# 2014-055 - Class C Reserve Service, Initial Counselling (IC)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–07–28

The grievor, a Reservist, submitted that he was inappropriately removed from pre-deployment training, without substantiation. The grievor maintained that termination of his Class “C” Reserve service was an abuse of the Remedial Measures (RM) process as the Initial Counselling (IC) he received was misleading, factually incorrect and not administered in accordance with applicable policy. The grievor argued that he was not given the requisite time or opportunity to improve and overcome his alleged performance deficiencies. The grievor maintained that his premature removal from pre-deployment training and termination of his Class “C” Reserve service detrimentally impacted him both financially and professionally. As redress, he sought removal of the IC and any related paperwork from his file, as well as the deletion of a Personnel Development Review (PDR). He also requested to be returned to his original deployment opportunity together with compensation, plus interest, for the time missed.

The Initial Authority (IA) partially granted the redress. Although he determined that the decision to issue the IC was appropriate given that the grievor's superiors had lost confidence in his ability to meet performance standards required to work within a complex mission command environment, the IA found that the IC had not been administered in a fair and procedurally sound manner. The IA found that the IC was issued without prior counselling or correction and with no evidence that the grievor was offered the tools and assistance he needed to correct his performance deficiencies. Neither was there any indication that formal feedback sessions were conducted. The IA noted that the grievor's chain of command did not adhere to the requisite IC monitoring period of three months, in accordance with Defence Administrative Order and Direction (DAOD) 5019-4. Accordingly, the IA directed that the remedial measure be cancelled and all associated documents be destroyed. The IA also concluded that the grievor's PDR was a draft document and as such, should be removed from the grievor's file. As the deployment in question had concluded, the IA determined that he could not grant the grievor's request to be a part of it, however, he encouraged the grievor to seek out current deployment opportunities should he so desire. Finally, the IA was not supportive of the grievor's request for financial compensation and advised that he lacked the necessary authority to issue the desired financial redress.

The Committee had to determine whether the IC the grievor received was warranted, and if so whether it was administered in accordance with policy. The Committee also had to determine whether the grievor's removal from pre-deployment training and the termination of his Class “C” Reserve service was reasonable.

Upon review of the file documentation and submitted witness statements, the Committee found there was a possible personality conflict between the grievor and his Officer Commanding (OC) and a possible pattern of laying blame by the OC. The Committee found this information sufficient to question the validity of the IC and recommended the IC and all associated documents be removed from the grievor's file.

The Committee found that the IC was not administered in accordance with the applicable policy found in DAOD 5019-4, as there was no evidence that the grievor was provided with the requisite time or assistance to overcome his noted performance deficiencies. The Committee found no evidence that progress briefings were provided or that the three month monitoring period was adhered to as the request to return the grievor to his Reserve Force unit was made less than 10 days after the IC was issued. Additionally, the Committee found the grievor's removal from his position to be unreasonable and termination of his Class “C” Reserve service to be unwarranted. The Committee agreed with the IA that the draft PDR was not signed and was therefore incomplete and recommended that it be removed from the grievor's file.

The Committee was of the opinion that the Canadian Armed Forces could not be held responsible for the personal financial decisions made by its members when contemplating deployment opportunities. Further, the Committee found that any potential abuse or stress, allegedly inflicted by the grievor's OC, was not of such a magnitude as to warrant financial compensation.

As it was no longer possible for the grievor to participate in the originally scheduled deployment, the Committee recommended the Chief of the Defence Staff facilitate the grievor's deployment on an alternative Class “C” Reserve service should he still be interested.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be partially granted.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–08–11

Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.