Change of Release Item from 4A to 4A (disabled) - Question

[evilmuffin]

Good day,

I am new to the board and am looking to see if anyone can give me some direction.  I have been told conflicting information, to which I can't see to get someone to put it in writing or to given me a reference.

I am on TCat since Jun and was told it would be permanent.  As I was being posted in Aug, I was told to wait until I got to my new unit to have it processed.  As soon as I arrived I have tried to see an MO but have been refused, that I can only see a PA.  I was informed that a 3B release would take years to process.  My family is overseas and is not financially feasible to remain this way so I want to be released ASAP.  I was told that I should wait for a 3B, but given my personal circumstances, it just isn't possible.  I was first told in Jun by a release clerk that although not optimal, I could put in my voluntary release and ask for it to be changed to 3B.  When I got to my new unit, I was told that release items will no longer be changed to 3B, however, it could be changed to 4A disabled.  I was also told that a 4A (DISABLED) results in the same benefits as a 3B.  I am looking for a reference for this as I cant seem to find anything that confirms this on DWAN.  Any thoughts/ideas/suggestions?  Note that I have been outside Canada for the past 4 years without regular access to DWAN.M

 

[Robert0288]

I worked release files for most of the last year.  I never heard of 4a (disabled) before.  The only category that I know of that covers medical releases are the 3(a and b).

 

[Aerobicrunner]

DMCA sent out a letter regarding CHANGING A RELEASE ITEM FOLLOWING RELEASE  5225-1 (DMCA) dated 21 Sep 11.  Some excerpts are:

"-  Until recently DMCA was changing release items 4 (a) (b) (c)  5(a) and (c) to 3(b) if it was demonstrated by the medical chain after the fact that the individiual had MELs not compliant with U of S at the time of release.
-  While the practice was developed as a fair measure, it was discriminatory in that similar changes from 3(b) to another item were not equally considered in practice.  It must be remembered that the practice was developed in the absence of policy or directive.
-    The CDS provided new directive on attribution of release item where the most appropriate item of release at the time is selected, which means that 3(b) change after release is not automatic. 
-    However any member who is deemed to have had MELs not compliant with U of S at the time of release will, at least, see his/her item of release (if other than 3(a) or 3(b) annotated "disabled" thus conferring certain benefits which the member would otherwise not be entitled.
-    It is important to understand that this is not a change of policy but a change of practice based on a now existing directive.  As a result this does not require the issuance of a more formal communication such as a CANFORGEN."

This information was passed down to all Reg F release centres and Reserve EC's for dissemination to subordinate HQ's and units.

Anyway that's the skinny on it.

 

[affinity]

I apologize in advance for reviving an older thread, but appears to be the most relevant to my question.

If a member is released under release item 4(c) and it is later determined post-release that the member was in fact "disabled" and accordingly, their release item is annotated as 4(c) "disabled", will that entail the member facing the same hurdles in re-enrolling as those members who were released as medically unfit under item 3(b)?

Thank you in advance for your responses and (or) experiences 

 

[OldSolduer]

I apologize in advance for reviving an older thread, but appears to be the most relevant to my question.

If a member is released under release item 4(c) and it is later determined post-release that the member was in fact "disabled" and accordingly, their release item is annotated as 4(c) "disabled", will that entail the member facing the same hurdles in re-enrolling as those members who were released as medically unfit under item 3(b)?

Thank you in advance for your responses and (or) experiences 

I think the Release item should be 3(b) vice 4(c) disabled. That is my opinion only.

 

[PMedMoe]

I'm not sure what the difference is between "medically unfit" and "disabled", but I would suspect that either might bar someone from re-enrolment.  If you don't meet U of S, you don't meet it, regardless of what your release is.  Just my  :2c:

 

[affinity]

I think the Release item should be 3(b) vice 4(c) disabled. That is my opinion only.

One would think, but based on the documentation I recently received, my release, which was previously 4(c), has been changed to state 4(c) "disabled".

I understand the reasoning behind it based on the post above (ie maintaining eligibility for disability benefits, if entitled, without the logistical difficulties of completely changing the release item), but based on my reading of the QR&O's, I was not released as "medically unfit" under either 3(a) or (b) and my release category wasn't changed to reflect that either.

Maybe my reading of the QR&O's is a bit strict and I am splitting hairs when it comes to "disability" versus "medically unfit", but I was just curious to hear of anyone's experiences in relation to this and if these requests are treated essentially the same as 5F releases. In any event, I have no doubt that I should be arranging medical appointments in advance for the necessary documentation to be eventually forwarded to the CDS. 

 

[medicineman]

You'd still have to meet the CEMS (Common Enrollment Medical Standards) - if the condition for whcih you were "disabled" is no longer affecting you and you can produce documentation to substantiate this, you might not have a problem with enrollment - that'll depend on what your final medical category on release was and if you can show something that would change that to meeting enrollment standards when you do the Recruiting medical exam.

MM