# 2014-021 - Imposed Restriction (IR), Separation Expense (SE)
Imposed Restriction (IR), Separation Expense (SE)
F&R Date: 2014–05–01
The grievor submitted that the Canadian Armed Forces' (CAF) decision to revoke his Imposed Restriction (IR) status and initiate recovery of Separation Expense (SE) was unreasonable.
As the grievor's situation spanned over the existence of two different Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI), CBI 209.997 and CBI 208.997, the Committee reviewed the grievor's circumstances for each applicable period.
The Committee explained that what triggers the assessment of one's entitlement to SE is a posting to a new place of duty, a condition required by both CBI 209.997(2)(a) and CBI 208.997(3)(c). As it was not the grievor but rather his spouse who was posted to a new place of duty, the Committee found he was not entitled to SE irrespective of the CBI version.
The Committee noted that prior to 1 January 2012, the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) contained specific provisions relating to SE for service couples. The Committee explained that in accordance with article 15.2.01, in order to benefit from the additional provisions contained in the CF IRP, a member had to first be entitled to SE under CBI 209.997, which the grievor was not. The Committee found therefore that the provisions of the CF IRP could not be enforced in the grievor's situation.
The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny redress.
FA Decision Summary
The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings, but did not agree with its recommendation that the grievance be denied. The grievor did not meet the requirements established for SE under CBI 209.997 or 208.997, but the CDS agreed with the Committee's contention that paying for two residences was unreasonable, and that the current regulation no longer meets the needs of the contemporary CAF. As observed by the Committee, Reverse SE benefit used to exist and the current CBI fails to take into consideration the needs of the service member who remained at the former place of duty to meet a service requirement. The CDS did not agree with the erosion of the benefits that are available to service couples, and he stated that these benefits should be reinstated. The CDS directed the Chief of Military Personnel to initiate consultations with TB in order to restore "reverse SE benefits" for service couples. Given that the grievor moved into base quarters for a majority of the time in question, the CDS decided to remit the monies for rations and quarters he was charged in accordance with QR&O 208.52.
- Date modified: