# Refusing his/her release



## DARTAGNAN (1 Mar 2018)

I won't give more details but I wanted to know what could happen if a member voluntarily failed to do the paperwork before the date of his/her release because he/she feels that his/her admin review process has been unfairly conducted ?

And what would be the member avenues ?


----------



## medicineman (1 Mar 2018)

Given the speed of some releases I've seen over the years, the paperwork would not only be done for you, it would in fact be expedited.  If you/your firend/comrade/subordinate think there is an issue with their AR, then a formal redress would need to be written.  There is usually a timeline and the person concerned usually has an assisting officer appointed for such things.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Mar 2018)

As a directed release, one can not refuse to be released; the process will happen whether you want it to or not. If you feel your AR was unfair, then there are going to be instructions given to you on how to proceed, as part of your disclosure package. You can not file a redress of grievance once you're released, so if you feel that you have been unfairly treated, you need to get on with it now.


----------



## WEng87 (2 Mar 2018)

You have 15 business days from the date you are given your AR Disclosure package, to submit written representation for yourself to your CoC and DMCA.

I had a member who would not accept their AR Disclosure, would not lay hands on it....  the process still carried on, 15 days after the fact and there was still no written representation.... again, the process proceeded and DMCA made their decision based on what they had.

So you/they/him/her should really take those 15 days to write a solid representation against every point in your disclosure package....  if you are still not happy with the decision after that, then go the regular route of grievences.  (I'd have this prepared before the decision comes back, ready to submit in the instance that your release happens quickly)

my  :2c:


----------



## DARTAGNAN (2 Mar 2018)

All interesting answers but the CAF prefer releasing a member rather to know the bottom of the story. For the member's story, there have been already two grievances, second one is for unfair PRB that led to an admin review (grievance has been submitted in early 2017). The CAF had the time to conduct two full admin reviews while none of the grievances have been answered and are the causes of the AR, that is simply an administrative failure on their side.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Mar 2018)

Agree with the advice given.  Process moves on regardless.  A representation by the member is a last chance to plead your case. If you feel you're treated unfairly then it itemize it in the representation.  Refusing to do it doesn't stop the process.


----------



## medicineman (2 Mar 2018)

WEng87 said:
			
		

> I had a member who would not accept their AR Disclosure, would not lay hands on it....  the process still carried on, 15 days after the fact and there was still no written representation.... again, the process proceeded and DMCA made their decision based on what they had.



I'm still amazed at how many people out there still think if they don't look at or sign something that it doesn't count (PER's, AR's, etc), just because they don't agree with it.  With the short fuse on the AR's, as much as it's something they don't want to hear, you'd think that people would stop tossing the teddy in the corner and come up with a coherent reason they shouldn't be shown the door.  Part of the grief process I guess - denial and anger.

MM


----------



## DARTAGNAN (2 Mar 2018)

But how is this relevant when grievances can take up to two years to be dealt with and the member already set a new life out there ? How grievance that has been submitted 6 months prior to the first of two admin reviews has still not being answered ?


----------



## mariomike (2 Mar 2018)

Some of this may be relevant as background. Adding for reference to the discussion,
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=117874


----------



## WEng87 (2 Mar 2018)

DARTAGNAN said:
			
		

> But how is this relevant when grievances can take up to two years to be dealt with and the member already set a new life out there ? How grievance that has been submitted 6 months prior to the first of two admin reviews has still not being answered ?



an AR can/does/will happen even if there are grievances still on the table unanswered.  I had a peer submit a grievance over his AR the day before he turned in his ID, not sure how that turned out in the end.


----------



## DARTAGNAN (2 Mar 2018)

I know all this. But am I the only one to think when grievances have been going on over a year, the system is possibly failing to avoid an admin  burden on their side in the case the member should have not been released in the first place  because grievance system  do not talk to admin review system ? Its still some admin to bring a guy in. We are sorry, we've been  too impetuous to kick out because we have a dysfunctional  system that's working at many different speeds and do not communicate between each other and after some wondering why we struggle to enroll people...


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Mar 2018)

If we're going to talk about admin burdens, you may fall under that category. Just because you don't agree with the system doesn't mean it's wrong. After looking at your posting history, you've got 2 grievances, a PRB, and multiple major medical issues in your short career thus far.

Maybe it's not the system's fault here...


----------



## Pusser (2 Mar 2018)

DARTAGNAN said:
			
		

> I know all this. But am I the only one to think when grievances have been going on over a year, the system is possibly failing to avoid an admin  burden on their side in the case the member should have not been released in the first place  because grievance system  do not talk to admin review system ? Its still some admin to bring a guy in. We are sorry, we've been  too impetuous to kick out because we have a dysfunctional  system that's working at many different speeds and do not communicate between each other and after some wondering why we struggle to enroll people...



The AR and grievance processes are separate and they need to be.  They each take a separate look at the situation (albeit from different points of view) and make decisions independently.  This is more fair than the possibility of one process simply taking the work of the other process and judging whether the process was correct without looking at actual problem.  Note that it is possible to grieve the AR process as well if you feel that mistakes were made.

Although there are time limits at the CO and Initial Authority (IA) levels of grievances, there are none at the Final Authority (FA) level.  Again this is a good thing.  This allows the FA to conduct a thorough analysis of the entire situation before rendering a decision.  Although the FA will look at the IA decision, it will not form the basis of the FA decision, which will come from a completely new and separate analysis.  FA decisions can and often do overturn IA decisions.

Note also, that one of the possible outcomes of the grievance process is an order to reinstate a member who has been released.


----------



## brihard (2 Mar 2018)

You continue coming here seeking the answers you want rather than the answers that are accurate. You don’t like that you’re being released and you feel hard done by. Got it. At this point the last suggestion that can probably be offered is that you seek a lawyer versed in military law and process.

It is not unusual for members of the CAF who are on the way out involuntarily to feel that they are victims of some wrongful process. Typically that is not the case. The military simply prioritizes the effective functioning of the military, and not every individual is suited to that. Perhaps you would be best served by directing your energies towards preparing for transition into a civilian career of some sort, rather than kicking at the waves in hopes the tide won’t come in.


----------



## CountDC (2 Mar 2018)

It seems what you want is to be able to drag out a release indefinitely by submitting grievances.  How is that fair to the CAF and its members?


----------



## BeyondTheNow (2 Mar 2018)

DARTAGNAN said:
			
		

> All interesting answers but the CAF prefer releasing a member rather to know the bottom of the story. For the member's story, there have been already two grievances, second one is for unfair PRB that led to an admin review (grievance has been submitted in early 2017). The CAF had the time to conduct two full admin reviews while none of the grievances have been answered and are the causes of the AR, that is simply an administrative failure on their side.



I appreciate the effort you're trying to put in by attempting to speak generally, or suggesting that your questions are referring to another member's situation. But it's fairly easy to assume, by your previous posts, that you're referring to yourself. For the sake of clarity and for those who are trying their best to answer your questions, please just say _I_ or _me_.


----------



## mariomike (2 Mar 2018)

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> I appreciate the effort you're trying to put in by attempting to speak generally, or suggesting that your questions are referring to another member's situation. But it's fairly easy to assume, by your previous posts, that you're referring to yourself. For the sake of clarity and for those who are trying their best to answer your questions, please just say _I_ or _me_.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Mar 2018)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Given the speed of some releases I've seen over the years, the paperwork would not only be done for you, it would in fact be expedited.  If you/your firend/comrade/subordinate think there is an issue with their AR, then a formal redress would need to be written.  There is usually a timeline and the person concerned usually has an assisting officer member appointed for such things.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> MM



Just for accuracy...AMs are for grievances (AOs are another function) and can be NCMs (Sgt/PO2 and above) or Officers; there is an actual qual for AM now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Mar 2018)

DARTAGNAN said:
			
		

> All interesting answers but the CAF prefer releasing a member rather to know the bottom of the story. For the member's story, there have been already two grievances, second one is for unfair PRB that led to an admin review (grievance has been submitted in early 2017). The CAF had the time to conduct two full admin reviews while none of the grievances have been answered and are the causes of the AR, that is simply an administrative failure on their side.



If the grievances went to the IA, who rendered a decision that the griever did not agree with and referred it to the FA, the FA is not bound to any timeline what-so-ever.  Just a point to note.  If the grievances did not meet their timelines for the IA initially, the griever also has the right and ability to tell the IA to fwd to the FA for determination;  again, the FA has no timelines they must adhere to.

But, I am a little bewildered.  2 grievances were submitted that were never answered and those grievances caused 2 ARs?  Did the member ever receive F & R from the Grievance Committee?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-07.page#cha-007-18

7.21 - TYPES OF GRIEVANCES TO BE REFERRED TO GRIEVANCES COMMITTEE

For the purposes of subsection 29.12(1) of the National Defence Act, the final authority shall refer to the Grievances Committee any grievance relating to one or more of the following matters:
a.administrative action resulting in the forfeiture of or deductions from pay and allowances, reversion to a lower rank or release from the Canadian Forces;


----------



## medicineman (2 Mar 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Just for accuracy...AMs are for grievances (AOs are another function) and can be NCMs (Sgt/PO2 and above) or Officers; there is an actual qual for AM now.



Interesting...though when I did it last, I was named as the AO (was a WO), but that was 8/9years ago.  Nice that you get a course now.  

MM


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Mar 2018)

Ya, there were some significant changes in '14...

