# 2012-045 - IR/SE benefits for members with shared custody arrangements , Separation Expense (SE)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–06–29

The grievor, a Class "B" Reserve member who had been receiving Separation Expense (SE) since October 2006, objected to the decision by the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration to not reimburse him the SE for the period of 23 October 2010 to 22 October 2012. The grievor requested retroactive reimbursement of the SE to which he considers himself entitled for the period in question.

The Board pointed out that, up until 31 December 2011, administering the SE was governed by Article 209.997 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI), which stipulates that only members of the Regular Force and Class "C" Reserve were eligible for the SE, subject to meeting eligibility requirements and other conditions. As a result, the grievor had been receiving the SE in error since 22 October 2006; the Board added, however, that this was not an isolated error concerning the grievor alone. In fact, the situation affected all Reserve members on Class "B" Service at the time and who had received financial benefits to which they were not entitled.

That being said, the Board indicated that it had been informed that the Canadian Forces were about to draw up a submission to Treasury Board (TB) requesting forgiveness of the debt of all reservists having received the SE in error while performing Class "B" service in the Reserves. The Board concluded that the grievor’s situation clearly fell into this category.

The Board noted that, under the new CBI 208.997, in force since 1 January 2012, Class "B" reservists are now eligible for SE. They must, however, meet the eligibility criteria set forth in paragraph 208.997(3); one of these criteria is that the member be posted to a new place of duty. The Board pointed out that the grievor’s file reveals that his place of duty has been the same since 23 October 2006; as a result, his situation does not meet the condition of having been posted to a “new place of duty” and the Board concluded that the grievor was not entitled to the SE for the period beginning on 1 January 2012.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) partially uphold the grievance.

The Board recommended that the CDS make sure that the grievor’s name appears among those in the submission to TB concerning forgiveness of the debt of all reservists who received the SE in error while they were performing Class "B" service and that, in the interim, no action be taken to recover the SE received by the grievor between 23 October 2006 and 31 December 2011.

From a systemic standpoint, the Board again noted that the difference between imposed restriction (IR) status and the SE was not well understood and that errors arising therefrom often have disastrous financial consequences for military personnel. The Board recommended that the CDS request that the Chief Military Personnel publish a CANFORGEN explaining the difference between an IR and the SE, taking particular care to clarify that SE is not automatically granted and that a military member could have IR status and not be entitled to the SE.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–07–22

Case withdrawn at Final Authority Level.