Author Topic: Refusing his/her release  (Read 8483 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline stellarpanther

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 102
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #25 on: March 08, 2018, 12:46:55 »
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.

Offline CountDC

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 27,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,504
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #26 on: March 08, 2018, 13:00:20 »
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.
"When the power of love, overcomes the love of power....the world will know peace" - Jimi Hendrix [1942-1970]

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,526
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2018, 13:21:40 »
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. 
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 210,799
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,721
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2018, 13:47:43 »
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:

(snip)...there’s a grievance about a grievance for another grievance. About the initial grievance... if that makes sense.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 331
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2018, 14:53:06 »
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.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,351
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #30 on: March 08, 2018, 22:15:01 »
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 ****ed 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:


I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline WatchDog87

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 81
  • Formerly WEng87
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2018, 08:51:14 »
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...

Offline Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 84,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,766
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #32 on: March 09, 2018, 10:24:43 »
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.
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline CountDC

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 27,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,504
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #33 on: March 09, 2018, 12:59:11 »
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.
"When the power of love, overcomes the love of power....the world will know peace" - Jimi Hendrix [1942-1970]

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,351
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2018, 12:10:23 »
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
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 602
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2018, 12:31:36 »
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.

Offline stellarpanther

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 102
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2018, 15:11:36 »
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.
 

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 159,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,805
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2018, 17:38:45 »
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
Quote
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

The CDS is in partial agreement with the Board's conclusions but accepts the totality of its recommendations. In effect, the CDS concluded that the grievor's withdrawal from training and his release were reasonable since the trades in which he had evinced an interest at the time his file was assessed were not available. The CDS also stated that he was favourable to the grievor's re-enrolment should he wish to serve in the CAF in future.

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

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations and indicated that should the grievor choose to re-enroll, he would offer him a three-year continuing-engagement in a position that would allow him to make progress toward obtaining his degree.


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

The Board also recommended that the Grievor’s file be referred to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation to determine whether there are grounds for compensating him as redress for his improper release.

CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2013–06–14

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendations.

Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline stellarpanther

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 102
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2018, 18:55:40 »
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.



Offline kratz

    Fall: Sweater Weather.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 250,093
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,144
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #39 on: March 10, 2018, 18:59:42 »
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.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline stellarpanther

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 102
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #40 on: March 10, 2018, 19:04:34 »
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.


Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 60,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,277
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #41 on: March 10, 2018, 19:35:37 »
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.

Offline stellarpanther

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 102
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2018, 22:51:31 »
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.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 79,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,743
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2018, 23:12:18 »
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.

Offline stellarpanther

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 102
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #44 on: March 10, 2018, 23:47:32 »
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.

Offline Piece of Cake

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • 2,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 83
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #45 on: March 11, 2018, 00:15:27 »
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?
Policy is more than black and white.  We need to not only understand the spirit of why a policy was written, but also how the policy affects people.

Offline DARTAGNAN

  • Guest
  • *
  • 310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #46 on: March 11, 2018, 00:28:29 »
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. 

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,351
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #47 on: March 11, 2018, 01:23:39 »
Just to clarify;  your impending release is based on the medical issue vice the harassment/training failure issue?
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline JesseWZ

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 34,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 456
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #48 on: March 11, 2018, 01:59:12 »
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.

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.

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.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 03:03:24 by JesseWZ »
I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard...

Online SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,055
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Refusing his/her release
« Reply #49 on: March 11, 2018, 09:32:38 »
Jesse,
I see a bright future for you as a grievance analyst!