CANFORGEN 091/14 COS VCDS 016/14 020001z jun 14

Important changes to Canadian Forces Grievance System

unclassified

refs: a. NDA sections 29 - 29.15 b. QR and O chapter 7 c. DAOD 2017 series d. Armed forces council decisions 14 oct 2010

1. Bill C-15, which received royal assent on 19 june 2013, introduced three key changes to the grievances section of the National Defence Act (NDA): the Canadian Forces Grievance Board (CFGB), an independent external body with the mandate to provide findings and recommendations to the cds, was renamed as the Military Grievances External Review Committee (MGERC) to better capture the nature of its relationship with the CAF 
a.the NDA now includes grievance provisions specific to military judges 
b.the CDS possesses more discretion to delegate his powers, duties and functions as Final Authority (FA) in the CF grievance process 

2. As directed at ref d, the Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (CFGA) has worked diligently to improve many aspects of the CF Grievance System (CFGS). These improvements include:
a.new training for assisting members and grievance analysts
b.the implementation of the Notice Of Intent to Grieve
c.more visibility on the grievance portfolio through monthly reports on the DGCFGA DWAN site
d.a staff manual for Initial Authorities (IA) 
e.the digitization of the grievance administration process 

3. the main objective is to improve the fairness and responsiveness of the grievance system for CAF members. a related objective is to set the condition for the final authority to consider and determine the majority of grievances, when required, within 12 months of the date they were submitted to the grievor’s CO as a result of these various initiatives, QR and O chapter 7 has been amended to adjust time limits as well as to provide more detailed direction to the stakeholders in the grievance process. a new version of DAOD 2017-1 will be promulgated shortly

4. The following major changes to the cf grievance system took place on 1 June 2014:
a.a grievance must be submitted within three months (vice six months) after the day on which the member knew or ought reasonably to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect of which the grievance is submitted. However, if this day is before 1 June 2014, the grievance shall be submitted within six months of the date of discovery
b.a commanding officer (CO) who cannot act as the IA because he/she cannot grant the redress sought must forward the grievance within 10 days of receipt to the CFGA 
c.an IA shall consider and determine a grievance within four months of its receipt (vice 60 days). The time limit of 60 days remains for all grievances submitted before 1 June 2014 
d.upon receipt of an IA decision, a grievor who does not believe that the IA provided the redress that was warranted may submit to the IA, for forwarding to the FA, a request to consider and determine the grievance. the grievor must submit such a request in writing, within 30 days of the grievor’s receipt of the IA decision, and include in it the reason for the request. However, a grievor who receives an IA decision before 1 June 2014 may request that the grievance be referred to the FA within 90 days of receipt of that IA decision
e.the CO of a member who submits a grievance or gives notice of an intent to grieve shall assign without delay an officer or a NCM of sergeant or above to assist the grievor. The grievor is not required to use this assistance. The grievor may request that a particular person be assigned. if it is practical and the person agrees to act in that capacity, they shall be assigned as assisting member. When the assisting member is unable or unwilling to continue to assist the member, a new assisting member shall be assigned as soon as possible 

5. All commanding officers and supervisors are encouraged to review QR and O chapter 7. Questions regarding this CANFORGEN may be addressed to CFGA at toll free 1-866-474-3867, commercial 613-944-5549, CSN 944-5549 or by email to dgcfga@forces.gc.ca


----------



## WEng87 (8 Mar 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> It seems what you want is to be able to drag out a release indefinitely by submitting grievances.  How is that fair to the CAF and its members?



I have a Mbr in my CoC doing this exact thing right now, we’re probably up to 5 or 6 grievances this year...  double digits of them last year....  IA came back with their decision on a few of them and s/he would not accept them...

If the CO misses getting the grievance submitted and the official grievance number to him even by a couple of hours.... another grievance goes in....  there’s a grievance about a grievance for another grievance. About the initial grievance... if that makes sense.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Mar 2018)

Somebody needs to have the term ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN explained to them. Of course that would likely only result in another grievance, but it would certainly make the point. Question thought... are these grievances warranted? Has there been an investigation done to ascertain why one member files so many?


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Mar 2018)

There must be a three credit high school course on gaming the system. Military life was way more fun when we didn't know we had rights.


----------



## Lumber (8 Mar 2018)

WEng87 said:
			
		

> I have a Mbr in my CoC doing this exact thing right now, we’re probably up to 5 or 6 grievances this year...  double digits of them last year....  IA came back with their decision on a few of them and s/he would not accept them...
> 
> If the CO misses getting the grievance submitted and the official grievance number to him even by a couple of hours.... another grievance goes in....  there’s a grievance about a grievance for another grievance. About the initial grievance... if that makes sense.



QR&Os don't set a limit on the number of grievances you can submit, so in theory a unit could literally be shut down by a sudden flood of grievances. Sort of like a denial of service attack. If 150 jr ranks submitted 2-3 well written grievance each pertaining to actual decisions by their change of command where they felt they had been aggrieved, what the heck would leadership do? You can't possibly expect a unit to process 450 grievances following the official process.

