# 2017-068 Releases, Release - Compulsory, Release - Medical, Release - Voluntary

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–12–27

The grievor disputes his release under item 5(d) – Not Advantageously Employable, of the table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces and seeks re-enrolment.

On enrolment in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), one of factors in the grievor's medical category was assigned incorrectly. When that medical category was subsequently lowered, he no longer met the minimum requirements for his occupation.

Initially, the grievor requested a voluntary release. However, over the next two months, he twice reversed his request; first seeking a Compulsory Occupation Transfer (COT) and then later asking for a voluntary release again. Consequently, the Commanding Officer (CO) decided to release him under item 5(d) on the basis that he considered the grievor to be an administrative burden. Upon receipt of the Notice of Intent to Recommend Release, the grievor objected to the compulsory release and restated his desire to receive a COT.

The CO, acting as Initial Authority, denied the grievance. He cited the grievor's indecisiveness regarding further service in the CAF, as well as his alleged drug use, as reasons why he considered the grievor to be an administrative burden to the unit and the CAF.

The Committee first observed that the CO should not have acted as IA for his own decision. Then the Committee found that the grievor was not properly referred to the Base Personnel Selection Officer for COT consideration after he was removed from his occupational training due to a lowered medical category.

On the matter of the grievor's indecisiveness, the Committee found that the concept of indecisiveness did not meet the policy definition of an administrative burden and, therefore, did not justify his item 5(d) release.

Regarding the CO's referrence to the grievor's alleged involvement in a drug related incident as further justification for his release decision, the Committee found that the alleged drug related incident occurred after the CO decided to release the grievor and that the CO lacked the delegated authority to release the grievor for drug related reasons. As such, the Committee found it inappropriate to refer to the drug incident, after the fact, as justification for releasing the grievor under item 5(d) as an administrative burden.

The Committee concluded that the CO's decision to release the grievor under item 5(d) was not justified in accordance with applicable CAF policy and recommended that the Final Authority offer the grievor an opportunity to re-enrol on a priority basis. The Committee also recommended that an Administrative Review be conducted in the event that the grievor re-enrolls in the CAF, in order to determine whether any administrative measures should be issued to the grievor as a result of the alleged drug incident.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) agreed that the grievor had been aggrieved but disagreed with the Committee's recommendation to allow the grievor to re-enrol in the CAF on a priority basis. The CDS found that release item 5(e)—irregular enrolment—was the appropriate release item in the circumstances because it most closely reflected the root cause of the grievor's release: he had been enrolled in a military occupation for which he was ineligible. Had the grievor's medical category been properly assessed prior to enrolment, he would never have been offered a position in that occupation.

The CDS directed that the grievor's release item be changed to 5(e). While the CDS declined to re-enrol the grievor on a priority basis, he did allow that the grievor could re-enrol in the future. However, the CDS also found that the evidence established, on a balance of probabilities, that the grievor had used drugs while in the CAF and reminded the grievor that he would be required to declare this prior drug use as part of the re-enrolment process.