# 2012-129 Releases, Release - Medical, Release - Reserve

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–12–27

The grievor was advised some months prior to the scheduled end of his Class B (Cl B) service that a permanent change to his medical category had been recommended and that an Administrative Review for Medical Employment Limitations (AR/MEL) would be held, which eventually lead to his release from the Canadian Forces (CF). The grievor had requested an extension to bridge the gap between the forecasted end date of his Cl B service and the start of Vocational Rehabilitation Program for Serving Members (VRPSM). The request was denied and the grievor submitted a grievance requesting compensation for the loss of three years of Cl B service, reimbursement of expenses to purchase additional medical care coverage and reimbursement with respect to his pension contribution.

The issues before the Board were whether the decision to deny the grievor an extension to his period of Cl B service while awaiting an AR/MEL decision and the subsequent failure to retain the grievor on Cl B service for up to three years were made in accordance with applicable policies.

The grievor submitted that he was treated differently than other members of his unit whose Cl B service had been extended while awaiting an AR/MEL decision. He argued that he was also entitled to consideration for retention for up to three years in a Cl B position in accordance with Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5023-1 and that the provisions of Canadian Forces General Message (CANFORGEN) 174/071 should be extended to apply to his situation in light of paragraph seven of that CANFORGEN.

The Initial Authority, the Chief of Military Personnel (CMP), denied the grievance holding that there was no entitlement to an extension of his Cl B service since the position had expired. He also noted the aforementioned CANFORGEN was only applicable to members on Class C service.

Upon review, the Board found that the Cl B position had expired and there was no entitlement to additional service. The grievor was given the benefit of his proper entitlement under the VRPSM. The Board noted that the IA had correctly found no evidence of a critical shortage in the grievor's military occupation or the requirement for a specific skill set to justify retention in the circumstances.

The Board found that the grievor had been treated in accordance with the applicable policies and recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–09–09

The FA agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.