This is totally hypothetical, and obviously you would have to assume that something else was afoot. 

But where do you draw the line? It's very clear when you do the training that you shall not be punished for submitting a grievance. If the member referenced above keeps submitting grievances, is their a point where someone in the military (CDS?) has the authority to step and say, "yes, you are submitting perfectly valid and properly formatted grievances, but you are causing unmanageable strain on the system and affecting military efficiency; you're out."?


----------



## stellarpanther (8 Mar 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Somebody needs to have the term ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN explained to them. Of course that would likely only result in another grievance, but it would certainly make the point. Question thought... are these grievances warranted? Has there been an investigation done to ascertain why one member files so many?



This very thing happened to a Master Corporal here in Ottawa about 3 years ago.  He got hauled in over the amount of grievances he was submitting and then got put on the next couple of parades.  He filed a harassment complaint and won.  The CWO retired shortly after and the mbr got a medical release about a year later although I heard rumors that his grievances had to him wanting to get a medical release.


----------



## CountDC (8 Mar 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> QR&Os don't set a limit on the number of grievances you can submit, so in theory a unit could literally be shut down by a sudden flood of grievances. Sort of like a denial of service attack. If 150 jr ranks submitted 2-3 well written grievance each pertaining to actual decisions by their change of command where they felt they had been aggrieved, what the heck would leadership do? You can't possibly expect a unit to process 450 grievances following the official process.



I can think of one thing the chain of command could do that I would recommend.  Shut down the unit while the grievances are processed.  This means no work, no pay, no money. Sorry we have no time or money for training as all the senior ncms and officers are working on the grievances.  of course they all need to be paid for all the extra days they are working on this.


----------



## Haggis (8 Mar 2018)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I can think of one thing the chain of command could do that I would recommend.  Shut down the unit while the grievances are processed.  This means no work, no pay, no money. Sorry we have no time or money for training as all the senior ncms and officers are working on the grievances.  of course they all need to be paid for all the extra days they are working on this.



Your statement implies that this is a Reserve unit as there would be no such financial impact on a Regular Force unit .  In either case, grinding any unit to an operational halt to process an unusual number of grievances would certainly attract attention from higher.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Mar 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> But where do you draw the line? It's very clear when you do the training that you shall not be punished for submitting a grievance. If the member referenced above keeps submitting grievances, is their a point where someone in the military (CDS?) has the authority to step and say, "yes, you are submitting perfectly valid and properly formatted grievances, but you are causing unmanageable strain on the system and affecting military efficiency; you're out."?



What if the grievances are frivolous? How do you balance the member's right to submit a grievance free from retribution with bogging down the unit in nonsense paperwork?

To wit:



			
				WEng87 said:
			
		

> (snip)...there’s a grievance about a grievance for another grievance. About the initial grievance... if that makes sense.


----------



## AirDet (8 Mar 2018)

DARTAGNAN said:
			
		

> All interesting answers but the CAF prefer releasing a member rather to know the bottom of the story. For the member's story, there have been already two grievances, second one is for unfair PRB that led to an admin review (grievance has been submitted in early 2017). The CAF had the time to conduct two full admin reviews while none of the grievances have been answered and are the causes of the AR, that is simply an administrative failure on their side.



You have to remember that the CF needs to keep the bigger picture in focus as well. Follow the advice the others have given you and provide an excellent well thought out response within the timeline. Make sure all of your points have evidence or facts to support them. Don't dwell on what the system's failures are but rather address the points in the package. I think you'll find them more open to that approach than it's everyone else's fault.

I sent you a PM.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Mar 2018)

I'm going to wade in here and offer a different perspective.  Years ago, I had a grievance.  I followed the reg's at the time, my CofC did not.  Then the IA did not;  the IA deadlines were completely ignored and, despite policy, the IA (analyst) would not even info me to tell me "I can't meet this deadline, I am require XX more time, do you want to accept this or shall I fwd to the FA?".

What happened to the IA and mbr performing the analyst function?  NOTHING.

So, people on here are quick to hammer the mbr who feels wronged, is using the system in place to attempt resolution.  If the CO has deadlines to meet IAW policy and doesn't...is that okay?  The griever has timelines to submit, reply to disclosure, etc and if they don't follow them, they get the big door slammed on them.  Yet, if the CO and IA do the same thing...bah.  No biggy.   :

The grievor has timelines laid out in policy to submit, the CO and IA also have timelines to adhere to.  Where is the accountabilty to the COs and IA/analysts who ignore theirs?  I've seen none in my direct contact in the CF grievance system.

In many cases, the griever is the victim of a wrong decision;  their only recourse is to grieve.  Then, they get fucked over by the system that they are directed to appeal to.

In my case, my grievance went to the Review Committte.  They were able to render their F & R inside of a few months.  The IA took over 2 years.  So...where is the teeth in the system to hold IAs accoutable when they are negligent in the performance of their duties??  

