# 2012-059 Pay and Benefits, Allowance - Loss of Operational Allowances (ALOA), Medical Condition, Repatriation

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–09–28

The grievor was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes shortly after being deployed to Afghanistan. Since this diagnosis resulted in medical employment limitations that were incompatible with service in theatre, the grievor was repatriated. The Task Force Commander determined that the grievor was not entitled to Allowance – Loss of Operational Allowances (ALOA).

The issue before the Board was whether the grievor met the definition of “military casualty” and accordingly met the eligibility requirements for entitlement to ALOA.

The grievor provided an opinion from a Staff Endocrinologist at a local Hospital indicating that it was highly likely that the grievor’s disease was triggered by exposure to an unidentifiable causative factor while deployed. He also provided a copy of the Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) decision which granted him a disability award because his condition was diagnosed in theatre.

The initial authority, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, was unable to render a decision since the grievor refused to grant a third extension to the 60-day time limit.

The applicable policy, Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) article 205.536, defines the eligibility for ALOA and stipulates that in order for the grievor to be eligible, he would have had to be considered a “military casualty”, meaning that his illness was considered a direct result of the conditions of the deployment. The Board consulted the Director Medical Policy who indicated that the theory suggested by the Endocrinologist, that Type 1 Diabetes can be triggered by unknown environmental factors while on deployment, is not scientifically supported.

The Board then referred to the Public Health Agency of Canada website and reviewed a report discussing five risk factors believed to possibly trigger Type 1 Diabetes. The Board found that, of the five factors mentioned, only one, viruses such as enteroviruses and dietary microbial toxins, might possibly have applied to the grievor. However, there was no evidence in the grievance file nor in his medical file of the presence of any such virus.

The Board was also aware of a case where the Canadian Forces (CF) had adopted a broader interpretation and allowed payment of ALOA where a medical condition was exacerbated by the conditions in theatre. With this in mind, clarification was sought from the CF Deputy Surgeon General (D Surg Gen) who explained that in the other case, the CF member had a latent disease which was exacerbated by the conditions in theatre and that the disease may not have manifested itself until sometime later had the person not been exposed to those conditions. The D Surg Gen also revealed that there were aspects of the grievor’s case that the Endocrinologist may not have been aware of and that it was very unlikely that the grievor’s illness was triggered by environmental factors while deployed. He also pointed out that the criteria for the VAC to award a disability only requires that the disease be first diagnosed or manifested while in theatre, not that it be caused by the conditions of being in theatre.

In light of the above, the Board found that the grievor did not meet the definition of a military casualty and therefore was not entitled to ALOA. The Board recommended that the Chief of Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–03–11

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.