# 2018-011 Releases, Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service, Release - Compulsory

Case summary

F&R Date: 2018-08-20

The grievor failed to serve a minimum of seven paid days during a 12-month period in the Reserve Force, as required by the policy. In his grievance, he claimed that he was denied employment opportunities, and he questioned the validity of the subsequent Non-Effective Strength (NES) declaration and his compulsory release under item 5(f).

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance, finding that the grievor was provided with an opportunity to respond to the Commanding Officer's (CO's) decision to declare him NES and that the grievor failed to do so in accordance with the policy requirement. Likewise, the IA found that the grievor was given the opportunity to submit his objections to the Notice of Intent to Release, but again elected not to do so.

The Committee found that the grievor did not demonstrate that he was unjustly denied the opportunity to serve the minimum required seven days in a 12 month period. The Committee found that the CO had accurately advised the grievor of his situation and appropriately informed him of his options, which included requesting to continue his service and requesting a voluntary release to avoid being compulsorily released under item 5(f).

The Committee found that the grievor failed to take action to submit his written objections to the NES declaration and to his release in the required manner and within the required timeframe. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the decision to place the grievor on NES status and then release him under item 5(f) was justified and in accordance with policies and procedures.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, as the Final Authority (FA), disagreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be denied. While the FA was in agreement with the Committee's finding that the decision to put the grievor on NES and start the release procedures was in accordance with regulations, he found that the grievor did not benefit from a sufficient delay of notification. He therefore accepted the grievor's voluntary release and changed the item of release from a 5(f) to a 4(c).