There is a stigma that gets attached to people who grieve; they are whiners, barrack room layers, etc.  Some of them are, surely, gaming the system BUT if the CO meets his/her deadline to submit the original grievance, there'd be no room for the griever to submit another grievance on that as an act/omission/etc would there?

If COs, etc were held more accountable for making decisions that result in valid grievances that are clogging up the system, maybe the system would be more efficient.   :2c:


----------



## WEng87 (9 Mar 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If COs, etc were held more accountable for making decisions that result in valid grievances that are clogging up the system, maybe the system would be more efficient.   :2c:



I agree completely Eye in the Sky,  but if your CO misses a timing because they are working on the timings and procedures of the 2 or 3 “senseless” (Mbrs words not mine) grievances you put in this week... the a day or even few hours leeway should be ok... I’m not talking years or even multiples of days here...

There’s just a point you get to when you know the individual is just submitting grievances to tie up the CoC... but you still have to treat every one as if it were the first, and that is exactly what we do. No beats missed, maybe just a slightly delayed beat...


----------



## Pusser (9 Mar 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Somebody needs to have the term ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN explained to them. Of course that would likely only result in another grievance, but it would certainly make the point. Question thought... are these grievances warranted? Has there been an investigation done to ascertain why one member files so many?



The term "Administrative Burden" gets use incorrectly quite frequently.  Submitting multiple grievances does not make someone an administrative burden.  Someone who is an administrative burden is generally an individual who never makes the same mistake twice, but all of them once.  For example, someone who is constantly getting himself into trouble, but never doing one single thing that would get him released on its own.  In other words, it is the combination of everything that creates the burden.  For example, someone who gets put on C&P on multiple occasions for different things.  At a certain point, even if he/she successfully completes each C&P, there could be one straw that will break the camel's back and the last incident, that for anyone else would go to C&P, ends up in the release of the member, even if it was the only time he/she did that.


----------



## CountDC (9 Mar 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Your statement implies that this is a Reserve unit as there would be no such financial impact on a Regular Force unit .  In either case, grinding any unit to an operational halt to process an unusual number of grievances would certainly attract attention from higher.



Correct - that would be at a reserve unit.  In a Reg F unit it would depend on the type of unit what could be done.  Nice gimme's could disappear at any unit.

If a unit has that many then it should already have attention from higher.  Grinding to a halt could be viewed as a good thing as it al least indicates the chain of command is taking the situation seriously.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Mar 2018)

WEng87 said:
			
		

> I agree completely Eye in the Sky,  but if your CO misses a timing because they are working on the timings and procedures of the 2 or 3 “senseless” (Mbrs words not mine) grievances you put in this week... the a day or even few hours leeway should be ok... I’m not talking years or even multiples of days here...
> 
> There’s just a point you get to when you know the individual is just submitting grievances to tie up the CoC... but you still have to treat every one as if it were the first, and that is exactly what we do. No beats missed, maybe just a slightly delayed beat...



If I were that CO, I'd strive to have it in a day early so the mbr had no poop to chuck  ;D


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Mar 2018)

The AR process is pretty well defined; if you want to provide input, submit your response within the time limit. If you need more time, you can put in a request to have it extended (which they have no obligation to accept).

If you did/do neither of those things, then you are SOL.

Was the divO for someone that was truly an admin burden, had multiple admin actions against them, and had several ARs on the go. Because they submitted a response asking for an extension until the ongoing issues were sorted out, it was considered, and the decision was deferred. They were ultimately released anyway, but the system will go out of it's way to be fair if you fill out the paperwork.

Ultimately you are an adult, you need to take charge of this process and deal with it if you want any input. Not submitting paperwork out of spite is childish, so don't be surprised if you are treated as a child accordingly. There is a ton of support, training and development in the organization, but we need adults that put in the effort and take responsibility for their own actions/failings.


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Mar 2018)

So what happens to a person who is grieving their release but gets released anyway but later wins it?  A person should be able to fully exhaust all avenues in place before their livelihood is taken away.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Mar 2018)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> So what happens to a person who is grieving their release but gets released anyway but later wins it?  A person should be able to fully exhaust all avenues in place before their livelihood is taken away.



From a quick look at past grievance summaries it would appear that an individual is given an opportunity to re-enroll.

https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2012-165.html


> The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff partially uphold the grievance and facilitate the re-enrolment of the grievor in the Canadian Forces, if the grievor so wished.
> 
> CDS Decision Summary
> CDS Decision Date: 2014–03–17
> ...



https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2013-041.html


> The Committee found that granting a three-year extension to the grievor's Terms of Service would be reasonable in these circumstances and would allow the grievor to end his prolonged period of separation from his family while pursuing both his career and his degree. The Committee therefore recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff grant redress to the grievor.
> 
> CDS Decision Summary
> CDS Decision Date: 2014–04–10
> ...




https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2012-057.html


> The Board recommended that the CDS order a PSO review of the Grievor’s file to determine whether it would have been appropriate to carry out a compulsory occupational transfer.
> 
> Should the review determine that the Grievor should have been given compulsory transfer, the Board recommended that the CDS order and facilitate the Grievor’s re-enrolment in the appropriate occupational group, if the latter still wishes to serve in the CF. Should this not be the case, the Board recommended that the CDS order that the results of the review be communicated to the Grievor.
> 
> ...


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Mar 2018)

So if the person decided to get back in, I'm wondering if that would be treated as broken service for pension reasons?  Considering there are not that many cases in which a person is grieving their release, my opinion would be that that grievance should be dealt with right away.

Slightly shifting this topic, too many of the policies/regulations seem to have too much room for interpretation and they need to be written much more clearily to eliminate this. I knew two Cpl's who were release, for similar conditions, one was offered a 3 year retention the other wasn't.  It seems to be impossible to get a clear answer on the policy even depending on who you ask.  One person says the CAF is tightening up on offering them while someone else says it's almost automatic.  It shouldn't be this way.


----------



## kratz (10 Mar 2018)

The two cases that I've witnessed, it's treated as unbroken service due to the terms of the grievance. 

So pension, CD and other "time based benefits" are continuous.


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Mar 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> The two cases that I've witnessed, it's treated as unbroken service due to the terms of the grievance.
> 
> So pension, CD and other "time based benefits" are continuous.



It's good to read that it's treated as unbroken but becasue a person can quickly run into finacial distress and the impact it would have on the mbr and family, I would like to see those cases dealt with quickly.  The current system is clearly broken in my opinion.


----------



## garb811 (10 Mar 2018)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Slightly shifting this topic, too many of the policies/regulations seem to have too much room for interpretation and they need to be written much more clearily to eliminate this. I knew two Cpl's who were release, for similar conditions, one was offered a 3 year retention the other wasn't.  It seems to be impossible to get a clear answer on the policy even depending on who you ask.  One person says the CAF is tightening up on offering them while someone else says it's almost automatic.  It shouldn't be this way.


There's a reason that the policy is vague in places; it is to allow flexibility in dealing with each individual case.  A period of retention has the input of a fair number of different stakeholders and a number of different criteria are taken into consideration prior to the decision being made.  There is never going to be, nor should there be, a one size fits all solution.


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Mar 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> There's a reason that the policy is vague in places; it is to allow flexibility in dealing with each individual case.  A period of retention has the input of a fair number of different stakeholders and a number of different criteria are taken into consideration prior to the decision being made.  There is never going to be, nor should there be, a one size fits all solution.



I disagree, policy needs to be clear.  I've seen cases where mbr's apply for compassionate leave and one unit's CoC say's a Grandmother for example doesn't meet the criteria where another unit's CoC says of course it does.  That's one of many examples.  I've heard the policy is written to give a CO maximum flexibility unfortunately it can be used in a way that doesn't benefit the mbr either.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Mar 2018)

It doesn't always have to be used in ways that benefit the members.  Every situation is different and context has to be taken in consideration when enforcing policy.


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Mar 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It doesn't always have to be used in ways that benefit the members.  Every situation is different and context has to be taken in consideration when enforcing policy.



Maybe part of my problem is that I came from a union environment before joining the CAF where rules are clear.  It's probably one of those things I'll never fully adjust to.  One thing I have noticed over the 15 years I've been in is that the newer the mbr, the more they seem to want consistency in the rules.


----------



## Piece of Cake (11 Mar 2018)

Policy should never be black or white.  For example, let's say a person who is trying to apply to the CAF declared bankruptcy in the past. Now let's say the CAF has a policy that states anyone who has ever declared bankruptcy can not be issued a security clearance, and thus cannot be accepted into the CAF.  Now let's say, someone was forced to declare bankruptcy due to no fault of their own, e.g. problems with Phoenix, a major health emergency, ect.  Should that person, who would be a stellar recruit, and is known to be a person with the utmost integrity be denied acceptance?  See why issues need to be examined on a case by case basis?


----------



## DARTAGNAN (11 Mar 2018)

I read a couple of your answers. 

Let clarify the situation: 

In July 16, in Borden, I was told that I've done harassment and being given  a RW on July 14th.  I've done harassment but didn't know who was the complaint from before 3 months later (October 12th). Submitted a NOI on August 30th. My CO took 5 weeks and 2 days out the 6 weeks remaining to sign that form. I was already back in Borden. He did send the form to me but through a Major in Borden that have initiated the RW earlier this summer. It is at that time the Major told me for the first time I had a complaint against me, he didn't want to show it to me. Next day, I failed the first exam I could have failed and the retest too. My PRB was presided by this major, he denied my medical condition disclosed at the recruitment center. The PRB decision was supported by things I already have grieved, medical conditions that a non-medical member found non pertinent but year later I have a torn meniscus for the same thing.  They recommended me for an admin review and this is where I am 19 months later, about to get released (March 21st) and strongly disagree with D Mel Pol & DMCA  decisions, and do not trust my CoC to pass up my grievance. I'm also being released with 1 month notice, so no chance to have a smooth transition when you  live 3000km from my hometown.  


