require or permit medical causation determinations, this SoP supplies the factors that establish a reasonable hypothesis connecting ascariasis to service.

Interaction with other Statements of Principles:

• Section 11 creates an inter-SoP interaction rule: if a factor set out in s9 refers to an injury or disease that itself is the subject of another SoP issued under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA, then the factors in that other SoP apply according to its terms (s11). This means overlapping medical conditions are handled by applying the SoPs for each relevant condition, as they stand from time to time.

Reference to ICD-10-AM:

• The instrument notes that ascariasis attracts ICD‑10‑AM code B77 but makes clear that, in applying this SoP, the meaning of ascariasis is that given in subsection 7(2) (s7(3)). It further clarifies that a reference to an ICD-10-AM code is to the Tenth Edition effective 1 July 2017, and cites the publisher and ISBN (s7(3) note). Thus, while the SoP references an internationally used diagnostic code, it reserves its own statutory definition as controlling.

Definitions that interface with other laws:

• The Schedule defines MRCA and VEA by name, and more importantly defines “relevant service” by listing the classes of service that bring a person within the SoP’s scope (Schedule 1). That definition is the bridge between service law and the medical causation assessment provided by the SoP.

Repeal of earlier instrument:

• The SoP expressly repeals the prior Statement of Principles concerning ascariasis (No. 9 of 2017) and gives the Federal Register of Legislation citation for that instrument (s4). That repeal is an internal housekeeping interaction with previous RMA instruments; it changes which SoP is current for the purposes of claims.

Limitations of interaction:

• The SoP does not set out procedural claim rules, time limits, appeal rights, or payment entitlements; those are governed by the VEA and MRCA and by decision-makers administering those Acts. The SoP’s role is to inform medical causation; any application of the SoP will be subject to the processes and legal constraints in the VEA/MRCA and any subordinate instruments or administrative policies, which are not contained in this instrument.

In practice, the SoP will be applied alongside medical evidence, service records, and any other statutory requirements in the VEA and MRCA. The cross-reference to other SoPs means that multi-factor or multi-condition causation assessments require attention to the current wording of multiple RMA SoPs.

This instrument is Statement of Principles No. 65 of 2025 concerning ascariasis, dated 22 August 2025 and commencing 22 September 2025 (s1, s2; header). It explicitly repeals the previous SoP on the same subject: Statement of Principles concerning ascariasis (Reasonable Hypothesis) (No. 9 of 2017), Federal Register of Legislation No. F2017L00015 (s4). The instrument therefore replaces the 2017 version as the operative SoP from its commencement date.

Key dates recorded in the instrument:

• Determination date: 22 August 2025 (header).
• Commencement date: 22 September 2025 (s2).
• Repeal of prior SoP: the 2017 instrument is repealed upon commencement (s4).

Authority for amendment and repeal:

• The instrument is made under subsection 196B(2) of the VEA (s3), which is the enabling provision the RMA uses to determine Statements of Principles and to update or replace them. The instrument exercises that power to revoke the prior SoP and substitute the present one.

Notation of edition and numbering:

• The instrument is numbered No. 65 of 2025 and is identified throughout by its subject matter and number (s1). It also lists the earlier SoP by its Federal Register citation so that practitioners can trace the predecessor instrument.

Content changes implicit in repeal and replacement:

• While the instrument itself contains the current operative factors, definitions, and cross-references, it does not include a comparison table or a changelog comparing the 2017 and 2025 versions. The mere repeal and replacement indicates the RMA has changed the SoP’s content, but the instrument contains only the new text; any substantive differences must be determined by comparing the prior instrument (F2017L00015) with the present instrument. The SoP provides its own Schedule of definitions and the set of factors that are currently determinative.

Record of authority and signatory:

• The instrument records the RMA Chairperson, Professor Terence Campbell AM, as signing on behalf of the Repatriation Medical Authority (header). That provides an administrative trace for the determination.

No amendment history beyond repeal:

• The instrument contains no further entries describing amendments made after commencement. Any subsequent amendments to this SoP would, presumably, be recorded in future instruments made under the same enabling provision; those are not present in this text.

Practitioners should note that the operative document as of 22 September 2025 is this Statement No. 65 of 2025 and that the earlier 2017 instrument is no longer in force as of that date (s2, s4).

The instrument itself contains no statement of prior litigation, case references, or judicial considerations in relation to this particular SoP. It lists no court decisions, tribunal determinations, or other litigation outcomes. The only textual references within the instrument are to enabling statutory provisions, ICD-10-AM coding, and the RMA’s view that there is sound medical-scientific evidence (s3, s7(3), s8).

What the SoP does record is the RMA’s medical-scientific basis for issuing the instrument: “The Repatriation Medical Authority is of the view that there is sound medical-scientific evidence that indicates that ascariasis and death from ascariasis can be related to relevant service” (s8). That is a statement of the RMA’s evaluative conclusion rather than a summary of litigation or authoritative judicial commentary.

Because the instrument will operate as part of the evidentiary framework in claims under the VEA and MRCA, it may be referenced in administrative decisions and in any review or litigation that challenges a decision under those Acts. However, the instrument provides no record of such litigation, nor does it cite any case law as authoritative for the propositions contained within it.

For practitioners seeking precedent or judicial treatment of this SoP or related causation questions, the instrument offers no internal litigation history. Any litigation history that bears on the application or interpretation of the SoP will exist outside this text, in tribunal or court records, administrative decisions, or other materials. That material is not reproduced in the instrument.

In short, this SoP contains no litigation history. It establishes the medical-factual criteria to be applied within the statutory claims process; whether and how courts or tribunals will interpret, apply or review these criteria will be a matter for case law developed after the instrument’s commencement, but such decisions are not included in this text.

The SoP’s operative language creates a number of points where claimants, advisers and decision-makers may encounter pitfalls or unexpected constraints. These are textual and evidentiary, drawn from the instrument’s wording.

1. Temporal window for exposure:

• The exposure factors listed in s9(1)(a)-(e) are conditioned by the preamble that they must have occurred “within the 2 years before clinical onset.” The instrument does not define “clinical onset.” Consequently, establishing the correct onset date is critical; discrepancies in medical records as to when symptoms began may determine whether an exposure lies inside or outside the qualifying window. Because the SoP’s minimum requirement is that “at least one” factor must exist, an exposure outside that two-year window will not satisfy s9(1) even if otherwise plausible.

2. Scope and ambiguity of environmental descriptions:

• The factors use descriptive terms such as “being in a tropical or subtropical region with poor sanitation” and “being in warm and damp conditions with poor sanitation” (s9(1)(d)-(e)). Those terms require factual proof of the environmental conditions and the level of sanitation. The SoP does not define “poor sanitation”, “tropical or subtropical region”, or quantitative metrics for “warm and damp,” leaving scope for differing interpretations and potential evidentiary disputes. Practitioners will need to marshal contemporaneous service records, location data, and possibly expert evidence to prove the environmental condition met the SoP’s terms.

3. Interaction between pre-existing disease and the clinical-management factor:

• The inability to obtain appropriate clinical management factor (s9(2)) is expressly limited by s10(2): it applies only to material contribution to, or aggravation of, ascariasis where the person’s ascariasis was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the person’s relevant service. This restriction means s9(2) cannot be used to prove primary causation where the disease arose out of service; rather it applies to aggravation or material contribution. Advisers must be careful when electing to rely on s9(2) to ensure the chronology and causal posture of the claim fit the subsection’s limitation.

4. Requirement for relation to relevant service:

• Section 10(1) requires that the existence of any factor in s9 “must be related to the relevant service rendered by the person.” This means mere proof of exposure or poor sanitation at some time will not suffice unless a nexus to the categories of “relevant service” in Schedule 1 is established. Service types are specified and limited (operational, peacekeeping, hazardous, British nuclear test defence service, warlike, or non-warlike service). Evidence of the service type and location will therefore be essential.

5. Death claims and “contributed to” language:

• For death, the SoP defines ascariasis as including “death from a terminal event or condition that was contributed to by the person’s ascariasis” (s7(4)). The Schedule defines “terminal event” with a list (pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, cessation of brain function). Establishing that ascariasis contributed to such a terminal event requires medical causation evidence showing contribution, which can be contested. The instrument does not set a quantitative standard for “contributed to,” leaving room for differing medical opinions.

6. ICD‑10‑AM reference but statutory definition supersedes:

• The instrument notes ascariasis attracts ICD‑10‑AM code B77 but states that, for the SoP’s application, the meaning is that given in s7(2) (s7(3)). Practitioners should not assume that an ICD‑10‑AM coding alone satisfies the SoP; the species-based definition and the listed factors control.

7. Interaction with other SoPs:

• If a factor in s9 refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP, that other SoP’s factors apply “as in force from time to time” (s11). This creates two points of potential surprise: (a) practitioners must identify and apply any relevant other SoPs in their current form; and (b) future amendments to those SoPs may alter the proof required. Reliance on a cross-referenced SoP therefore requires checking its current wording at the time of adjudication.

8. Ascaris suum as zoonosis:

• The instrument includes Ascaris suum (Schedule 1 and s7(2)), noting it is primarily a pig parasite but capable of infecting humans. Claims involving contact with pigs or animal faeces will need evidence linking that exposure to infection, and proof that the species was capable of infecting the person. The SoP does not specify diagnostic differentiation between species, which could complicate claims where species identification is relevant.

9. Lack of procedural detail:

• The SoP does not provide procedural rules on how evidence should be presented, or which decision-maker applies the SoP. Those procedural matters are governed by the VEA and MRCA; claimants and advisers must ensure evidence is filed in the correct claim stream and format. Failure to align with the statutory claim process, which is outside the SoP text, may result in evidentiary or procedural objections.

10. Burden of proof and practical evidence requirements:

• The SoP sets out factors that create a reasonable hypothesis if established and related to service. It does not state how those factors are to be proved. Practitioners should expect to supply contemporaneous service records, location logs, medical records noting symptom onset, environmental or sanitary reports, and medico-legal expert opinion to tie the clinical and exposure facts to service. The absence of any explicit evidentiary thresholds in the SoP leaves the weight and sufficiency of proof to the decision-makers applying the VEA and MRCA statutory schemes.

In all, the SoP’s textual choices create a set of technical evidentiary requirements where timing, environmental description, nexus to relevant service, and detailed medical causation for death claims are potential stumbling blocks if not addressed precisely.

Compliance, in the context of this SoP, means presenting the factual and medical material necessary to satisfy the SoP’s requirements so that a reasonable hypothesis is raised linking ascariasis or death from ascariasis to relevant service. The SoP itself prescribes what must be established: at least one of the factors in s9 must exist and be related to the person’s relevant service (s9, s10(1)). The following is a practical checklist, based strictly on the instrument’s text, for claimants, medical practitioners and advisers preparing or assessing claims.

1. Confirm the claim falls within the SoP’s application:

• Verify the claim is one “to which section 120A of the VEA or section 338 of the MRCA applies” (s5). The SoP is not a stand-alone entitlement instrument; it is applied only within the scope of these statutory claim types.

2. Establish the diagnosis of ascariasis according to the SoP’s definition:

• Ensure medical records show infection with Ascaris lumbricoides or Ascaris suum, consistent with s7(2). Note that the SoP states the meaning of ascariasis is that in s7(2), notwithstanding the ICD‑10‑AM code reference (s7(3)). Where species identification is available, document it; where only a generic diagnosis is recorded, prepare expert evidence mapping that diagnosis to the SoP’s species-based definition.

3. Document clinical onset precisely:

• Because the exposure factors in s9(1) require occurrence “within the 2 years before clinical onset,” establish and document the clinical onset date in medical records. Where onset is disputed or gradual, obtain expert opinion to fix a reasonable date of clinical onset.

4. Gather evidence that establishes one or more of the s9 factors and the timing:

• For exposure to contaminated soil or sand (s9(1)(a)): obtain service location records, duty descriptions, mobility logs, photographic or environmental reports, or witness statements indicating contact with soil or sand known or plausibly contaminated with eggs.
• For exposure to human or animal faeces (s9(1)(b)): secure evidence of circumstances involving faecal contamination, such as sanitation reports, incident reports, contemporaneous notes, or testimonies.
• For ingestion of contaminated food, drink, or airborne dust (s9(1)(c)): obtain food service records, ration logs, complaints, contemporaneous illness reports, or expert material on likely contamination vectors.
• For being in tropical/subtropical regions with poor sanitation, or warm and damp conditions with poor sanitation (s9(1)(d)-(e)): provide location data (coordinates, base names), environmental and sanitation assessments, service records indicating deployment in such regions, and corroborating statements.
• For Ascaris suum exposure: if contact with pigs or pig environments is asserted, gather service or occupational records indicating such contact, and any veterinary or environmental testing if available.

5. Where relying on inability to obtain appropriate clinical management (s9(2)):

• Document attempts to obtain treatment, records of service medical facilities’ capabilities at the time, contemporaneous sick parade or clinic records, and expert evidence that lack of appropriate clinical management materially contributed to worsening or aggravation. Remember s10(2) limits this factor to cases where ascariasis was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) relevant service, and where the lack of management materially contributed to or aggravated the condition.

6. Show the nexus to relevant service:

• As the SoP requires any factor to be related to relevant service (s10(1)), assemble service records proving the person rendered the type of relevant service set out in Schedule 1 (operational, peacekeeping, hazardous, British nuclear test defence service under the VEA, or warlike or non-warlike service under the MRCA). Match dates and locations of service to the exposure and clinical timeline.

7. For death claims:

• If asserting death from ascariasis, establish that death was from a terminal event or condition to which ascariasis contributed (s7(4)). Collect death certificates, coronial findings, post mortem reports, hospital records, and expert pathology or clinical opinion addressing whether and how ascariasis contributed to terminal events listed in the Schedule (pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, cessation of brain function).

8. Address cross-referenced SoPs if a factor touches another disease:

• If any factor in s9 refers to an injury or disease covered by a separate SoP, identify that SoP and ensure the claim also complies with its factors as “in force from time to time” (s11). Evidence requirements may therefore include material specified in the other SoP.

9. Prepare medico-legal reports focused on the SoP factors:

• Experts should explicitly address the presence or absence of each relevant s9 factor, timing relative to clinical onset, the nexus to relevant service, and, for death claims, contribution to terminal events. Reports should reference the SoP language where relevant and explain how the medical facts meet the SoP’s requirements.

10. Anticipate contested issues and prepare corroborative evidence:

• Because terms such as “poor sanitation” and “warm and damp” are qualitative, include corroborative materials: contemporaneous unit logs, environmental assessments, internal health service communications, witness statements, and any third-party documentation (reports, NGO assessments, local public health materials).

11. Procedural presentation:

• Present the collected evidence in the format and through the channels required by the VEA or MRCA claim processes (s5). The SoP does not set form or lodgement requirements; these remain the statutory scheme’s responsibility. Ensure all evidence establishes the links the SoP requires: exposure factor, timing, and relationship to the specified relevant service.

12. Keep the current SoP under review:

• The SoP that applies is “as in force from time to time.” Check that the SoP relied upon is the operative version at the time of submission or adjudication (s11). The 2017 SoP has been repealed and replaced by this 2025 instrument as of the commencement date (s4, s2).

Following this compliance-oriented checklist aligns the factual and medical case material with the SoP’s requirements. Because the SoP is an evidentiary instrument used by decision-makers under the VEA and MRCA, compliance is achieved by producing the documentary and expert medical material that proves one or more of the enumerated factors, ties them to the person’s relevant service, and establishes the required temporal relationships.