# 2013-064 - Administrative Review, Release - Conduct/Performance, Release - Reserve
F&R Date: 2013–12–31
The grievor, a Reservist, received multiple remedial measures for conduct deficiencies between 1999 and 2011. These deficiencies also resulted in several early terminations of class B periods of Reserve Service. Consequently, the grievor's chain of command requested that an Administrative Review be conducted by the Director Military Careers Administration (DMCA). The DMCA concluded that the grievor had become an excessive administrative burden on the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) as he continued to display the same kind of conduct deficiencies and deemed he was no longer suitable for further service. The grievor was released from the CAF under item 5(f), Unsuitable for Further Service, of the table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O).
The grievor submitted that a 5(f) release was unjust and would result in disqualifying him for the Canadian Forces Severance Pay. The grievor requested a more favourable release item and submitted arguments to support other release items and claimed mitigating circumstances to explain some of his conduct deficiencies. He requested that the release item be reconsidered.
The Initial Authority, the Director General Military Careers, denied the grievance explaining that the Administrative Review had been performed in accordance with the applicable policies and that the 5(f) release item was the most appropriate in the circumstances.
The Committee examined the different release items found in the table to article 15.01 of the QR&O and concluded that the circumstances of this case justified a 5(f) release as the deficiencies were deemed to be related to factors that were within the grievor's control.
However, during the review of his grievance, the grievor informed the Committee that he had been diagnosed by Veteran's Affairs Canada (VAC) with a medical condition that may have negatively influenced his conduct and performance. As such, the grievor argued that a different item of release was warranted. With the grievor's consent, the Committee requested supporting information from VAC to establish a link between the diagnosis and the incidents of poor performance and conduct noted on file. The information was not provided as the grievor subsequently refused disclosure to the Committee.
The Committee completed its review with the information available on file and recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff to deny the grievance.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2015–06–19
The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.
- Date modified: