asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that Peter Slevin, B Company, 5th Battalion, Dublin Brigade, reference number 24/SP/7168, 11, Holles Street, Dublin, who had made application for a military service pension, has been refused a certificate of military service; that his claim was originally investigated in 1927, but was rejected for lack of evidence arising from the difficulty of contacting witnesses following upon the civil war; that, in 1946, Slevin appealed and his case was reviewed on the basis of additional evidence then available; that such evidence consisted in part of sworn statements of officers and volunteers who served with him and who certified that Slevin had taken active part in several armed engagements previous to the Truce; that despite such evidence his appeal was rejected; and if he is now prepared to request the board to consider the application further.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Military Service Pension Claimant.
The application made by Mr. Peter Slevin under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, was refused in 1927 as the board of assessors reported that he had not the necessary service to qualify for the grant of a certificate of military service. I am not aware of the grounds on which the board reached their decision.
In 1946 Mr. Slevin's case was reviewed in the light of additional evi- dence submitted by him but the board on reinvestigation of the claim confirmed the findings set out in their original report.
I am satisfied that Mr. Slevin has been afforded every opportunity to establish his claim and am not, therefore, prepared to reopen his case again.
Will the Minister reexamine the documents supplied by Mr. Slevin, documents which were received from officers who were with him on active service in days gone by? Will the Minister examine them and see if there is anything in Mr. Slevin's claim? Those of us who got the documents are satisfied. We believe there is something in this case that ought to be considered.
In the reply which I have just given, I told the Deputy who asked the question that the board of assessors examined the original evidence and the additional evidence. Beyond that it is not necessary for me to go.
Are the documents doubted? Those who signed the declaration pointed out that Mr. Slevin gave service according to the Act. Will those gentlemen who served in days gone by and who gave evidence for Mr. Slevin be notified that their written word is not acceptable?