# 2022-115 Careers, Terms of service, Compulsory Retirement Age

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-01-30

The grievor disputed the decision to deny his request for a second extension beyond Compulsory Retirement Age (CRA). He argued that he met or exceeded universality of service requirements despite his age, and that releasing him would be a waste of his qualifications and years of experience. As redress, the grievor requested an extension of service to 70 years of age. 

The Initial Authority (IA), the Chief of Military Personnel, noted that there are two criteria to be met when granting an extension beyond CRA: the member's physical and mental condition, and an unmet service requirement. She found that although the grievor met the first criteria, there would be a qualified member available to fill the grievor's position when he retired, and so the second criteria was not met. As a result, the IA denied the grievor redress.

The Committee found that retention of a member past CRA is governed by paragraph 15.17(5) of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, which notes that such a retention may only be authorized by the Minister of National Defence or the Chief of the Defence Staff. The Committee concluded that retention beyond CRA is predicated on service needs rather than on a member's desire to be retained. As the grievor's position could be filled when his first extension ended, the Committee found that there was no requirement to further extend the grievor in order to meet a service need. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford redress.