# 2013-108 - Administrative Review Process, Release - Compulsory, Sexual Misconduct

Administrative Review Process, Release - Compulsory, Sexual Misconduct

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–04–01

The grievor contested his release from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) under item 5(f) to the Table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O). He claimed that the Administrative Review (AR) process had overly relied on the results of his Court Martial decision, in which he had pled guilty to charges of assault and harassment of another CAF member. As redress, he sought reinstatement in the CAF at his former rank and seniority and asked that his Continuing Engagement Terms of Service be honoured.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Military Careers, denied the grievance being satisfied that the decision to release the grievor under item 5(f) was appropriate. The IA was also satisfied that the grievor had been provided sufficient time to make his representation and that the AR process was fair.

The Committee first found that the grievor's right to grieve under QR&O 7.01 did not extend to grieving his Court Martial decision. The Committee then found it reasonable that the Approving Authority for the AR would consider the grievor's guilty plea at his Court Martial to be clear and convincing evidence of his guilt.

Next, the Committee reviewed the conduct of the AR and found that the grievor was provided with the information needed to know the case against him, that he was provided a reasonable amount of time to submit his representations, and that the information considered by the AR was appropriate. In addition, the Committee noted that the grievor did not challenge the impartiality of the AR Approving Authority. The Committee concluded that no breaches of procedural fairness were committed during the AR process.

Finally, the Committee reviewed the AR release decision to determine whether a compulsory item 5(f) release was justified. The Committee concluded that the grievor had gravely breached the Statement of Defence Ethics by failing to respect the victim's dignity, by failing to be truthful in his actions, and by failing to hold himself accountable for the serious consequences of his misconduct. Without such an acknowledgement, the Committee was of the opinion that the grievor would not benefit from a period of Counselling and Probation and found that his release under item 5(f) was appropriate.

The Committee therefore recommended that the grievances be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–12–01

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.

Page details

Date modified: