Statement of Principles concerning radiation burn (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 6 of 2024)

The instrument’s core concepts are defined in the body and Schedule 1 and determine what a decision maker must treat as a sufficient nexus between radiation burn and relevant service.

Radiation burn: The SoP defines radiation burn as an injury to the skin and external body covering tissues caused by transfer of energy into tissue from external exposure to ionising radiation (s 7(2)(a)). It expressly includes ionising radiation burns of deep tissues and organs when they are part of a multiple burn injury that includes injury to the skin and external body covering tissues (s 7(2)(b)). It expressly excludes ultraviolet radiation burns and isolated ionising radiation burns of internal organs such as the respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract and internal genitourinary tract (s 7(2)(c)(i)-(ii)).

Death from radiation burn: Death is encompassed where the terminal event or condition was contributed to by the person’s radiation burn (s 7(3)). The Schedule defines “terminal event” as the proximate or ultimate cause of death and gives examples: pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure or cessation of brain function (Schedule 1).

Relevant service: The instrument uses the term “relevant service” and defines it in the Schedule. Relevant service comprises eligible war service (other than operational service) under the VEA, defence service (other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service) under the VEA, and peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1). The SoP also states it applies to claims to which s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA applies (s 5).

Causation standard and required factors: The RMA states its view that, on the sound medical‑scientific evidence available, it is more probable than not that radiation burn and death from radiation burn can be related to relevant service (s 8). To establish the onus on the balance of probabilities, at least one of two specified factors in s 9 must be present:

• Exposure to ionising radiation sufficient to cause at least erythema at the affected area within 30 days before clinical onset (s 9(1)); or
• Inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for radiation burn before clinical worsening (s 9(2)).

Relationship to service: The SoP requires the factor(s) relied upon to be related to the person’s relevant service (s 10(1)). The second factor (inability to obtain management) is limited so it applies only to material contribution to, or aggravation of, radiation burn where the person’s radiation burn was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) relevant service (s 10(2)).

Interaction with other SoPs: If a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP, the factors in that other SoP apply in accordance with that instrument (s 11).

Administrative scope: The instrument is an RMA determination intended for use in statutory decision‑making under the specified VEA and MRCA provisions (s 3, s 5). It replaces a prior SoP on external burn (s 4).

Terminology and limits in definitions: The definitions in Schedule 1 are the source text for MRCA, VEA, radiation burn, relevant service and terminal event. That limits how those terms must be read in applying the SoP. The instrument’s exclusions create categorical boundaries for claims (for example, excluding UV burns and isolated internal organ ionising burns) (s 7(2)(c)).

Primary parties:

• Claimants: Veterans, former members and members of the Forces who lodge claims under the VEA or the MRCA where the claim concerns radiation burn or death from radiation burn. The instrument applies specifically to claims to which s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA applies (s 5). The Schedule’s definition of “relevant service” narrows who may be eligible: eligible war service other than operational service, defence service other than hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service, and peacetime service under the MRCA (Schedule 1). Those definitional choices exclude particular categories of service from the label “relevant service” within this instrument (Schedule 1).

• Decision makers and administrators: The Repatriation Medical Authority prepared the SoP (s 3). Administrators and decision makers under the VEA and MRCA must apply the SoP as an instrument when assessing whether radiation burn or death from radiation burn is connected with relevant service, because the instrument prescribes the factors that must exist for a positive finding (s 9 and s 8). The SoP is therefore a direct input into entitlement determinations under the referenced statutory provisions (s 5).

Secondary parties:

• Medical practitioners and experts who provide clinical records, opinions, or expert reports for claims. The causation factors specified are medical in nature (for example, exposure sufficient to cause at least erythema within 30 days of clinical onset (s 9(1)); inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening (s 9(2))). Practitioners will need to provide evidence and opinion addressing those elements when engaged in assessments or litigation.

• Record custodians: Defence and health record holders that can produce evidence of exposure, dosimetry, medical treatment, timing of onset and service records are functionally affected because claimants and decision makers will seek those materials to satisfy the factors in s 9 and the relationship requirement in s 10.

Who is not covered by this instrument:

• Persons asserting ultraviolet radiation burns: ultraviolet radiation burns are expressly excluded from “radiation burn” in this instrument (s 7(2)(c)(i)).

• Persons alleging isolated internal organ ionising radiation burn without accompanying skin or external tissue burn: the instrument excludes isolated ionising radiation burn of internal organs such as the respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract and internal genitourinary tract (s 7(2)(c)(ii)). The instrument does, however, include deep tissue and organ burns when part of a multiple burn injury that includes skin/external tissue injury (s 7(2)(b)).

Geographic, temporal, and legal scope:

• Temporal commencement: Decisions must apply this SoP from its commencement date, 22 January 2024 (s 2). It repeals an earlier SoP (s 4), which may alter the applicable standard for claims assessed after commencement.

• Legal scope: It applies in the context of VEA and MRCA claims specified in s 5. The instrument itself does not create entitlements; it provides the RMA’s prescribed medical causation framework used by decision makers applying the VEA and MRCA.

Practical effects on claimants:

• To secure a finding that a radiation burn is connected with relevant service, claimants need to adduce material satisfying at least one of the s 9 factors and show that the factor is related to their relevant service (s 9, s 10(1)).

• If claimants rely on the inability to obtain appropriate clinical management factor (s 9(2)), additional constraints apply: that factor only relates to material contribution or aggravation where the burn was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) relevant service (s 10(2)). That temporal constraint limits the circumstances in which inability to obtain care can ground a service connection finding.

This instrument does not create affirmative duties or civil/criminal penalties in the way primary legislation can, but it prescribes legal thresholds and evidentiary factors that operate as duties on decision makers and rights or obligations for claimants during the entitlement process.

Duties of decision makers:

• Apply the SoP factors when determining whether a person’s radiation burn or death from radiation burn is connected with relevant service. The SoP states that at least one factor in s 9 must exist before it can be said, on the balance of probabilities, that radiation burn is connected to service (s 9). Therefore, decision makers must check for the presence of those factors.

• Apply the causation standard articulated by the RMA: the SoP expressly records the RMA’s view that, on sound medical‑scientific evidence, it is more probable than not that radiation burn can be related to relevant service (s 8). Decision makers must apply the “balance of probabilities” standard consistent with the SoP in the relevant statutory context.

• Ensure the factor relied upon is related to the person’s relevant service (s 10(1)). The RMA requires causation factors to be linked to the service period or circumstances claimed.

• Observe the special temporal limitation for the clinical management factor: the inability to obtain appropriate clinical management in s 9(2) applies only where the person’s radiation burn was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the person’s relevant service and where it is in issue as material contribution or aggravation (s 10(2)).

• If a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP, the decision maker must apply the factors in that other SoP as in force (s 11). This imposes a duty to cross‑reference and harmonise SoPs where overlap exists.

Rights and obligations of claimants:

• Evidentiary obligation: Claimants will need to present evidence addressing the SoP’s factors. For the exposure factor, the SoP requires exposure to ionising radiation sufficient to cause at least erythema on the affected area within 30 days before clinical onset (s 9(1)). For the clinical management factor, claimants must show inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening, where applicable (s 9(2)).

• Service‑link obligation: Claimants must establish that the factor(s) they rely upon are related to their relevant service as defined in the Schedule (s 10(1); Schedule 1). The Schedule’s definition of relevant service sets the categories of service that the SoP contemplates.

• Where claimants’ facts intersect with other SoPs, they have the right to have those instruments applied in accordance with s 11. That may require adducing evidence relevant to those other SoPs.

Administrative rights and process implications:

• The instrument itself does not prescribe procedural rights or timelines for claimants. It is an evidentiary and medical threshold instrument to be used by decision makers applying the VEA and MRCA (s 3, s 5).

Limits and interpretive obligations:

• The definitions and exclusions in s 7 and Schedule 1 are mandatory interpretative boundaries for decision makers and claimants. For example, ultraviolet burns are excluded and cannot form the basis of a radiation burn finding under this SoP (s 7(2)(c)(i)).

• The SoP’s examples and definitions, such as “terminal event” listed in Schedule 1, guide the interpretation of “death from radiation burn” (s 7(3); Schedule 1).

This instrument is a Statement of Principles, an administrative instrument that sets medical causation factors for the purposes of entitlements under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA). The instrument does not itself create criminal offences, civil penalties or monetary fines. It therefore contains no penalty or enforcement provisions inside its text.

Enforcement and effect in decision making:

• The practical enforcement mechanism is administrative: decision makers under the VEA and the MRCA will use the SoP’s factors when determining whether a veteran’s or member’s radiation burn (or death from it) is connected to relevant service (s 5; s 9). The SoP is authoritative for medical causation within the scope of those statutes because it is made under the RMA’s statutory power (s 3).

• Where a decision maker uses the SoP in assessing a claim, the SoP functions as the evidentiary standard. A negative finding based on the SoP may lead to denial of an entitlement claim under the VEA or MRCA; the instrument does not itself state the consequence, but that is the practical chain given the instrument’s role in claims under s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA (s 5).

Dispute mechanisms and legal challenge:

• The instrument does not set out review or appeal mechanisms. Any enforcement of the SoP’s content occurs through the usual statutory decision, review and appeal processes under the VEA and MRCA framework, as those statutes govern admissibility, review rights and judicial review. The SoP itself is silent on those processes.

No criminal or civil sanctioning power in the instrument:

• There are no penalty clauses, infringement rules, or compliance notices in the instrument text. The RMA’s role here is diagnostic and declaratory: it determines medical causation principles to be applied administratively (s 3).

Operational enforcement implications:

• Administrative enforcement therefore depends on record production, decision makers’ application of the SoP, and possible administrative or judicial review under the enabling statutes. The SoP equips decision makers with discrete medical causation criteria (s 9, s 10, s 11), but it leaves adjudicative consequences (for example, grant or denial of benefits) to the applicable statutory and administrative processes referenced in s 5.

The instrument expressly situates itself within the VEA/MRCA statutory framework and with other Statements of Principles. Its interaction with other laws and instruments is set out in the text; do not infer beyond those express statements.

Relationship to the enabling statutes:

• The instrument is made under subsection 196B(3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (s 3). That identifies the legal source of the RMA’s authority to determine SoPs. The instrument applies to claims to which s 120B of the VEA or s 339 of the MRCA applies (s 5). The SoP therefore functions as an evidentiary tool within statutory adjudications under those provisions.

Interaction with prior Statements of Principles:

• The instrument repeals the earlier Statement of Principles concerning external burn No. 111 of 2015 (Federal Register No. F2015L01331) (s 4). That express repeal means that, for the matters this instrument covers, the earlier instrument no longer governs. Decision makers and claimants must use the new SoP from its commencement date (s 2).

Cross‑SoP referencing:

• Section 11 requires that if a factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP made under subsection 196B(3) of the VEA, then the factors in that other SoP apply in accordance with its terms as in force from time to time (s 11). This creates an explicit rule for harmonising overlapping SoPs: the other SoP’s factors must be applied where the factor referenced is about an injury/disease that that other SoP covers.

Implications of defined terms and exclusions for statutory application:

• The Schedule defines “relevant service” by reference to categories under the VEA and MRCA (Schedule 1). Because the SoP’s application is limited to claims under s 120B VEA and s 339 MRCA (s 5), the instrument interacts with those statutes by narrowing the class of service that can ground a positive causal finding under this SoP. For example, the Schedule excludes operational service, hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service from “relevant service” for the purposes of this SoP; those exclusions condition how the SoP will be applied within the broader VEA/MRCA scheme (Schedule 1).

No interaction with other statutes beyond VEA/MRCA stated:

• The instrument does not reference other Commonwealth or state laws, nor does it create obligations or powers beyond those necessary for decision making under the cited VEA/MRCA provisions. Any interaction with other legislative regimes would occur through the applicant’s broader statutory entitlements and cannot be inferred from this instrument.

Operational integration:

• Administratively, decision makers must identify when a factor in s 9 triggers relevant SoPs or other medical standards and then apply those instruments together (s 11). They must also apply the RMA’s causation view (s 8) and the SoP’s specific factors (s 9) when adjudicating claims under s 120B VEA or s 339 MRCA (s 5).

The instrument contains limited express amendment history within its text. The key amendment actions recorded are:

• Repeal: The instrument expressly repeals the Statement of Principles concerning external burn No. 111 of 2015 (Federal Register of Legislation No. F2015L01331), previously made under subsections 196B(3) and (8) of the VEA (s 4). That repeal removes the earlier instrument from force as of this instrument’s commencement.

• New instrument: The instrument is issued as Statement of Principles concerning radiation burn (Balance of Probabilities) (No. 6 of 2024) and is dated 22 December 2023 (instrument header and s 1). The instrument’s commencement is 22 January 2024 (s 2). The instrument records the affixation of the Common Seal of the RMA and identifies the Chairperson, Professor Terence Campbell AM, as having directed that seal (instrument header).

No other amendments, schedules or corrigenda are recorded in the instrument text. The SoP does not include transitional provisions describing how outstanding claims assessed under the repealed 2015 SoP are to be handled; it simply repeals the prior SoP and commences on the stated date (s 2, s 4). That means assessing authorities must follow normal administrative practice, statutory provisions and policy regarding the handling of in‑progress claims; any specific transitional rules would need to be found in the enabling statutes or policy guidance, not in this instrument.

Temporal milestones recorded in the instrument:

• Date of determination: 22 December 2023 (instrument header).
• Commencement date: 22 January 2024 (s 2).
• Repeal of prior instrument: effected by s 4, operative from the commencement date.

No subsequent amendments or revocations are listed in the instrument. Any future amendment or repeal would be indicated in a later instrument made by the RMA under the enabling provision referenced in s 3.

The instrument itself contains no litigation history. It is a Statement of Principles, an administrative determination of medical causation intended to be applied by decision makers under the VEA and MRCA (s 3, s 5). The text does not reference any judicial decisions, appeals, or disputes arising from this instrument or its predecessor.

What the instrument does provide is the medical‑causation framework (the RMA’s view and the specific factors in s 9) which will be applied in statutory decisions. Consequently, litigation or review arising from application of this SoP would proceed under the dispute‑resolution, review and judicial review mechanisms available in the VEA/MRCA framework and general administrative law. The instrument itself does not record any case law or sample judgments.

Practical implications for counsel and advisers:

• Because the instrument is the RMA’s recorded SoP on radiation burn, counsel instructed on cases concerning radiation burn should treat the instrument as the relevant RMA determination for medical causation after its commencement (s 2, s 3, s 5). Any litigation challenging a decision that applied this SoP will necessarily involve analysis of whether the decision maker correctly applied the s 9 factors and s 10 relationship test as the SoP prescribes. The SoP’s text will be central to any such argument.

• The instrument’s silence on litigation history means advisers cannot rely on prior judicial gloss contained in the instrument. Any existing judicial consideration of the repealed 2015 instrument is not referenced; practitioners must search the case law record rather than rely on the SoP text for litigation history.

Absence of precedent in the instrument:

• The SoP does not itself provide examples, case studies, or guidance on how the factors should be applied in particular factual patterns. Where disputes arise about interpretation (for example, what constitutes “appropriate clinical management” or “clinical worsening”), those questions will be resolved by decision makers and, if litigated, by courts or tribunals applying statutory standards and administrative law. The instrument does not attempt to pre‑empt such debates; it sets categorical factors to be applied in each case.

The instrument contains several points where the wording establishes narrow or potentially contested boundaries. These are matters for practitioners and decision makers to consider because they can materially affect claims.

1. Narrow medical trigger for the exposure factor (s 9(1))

• The exposure factor requires “having exposure to ionising radiation sufficient to cause at least erythema at the affected area of the body within the 30 days before the clinical onset of radiation burn” (s 9(1)). Two potential points of contention follow from the wording:

  • Clinical threshold: The phrase “sufficient to cause at least erythema” introduces a specific clinical threshold. Determination of whether a particular exposure satisfied that threshold will depend on clinical evidence and possibly expert interpretation; the SoP does not quantify dose or provide objective dosimetry thresholds.

  • Temporal window: The exposure must be within 30 days before clinical onset. This is a limited window and may exclude exposures that occurred earlier but were claimed to have contributed to later pathology.

2. Ambiguity in “inability to obtain appropriate clinical management” (s 9(2); s 10(2))

• The second factor is phrased in terms of inability to obtain appropriate clinical management for radiation burn before clinical worsening (s 9(2)). The SoP does not define “appropriate clinical management” nor “clinical worsening.” These terms are likely to be interpreted clinically, but the lack of definition creates interpretive risk and may lead to disputes about standard of care, causation of worsening, and the requisite causal link to service.

• Temporal and causal limitation: Section 10(2) restricts the application of this factor to situations where the radiation burn was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) relevant service, and only for material contribution to, or aggravation of, radiation burn. That limits the factor’s applicability and can be a technical barrier for claims where the timing or source of the burn is contested.

3. Exclusions that remove certain presentations from coverage (s 7(2)(c))

• Ultraviolet burns are excluded (s 7(2)(c)(i)). Claims based on sun exposure or UV incidents cannot be established under this SoP.

• Isolated ionising radiation injury of internal organs (respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, internal genitourinary tract) is excluded (s 7(2)(c)(ii)). Claims that rely on internal organ radiation injury alone will not fit this SoP, even though the SoP includes deep tissue/organ burns only where they are part of a multiple burn injury involving skin/external tissues (s 7(2)(b)). This creates a discrete boundary: internal organ damage without external skin injury falls outside the instrument.

4. Interaction with other SoPs (s 11)

• If the factor in s 9 refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP, that other SoP applies “as in force from time to time” (s 11). Practically, this may require decision makers and claimants to identify and apply multiple SoPs. Failure to do so can create procedural and evidentiary complications. It also means the applicable standard may change if another SoP is amended.

5. “Relevant service” definitions may exclude certain service categories (Schedule 1)

• The Schedule defines “relevant service” to exclude certain types of service: operational service is excluded from “eligible war service”, and hazardous service and British nuclear test defence service are excluded from “defence service” for the purposes of this SoP (Schedule 1). That may be surprising to claimants because it narrows the service categories that can ground a positive finding under this instrument.

6. Repeal of prior external burn SoP (s 4)

• The repeal of the 2015 external burn SoP (s 4) means claims that would previously have been assessed under the older instrument may now be assessed under this instrument. Differences in definitions, factors or scope could materially affect pending or future claims. The instrument does not include transitional wording; practitioners should ensure they rely on the new SoP from commencement (s 2).

7. Burden of proof implications

• The RMA states its view that it is “more probable than not” that radiation burn can be related to relevant service (s 8). However, the SoP then prescribes the factors that “must exist” before a finding can be made (s 9). Practically, claimants need to adduce fact‑specific evidence that satisfies a factor and shows the relation to relevant service (s 10). The wording can create evidentiary pitfalls where records are incomplete or exposures are poorly documented.

8. Death‑related linkage via terminal events (s 7(3); Schedule 1)

• Death from radiation burn is included where the terminal event or condition was contributed to by the radiation burn (s 7(3)). The Schedule lists examples of terminal events (pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, cessation of brain function). Establishing contribution to such terminal events may require medical opinion linking the radiation burn to the terminal event; the SoP does not specify the degree of contribution required, beyond the general balance of probabilities framework (s 8).

9. Undefined evidentiary standards for dose measurement and clinical onset

• The SoP uses terms such as “exposure”, “sufficient to cause”, “clinical onset”, and “clinical worsening” without operational definitions or objective thresholds. Expect disputes in cases lacking contemporaneous clinical notes or dosimetry.

10. Administrative and evidentiary burden on claimants and providers

• The SoP’s medicalised factors will shift the evidentiary focus to clinical documentation, dosimetry, treatment records and expert opinion tailored to the SoP’s language (s 9, s 10). Incomplete records will make satisfying the SoP harder.

This section sets out practical, source‑grounded steps for claimants, advisers and decision makers to align evidence and procedure with the SoP’s requirements. All references below are to the instrument’s provisions.

For claimants and their advisers

1. Confirm the SoP applies to your claim

• Verify that the claim is one to which section 120B VEA or section 339 MRCA applies (s 5). The SoP applies only in that statutory context; if the claim falls outside, this instrument does not directly govern the medical causation assessment.

2. Establish that the injury falls within the SoP’s definition of radiation burn

• Ensure the alleged injury is an injury to the skin and external body covering tissues caused by external ionising radiation, or a multiple burn injury that includes skin/external tissues (s 7(2)(a)-(b)). If the presentation is an isolated internal organ ionising injury (respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, internal genitourinary tract) or an ultraviolet radiation burn, the SoP excludes it (s 7(2)(c)(i)-(ii)).

3. Prepare evidence for at least one of the s 9 factors

• Exposure factor (s 9(1)): Collect contemporaneous medical records, incident reports, dosimetry records, witness statements and expert reports that can establish:

  • an exposure to ionising radiation occurred; and
  • the exposure was “sufficient to cause at least erythema” at the affected area within 30 days before clinical onset; and
  • the timing of clinical onset. The 30‑day temporal nexus is explicit (s 9(1)).

• Clinical management factor (s 9(2)): If this is the basis of the claim, collect evidence demonstrating inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening. This may include correspondence showing attempts to obtain care, records of refusals or unavailability of services, contemporaneous clinical notes showing worsening, and expert opinion on what “appropriate clinical management” would have been and whether its absence materially contributed to worsening. Bear in mind the limitation in s 10(2) (see below).

4. Demonstrate relation to relevant service (s 10(1))

• Provide service records, deployment logs, medical records kept during service, and any contemporaneous documentation linking the exposure or the inability to access treatment to the period or circumstances of the person’s relevant service. The SoP requires the factor relied upon to be related to relevant service (s 10(1)).

5. Observe limitation on the clinical management factor (s 10(2))

• If relying on s 9(2), ensure the case fits s 10(2): the inability to obtain appropriate clinical management applies only to material contribution to, or aggravation of, radiation burn where the radiation burn was suffered or contracted before or during (but did not arise out of) the person’s relevant service. If the burn arose out of service, the scope for relying on s 9(2) is limited by s 10(2).

6. Where overlap exists, identify other SoPs (s 11)

• If the s 9 factor refers to an injury or disease covered by another SoP, gather evidence required by that other SoP because s 11 mandates application of that instrument’s factors “as in force from time to time” (s 11). Identify and comply with any additional evidentiary requirements those SoPs impose.

7. Address death cases with terminal event evidence (s 7(3); Schedule 1)

• Where the claim is for death from radiation burn, obtain medical cause of death documentation and expert evidence linking the radiation burn to the terminal event listed in the Schedule (pneumonia, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, circulatory failure, cessation of brain function) where relevant (s 7(3); Schedule 1).

For medical experts and treating clinicians

1. Frame opinions to the SoP language

• When asked to provide medico‑legal reports, address the specific questions the SoP poses: timing of exposure relative to onset, whether exposure was sufficient to cause at least erythema within 30 days, whether there was inability to obtain appropriate clinical management before clinical worsening, and whether those factors are related to relevant service (s 9; s 10). Use the definitions in Schedule 1 in framing causation opinions.

2. Clarify clinical onset, erythema thresholds and worsening

• Because the SoP does not quantify “sufficient to cause at least erythema” or define “clinical worsening” or “appropriate clinical management,” ensure your report sets out clinically reasoned thresholds and references, and cites objective signs, photographs, or contemporaneous notes where possible (s 9(1)-(2)).

For decision makers and administrators

1. Apply the SoP factors as mandatory thresholds

• Before finding a radiation burn is connected with relevant service on the balance of probabilities, verify that at least one of the s 9 factors is present and that the factor is related to relevant service (s 9; s 10(1)). Record the factual basis for each element, referencing the SoP.

2. Apply the RMA’s causation formulation, but examine evidence for the specific factors

• The RMA’s view that it is more probable than not that radiation burn can be related to relevant service (s 8) provides the scientific premise, but the decision must still demonstrate that at least one s 9 factor exists on the balance of probabilities and is related to service (s 9; s 10).

3. Cross‑reference other SoPs where applicable (s 11)

• If the factor relied upon in s 9 refers to an injury/disease covered by another SoP, apply that other SoP’s factors in the form current at the time (s 11). Maintain records showing which SoPs were considered and how overlap was handled.

4. Observe commencement and repeal (s 2, s 4)

• Apply this SoP from 22 January 2024 (s 2). Do not apply the repealed 2015 external burn SoP for matters covered by this new instrument after commencement (s 4). For matters spanning the repeal date, follow statutory guidance and administrative policy about transitional handling; the SoP itself does not provide transitional rules.

General evidence management tips

• Ensure contemporaneous service and medical records are collected and preserved: the SoP’s factors are time‑bound and clinically specific (s 9(1) requires a 30‑day window).

• For exposure claims, include dosimetry, incident reports, photographs, and witness statements to help demonstrate the intensity and timing of exposure (s 9(1)). For clinical‑management claims, preserve correspondence about attempts to access care and any documentation of treatment unavailability or refusal (s 9(2)).

• If the case involves death, obtain the death certificate, coroner’s findings if any, and clinician statements linking the burn to the terminal event (s 7(3); Schedule 1).

Concluding procedural note

• The SoP is an evidentiary and medical standard to be applied by decision makers in the statutory claims process (s 3; s 5). Compliance for claimants means assembling the particular kinds of medical and service evidence the SoP requires and ensuring that expert opinion addresses the specific factors and definitions laid down in the instrument (s 9; s 10; Schedule 1).