# 2020-041 Pay and Benefits, Allowance - Loss of Operational Allowances

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2021–01–06

The grievor contested the refusal to grant him the Allowance - Loss of Operational Allowances (ALOA) following his repatriation due to an injury sustained while he was on special duty service. The grievor got injured when he lost his footing and hurt his back while exiting an armored vehicle

The Initial Authority rejected the grievance on the basis that the grievor did not meet all of the conditions described in the Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) for entitlement to the ALOA. 

The Committee determined that pursuant to the CBI, all the conditions found under paragraph 205.536(2) needed to be met in order for a member to be entitled to the ALOA and found that the grievor met all the conditions except for one. Relying on the definition of ‘environmental conditions' found under CBI 205.536(1), the Committee concluded that the grievor's injury was not related to the environmental conditions at the location of his special duty service and that, consequently, he did not meet the condition described under CBI 205.536(2)(d).

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford the grievor redress.

FA Decision Summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA agreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. The FA acknowledged that the grievor's injury occurred as a result of military service while deployed, but also found that the grievor's situation did not meet all the criteria provided for at CBI 205.536(2). The FA agreed with the Committee's finding that there was no evidence that the injury was attributable to the environmental condition as defined in the 2017 CBI and that "it could have happened anywhere, including Canada". The FA found that the accident was most unfortunate, but did not meet the conditions of the policy and therefore found that the grievor was not entitled to the ALOA.