Refusing his/her release

[Eye In The Sky]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[AirDet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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.

 

[stellarpanther]

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]

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.