# 2014-129 - Repatriation


Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–03–13

While serving in an operation outside Canada, the grievor was involved in an incident of misconduct related to alcohol. His Commanding Officer (CO) considered the incident sufficiently serious to warrant his repatriation. Upon return to Canada, the grievor was issued a Recorded Warning (RW) for a conduct deficiency involving alcohol. The grievor argued that his repatriation was hasty and unfounded, and that due process was not followed. He further claimed that the process detailed in Defense Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 5019-7 - Alcohol Misconduct was not followed, believing that he should have been subjected to an administrative review conducted by the Director Military Careers (Administration) (DMCA). Finally, the grievor claimed that the RW was not properly administered. As redress, he requested financial compensation for the benefits and allowances lost as a result of his repatriation, the conduct of an investigation into the CO's actions and the removal all information related to the incident from his personnel records.

The grievance was referred to the Final Authority, without being considered by an Initial Authority.

The Committee found that the CO complied with the procedural fairness requirements, in that, before making his final decision, he advised the grievor of his intention to repatriate him, the information he was relying on and he also gave him the opportunity to respond. The Committee also found the CO's decision to repatriate the grievor was reached after careful deliberation and that it was reasonable, fair, and justified under the circumstances. The Committee noted that the process set out in DAOD 5019-7, as amended by the Canadian Forces General message CANFORGEN) 134/12 was complied with. The amendment provided a CO with the required authority to administer remedial measures without DMCA's involvement for both alcohol misconduct and a conduct deficiency involving alcohol. Finally, the Committee concluded that the issuance of a RW was justified and in keeping with the DAOD 5019-7, and that the RW was properly administered.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–10–20

The FA does not agree with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be denied. The FA did not agree with the Committee's finding that the decision to repatriate the grievor was appropriate. The FA was of the view that the chain of command made that decision based on one incident, and the process had several contradictions and inconsistencies. Furthermore, the chain of command did not provide with relevant explanation in support of the grievor's repatriation. Even if the repatriation would have been considered urgent, the FA determined that requirement for procedural fairness remains extant which was not the case. As for the remedial measure, the FA found that it was given without offering justification or providing any follow-up action and directed that the RW be removed from the grievor's file. The FA recommended that a review be conducted by the DH&R and that he forwards it recommendation to the Director of Multinational Force and Observers that the medal be granted to the grievor. Despite its findings, considering that the grievor's medical release did not allow the opportunity to offer a deployment on a mission, and that it cannot offer any financial remedy, the FA could only offer its apology for the way the grievor was treated.

Page details

Date modified: