Navy signalman should have been clinically assessed for the purposes of his appeal of medical eview

Judicial review – signalman in Irish navy challenging the decision by the medical board to uphold the decision to award him a constitution grade 2, effectively bringing his career in the Naval Service to an end – when his 12-year period of service came to an end, he applied for a 9-year extension – extension required a medical review – if an applicant for re-engagement achieves a constitution grade of less than 1, he is deemed ineligible - recurring requirement for sick leave - given the history of sick leave requirements, doctor was unable to certify him as healthy – signalman alleges that at the conclusion of the proceedings before the medical board, he was told by the presiding member that whilst it was upholding the brigade medical officer's classification, the board would review its decision in five months - this was to allow a period of 12 months to elapse from the date of his examination – therefore, the board could review his record of medical absenteeism for the preceding full year – the signalman’s allegations are disputed - Defence Force Regulations - standards of classification in respect of military fitness, keenness of vision, colour vision and keenness of hearing – instructions to be a guide to assist in achieving uniformity of classification - the extent, if any, to which the signalman received warnings about the effect his record of medical absenteeism may have on any future application for re-engagement - onus of proving facts remains at all times on the applicant and accordingly where facts are alleged and disputed on affidavit such facts have not been proven – argued on behalf of the signalman that the grading system as set out in the Regulations can only have regard to the subject's present state of health, and past history of resolved injury or illness is entirely irrelevant – signalman argued that the award of constitution grade 2 was irrational as this grade applies to persons with minor impairments or disabilities, and it is common case that he has none – argued that the Minister for Defence acted ultra vires in applying criteria to his classification that are not provided for in the regulations – argued that the medical board erred in considering that their sole function was to determine whether the doctor’s classification was correct at the time it was made and to have no regard to subsequent events or the position as it obtained on the date of the medical board review – argued that the medical board erred in failing to conduct any clinical examination – argued that the Defence Forces did not comply with their own regulations in circumstances where they had a concern about a recurring requirement for sick leave – grading criteria must be considered conjunctively – doctor’s first affidavit says that the signalman was awarded a constitution grade 2 because he has a higher than average requirement for sick leave/excused duties – no reference to how the average is calculated – doctor stated that he could have arrived at the same conclusion without ever examining the applicant - duty of a medical board dealing with an appeal from a Command Medical Officer is to "classify or reclassify the officer or enlisted person concerned" rather than determine if an individual was correctly classified at some time in the past – Minister for Defence argued that they were only concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the grade awarded.