The reasons why two admin reviews happened is because the CAF didn't recognize my medical at first (at the recruitment), so the first AR was conducted by my CoC who has screwed me over with that NOI lateness. When they retested a medical condition that doesn't disappeared and being told at the recruitment they move it to DMCA, but it was too late for my career.  The DMCA director say that grievances and AR are independent but he talks about situations I've already grieved and just repeat what other said.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Mar 2018)

Just to clarify;  your impending release is based on the medical issue vice the harassment/training failure issue?


----------



## JesseWZ (11 Mar 2018)

DARTAGNAN,

Let me try and wade through all the chaff and put together a timeline from your posts. I know you are working through a language barrier, but I'm hoping a list will be clearer to understand. Please correct me if I am wrong at any point.

- In 2011 you approached the recruiting center (at age 16) and were eventually recruited as a Reg Force Officer. (I'm assuming 2012ish). At the recruiting centre you disclosed ADHD, which you feel has not been acknowledged or accommodated. 
- I _presume_ in the intervening years (2012-2016) you were seeking and completing post secondary education
- In July 2016, you received a Recorded Warning for Harassment
- In August 2016, you submitted a Notice of Intent to grieve because you wished to know more information about the harassment complaint leveled against you
- In August 2016+1, you failed an exam for what I assume is a career course
- In August 2016+2 or 3, you failed a retest for the exam from your career course
- Sometime between August and October 2016, you went on PRB and did not continue with your course. At the PRB, you feel the findings were supported by items which were currently being grieved. You also mention a torn meniscus, but I thought your medical disclosure was regarding ADHD. How do the two correlate? This PRB also leads to an Admin Review
- October 2016 - this is where I get confused. You received an RW for harassment earlier, but only found out in October 2016 that your RW was for harassment? 
- In Early 2017, you submitted a grievance regarding your PRB
- In January 2017, you were suspended from driving for an apparent medical issue, which you were hoping to receive compensation for. 
- At some point in 2017, the Admin Review(s?) proceed, and you are recommended to be released
- March 21 2018 - your impending release. 



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The AR process is pretty well defined; if you want to provide input, submit your response within the time limit. If you need more time, you can put in a request to have it extended (which they have no obligation to accept).
> 
> If you did/do neither of those things, then you are SOL.
> 
> ...



Read the above in yellow again. I get the feeling you are coming here seeking the answers you wish for, which aren't necessarily the true or correct answer. No one on this message board can help you in that regard. _From the information you've chosen to share, which I suspect is not the whole story, _ it paints you as being in an unfavorable situation personally, medically, and administratively. Adding these three together, and keeping the needs of the organization in perspective - should the CF continue to spend money on you? 

Your posting history indicates you were recruited around 2011-2012. It's 2018, are you trade qualified yet? If not, that is six years without a trade qualification, ongoing medical issues (whether they were disclosed or believed or not) and other administrative issues. 

At the end of the day, you can't refuse a release. When I was in Gagetown, a 2Lt at the Infantry School attempted to refuse their release - they were an administrative and legal burden. After refusing to vacate quarters, turn in their kit and do out clearance, the CO called the MPs. That person was arrested, and added a litany of charges to their administrative burden. They too were released - shortly after that encounter. 

Submitting a grievance does not make actions already undertaken null and void until the grievance passes. For example, if you grieve your RW, it remains on your file, even while the grievance proceeds through the system. It is not "suspended". All of your admin processes (including your release) will proceed on their own. Full. Stop. If I were you, I would focus on arguments against your release that don't rely on the fact you have grievances in. 

Have you tried arguing for yourself, instead of against all the admin action taken against you? Why are you a good fit for the CF? Why should the CF continue to spend money on you, employ you, etc. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to. Despite some of your posts, you don't have a right to be accommodated in a "job that fits for you." If you can't do the job you've been recruited to do, then unfortunately, you may have to find employment elsewhere. 

_(Note: charges can advance through the Military Justice system even post release, so I wouldn't recommend committing offences to stall your release). _

Nothing in your last post has changed my opinion - in fact it has only strengthened it. You aren't owed a job, and by your own admission in your postings, it seems you expect the CF to bend over backwards because "you are owed accommodation." What happens when you're on deployment? Whomever we fight in the next 20 years - I don't think they are going to honor your ADHD diagnosis and torn meniscus.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Mar 2018)

Jesse,
I see a bright future for you as a grievance analyst!


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Mar 2018)

What is the CAF's duty to accommodate?  I know for example there are several civilians workers who are accommodated based family reasons, they seem to come and go as they please and have fluctuating schedules.  I'm not just looking at that area but all of it.  I was asked this question once by someone and I didn't really know the answer to it other than to say that we are doing more and more of it.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Mar 2018)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> What is the CAF's duty to accommodate?  I know for example there are several civilians workers who are accommodated based family reasons, they seem to come and go as they please and have fluctuating schedules.  . . .



To accommodate whom?  Since you use "civilian workers" as your example, remember that there are no civilians in the Canadian Armed Forces.  Civilian employees such as you mention are (I assume) employed by the Department of National Defence.  There is a legal difference.

Regardless, all are subject to the same human rights laws.

Duty to Accommodate: A General Process For Managers
Limits on the Duty to Accommodate


> Accommodation requires a balance between the rights of an employee or candidate and the right of an employer to operate a productive workplace.
> 
> Duty to accommodate, however, is not limitless. As a manager, you are not required to do the following:
> •Accommodate where undue hardship to the employer (health, safety and cost) would result.
> ...



DAOD 5015-0, Workplace Accommodation


> 2. Definitions
> 
> *duty to accommodate *(obligation de prendre des mesures d'adaptation)
> Duty to accommodate means the obligation of the DND to adopt measures to eliminate disadvantage to employees and prospective employees as a result of a rule, policy, practice or barrier that has or may have an adverse impact on individuals or designated groups protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or Employment Equity Act.
> ...



But it is the principle of "universality of service" that distinguishes CAF members from DND employees.

DAOD 5023-0, Universality of Service


> 2.2 To execute this mission the CAF must be given broad authority and latitude in utilizing CAF members and their skills. The statutory basis for this authority is section 33 of the National Defence Act. The fundamental importance of this authority to the functioning and effectiveness of the CAF is recognized in subsection 15(9) of the Canadian Human Rights Act which provides that *the duty to accommodate under subsection 15(2) of that Act is subject to the principle of universality of service*. Under this principle, CAF members must at all times and under any circumstances perform any functions that they may be required to perform.
> 
> . . .
> 
> 2.4 The principle of universality of service or "soldier first" principle holds that CAF members are liable to perform general military duties and common defence and security duties, not just the duties of their military occupation or occupational specification. This may include, but is not limited to, the requirement to be physically fit, employable and deployable for general operational duties.



The requirements needed to meet universality of service are set out in medical, fitness and performance (and other) standards.  In most cases when these standards have been legally challenged, the CAF has been able to defend them as bona fide occupational requirements (BFOR), or when unable to defend then existing practises the result has been a change to policies that could meet a BFOR.


----------



## stellarpanther (11 Mar 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> To accommodate whom?  Since you use "civilian workers" as your example, remember that there are no civilians in the Canadian Armed Forces.  Civilian employees such as you mention are (I assume) employed by the Department of National Defence.  There is a legal difference.
> 
> Regardless, all are subject to the same human rights laws.
> 
> ...



Sorry I wasn't clear.  I was referring to accommodating CAF mbr's. I know we already do these things for the civilians working for DND.  I heard a CO not that long ago say we now have a duty to accommodate mbr's much more than we used to such as allowing mbr's time off for family appointments or to work different hours as long as it doesn't negatively affect the unit etc.  Apparently though this is something that is with CMP because of the push back from several unit's especially the Svc Bn's and combat units were they have a more traditional attitude.


----------



## Pusser (12 Mar 2018)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Sorry I wasn't clear.  I was referring to accommodating CAF mbr's. I know we already do these things for the civilians working for DND.  I heard a CO not that long ago say we now have a duty to accommodate mbr's much more than we used to such as allowing mbr's time off for family appointments or to work different hours as long as it doesn't negatively affect the unit etc.  Apparently though this is something that is with CMP because of the push back from several unit's especially the Svc Bn's and combat units were they have a more traditional attitude.



I'm not sure those things really fit under the definition of "accommodation."  However, some folks need to be reminded of one of the principal tenets of leadership:  Know your people and promote their welfare.  The two examples given above are simple things that show people that the organization cares about them and their families (we talk a lot about the importance of families in the military, so we really should show that we mean it).  This creates loyalty and loyalty is essential to success in operations.  No one should ever assume they have a "right" to take time off or work different hours for family situations to the detriment of a unit's operations, but if there is no compelling reason to hold members to a rigid time schedule, where it is the need to force it?  The world does not only turn between 0800 and 1600.  In fact, flexible working hours can actually make your unit more flexible because you can have the workplace occupied for longer (e.g. 0600-1800 if people come and go at different times).


----------



## brihard (12 Mar 2018)

I believe the term “duty to accommodate” is being used here in a casual, conversational sense, when that same wording also has a very specific legal meaning that uniquely does not apply to the CAF. I can see where the confusion is coming from.


----------

