Holding back a release

[rocksteady]

When you go to release section and get the paperwork stating your release date is a particular date and then submit a memo to your CO requesting release, does the release date change depending on when the CO gets you the signed memo back? 

The reason I ask is that a member of my unit has done so and was basically told that his true release date will change to a later date (beyond the mandatory 6 month release date) depending when the CO signs the memo and he gets it back to finalize things with release section.

There have been other members of my unit that have had to wait up to two and a half months for the memo to come back as well.

Is this a faux paux of an overzelous unit believing they can keep members past 6 months from the time they request release?

Some clarification would be great.

 

[rocksteady]

My apologies please move this thread to the release section.

 

[ballz]

The member should submit the memo requesting a voluntary release effective on "x" date. That "x" date should be at least 6 months from the day the memo is dated.

I am not entirely sure how your release section managed to start the release and give you a release date without some form of authorization stating the date the member is okay to be released, but it wouldn't be the first time I've seen things done incorrectly within the machine :-\

 

[George Wallace]

There have been cases where a Release date has been moved back.  I know of one case where a MCpl decided he had had enough and put in his Release in a fit of frustration, expecting to be out in six months.  Cooler heads intervened and held his Release back as he was nearing the 20 year mark that would have given him a full pension.  It was in his own interests that they held his Release until he passed that date, or he would have lost his pension.  So, yes, it can be done.

As we don't have any idea what the real story is here, we can not give an honest answer one way or the other to the OP.

 

[rocksteady]

From my understanding it went down like this:
-member goes to release section and says they want to release and gets 'x' release date 6 months from that day
-member then draws up memo stating they want a release on same 'x' day
-CoC informs member that the 6 month clock doesn't start until they get the memo back signed off by the CO

In my opinion this is wrong as the 6 month clock should start from the day the member submits that release memo (assuming the day they submit the memo is the same day the memo was dated).  Am I correct in this assumption?

The reason I believe this is wrong because a unit could essentially drag their heels on purpose and not sign the memo and return it to the member for several months.

 

[rocksteady]

Furthermore I have heard of CO's not signing off on release memos right away as they wanted further clarfication as to why the member wants to release.  I don't see why the member would be obligated to provide any further clarification if they simply said that they no longer wish to serve in the CF.  It isn't the CoCs business why someone wants to release and should the member divulge that it is because they wished to do so.  I can understand that in some cases it may be to the member's benefit such as in the example of a pension but it seems all too often that the CoC is just being nosey in my opinion.  I have also seen instances of the CoC telling young and naive members grossly inaccurate information with regards to moving costs if the member is breaking contract to release, in a last ditch effort to get the member to reconsider not releasing.

 

[MJP]

From my understanding it went down like this:
-member goes to release section and says they want to release and gets 'x' release date 6 months from that day
-member then draws up memo stating they want a release on same 'x' day
-CoC informs member that the 6 month clock doesn't start until they get the memo back signed off by the CO

In my opinion this is wrong as the 6 month clock should start from the day the member submits that release memo (assuming the day they submit the memo is the same day the memo was dated).  Am I correct in this assumption?

The reason I believe this is wrong because a unit could essentially drag their heels on purpose and not sign the memo and return it to the member for several months.

CFAO 15-2 is the guiding hand.

RELEASE -ENROLMENT ON OR AFTER 1 JAN 82


39. A member, except those serving under ROTP, MOTP, DOTP, or DITP, who enrols, re-enrols or transfers into the Regular Force on or after 1 Jan 82, and requests voluntary release, will not normally have that request approved, except during a period of recruit training as specified in paragraph 36 of this annex, for a period of three years commencing from the date of enrolment unless compassionate circumstances exist. Subject to the requirement to complete the initial three year period of service, a member must submit that request at least six months in advance of the preferred date of release or the commencement of terminal leave whichever is earlier. Subject to deferral for a military requirement, as prescribed in paragraph 44 of this annex, the request will normally be approved to be effective on the date requested. Should military and personal requirements be compatible, the six-month period of notice may be reduced by the approving authority at NDHQ.

Furthermore I have heard of CO's not signing off on release memos right away as they wanted further clarfication as to why the member wants to release. I don't see why the member would be obligated to provide any further clarification if they simply said that they no longer wish to serve in the CF. It isn't the CoCs business why someone wants to release and should the member divulge that it is because they wished to do so. I can understand that in some cases it may be to the member's benefit such as in the example of a pension but it seems all too often that the CoC is just being nosey in my opinion. I have also seen instances of the CoC telling young and naive members grossly inaccurate information with regards to moving costs if the member is breaking contract to release, in a last ditch effort to get the member to reconsider not releasing.

A CO can absolutely not sign off on a memo until they have talked to the member.  IMHO, it would be a poor CO who just rubber stamped release memos without some form of interview to find out why a soldier wants to release.  Many levels of the CAF require a CO to interview releasing soldiers and provide details (largely for stats and trends).

Often things that people release for can be fixed by intervention by a thoughtful and innovative CoC.  Sometimes it can't be fixed and both parties go on their way.  In rarer cases releasing a soldier that continually operates on the bubble is beneficial to all parties.  Regardless of the situation a CO needs to feel the pulse of his unit and often releasing soldiers can give some good insight




*Edited for formatting

 

[ModlrMike]

Furthermore I have heard of CO's not signing off on release memos right away as they wanted further clarfication as to why the member wants to release.  I don't see why the member would be obligated to provide any further clarification if they simply said that they no longer wish to serve in the CF.  It isn't the CoCs business why someone wants to release and should the member divulge that it is because they wished to do so.  I can understand that in some cases it may be to the member's benefit such as in the example of a pension but it seems all too often that the CoC is just being nosey in my opinion.  I have also seen instances of the CoC telling young and naive members grossly inaccurate information with regards to moving costs if the member is breaking contract to release, in a last ditch effort to get the member to reconsider not releasing.

Release is the CoC's business; that's what exit interviews are for. Perhaps the member has some issue that the chain can solve, if not, then fine. I've seen many folks put in a release because they thought that was the only way to solve their problems. Once the issues were clearly articulated and the potential solutions examined, they frequently chose not to release.

The CoC also has a responsibility to ensure the member fully understands the ramifications of their decision, although I would agree with you that providing false or misleading information to the member is improper.

 

[upandatom]

Currently going through the process now-
6 months from the date of the memo is the release request date, I say request because they can still say no with regards to the state of the trade etc(TBH, They wont say no unless your trade is a nightmare, as long as you request the 6 month and your CoC signs off on it) It took my paperwork 2 1/2 months to go up and have the CO sign off on it, and it kept my original date.

And those saying you never get a waiver for a less then 6 months, Never say never, I received mine.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think it might have something to do with the CANFORGEN that was released last year (IIRC) and your current TOS.  Trade 'health' is a factor but there CANFORGEN is the current CAF guidance/policy.

 

[rocksteady]

I've been looking all over and can't find anything that says the CF can hold someone for 6 months after they request release.  I saw where it says that an officer or ncm who received subsidized education can be held which makes sense but nothing otherwise.

I'm looking for the specific ref(s)

Please help!

Thank you kindly.

 

[DAA]

I've been looking all over and can't find anything that says the CF can hold someone for 6 months after they request release.  I saw where it says that an officer or ncm who received subsidized education can be held which makes sense but nothing otherwise.

I'm looking for the specific ref(s)

I'm pretty sure you will find this requirement in CFAO 15-2.  I can give you more specifics in the morning if you PM me.

In the interim, for your reading pleasure ---->  http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-questions-complaints-faq/index.page#volrelease

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Anything in ADM (HR-Mil) Instr 05/05 ref this?

 

[DAA]

Anything in ADM (HR-Mil) Instr 05/05 ref this?

Nope, there won't be anything in 05.  The "6 months" notice policy has been around since I have been around.  The ONLY people in the CF that are not subject to 6 months notice, are those who are entitled to an "immediate" annuity.  Pretty sure it's in 15-1 but won't know until the morning.

Throughout my career in the CF, my greatest fear and the biggest bullet that I ever managed to dodge, was being put into a "Release Clerk" position.  The bad part, it eventually comes back to bite you in the arse when your umbrella now covers the Release Sect and they are asking you for guidance.     

 

[DAA]

I've been looking all over and can't find anything that says the CF can hold someone for 6 months after they request release.  I saw where it says that an officer or ncm who received subsidized education can be held which makes sense but nothing otherwise.

I'm looking for the specific ref(s)

Please help!

Thank you kindly.

Here you and as promised............

CFAO 15-2, Annex A, Section 3

RELEASE -ENROLMENT ON OR AFTER 1 JAN 82

39. A member, except those serving under ROTP, MOTP, DOTP, or DITP, who enrols, re-enrols or transfers into the Regular Force on or after 1 Jan 82, and requests voluntary release, will not normally have that request approved, except during a period of recruit training as specified in paragraph 36 of this annex, for a period of three years commencing from the date of enrolment unless compassionate circumstances exist. Subject to the requirement to complete the initial three year period of service, a member must submit that request at least six months in advance of the preferred date of release or the commencement of terminal leave whichever is earlier. Subject to deferral for a military requirement, as prescribed in paragraph 44 of this annex, the request will normally be approved to be effective on the date requested. Should military and personal requirements be compatible, the six-month period of notice may be reduced by the approving authority at NDHQ.

 

[MJP]

Here you and as promised............

CFAO 15-2, Annex A, Section 3

RELEASE -ENROLMENT ON OR AFTER 1 JAN 82

39. A member, except those serving under ROTP, MOTP, DOTP, or DITP, who enrols, re-enrols or transfers into the Regular Force on or after 1 Jan 82, and requests voluntary release, will not normally have that request approved, except during a period of recruit training as specified in paragraph 36 of this annex, for a period of three years commencing from the date of enrolment unless compassionate circumstances exist. Subject to the requirement to complete the initial three year period of service, a member must submit that request at least six months in advance of the preferred date of release or the commencement of terminal leave whichever is earlier. Subject to deferral for a military requirement, as prescribed in paragraph 44 of this annex, the request will normally be approved to be effective on the date requested. Should military and personal requirements be compatible, the six-month period of notice may be reduced by the approving authority at NDHQ.

Which if the OP had actually had read this thread, is in reply #6.

 

[krimynal]

Which if the OP had actually had read this thread, is in reply #6.

but now it's in shinny yellow  ;D