# 2014-203 - Clarification of Imposed Restriction Policy, Component Transfer, Imposed Restriction, Separation Expense

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–02–12

The grievor's Imposed Restriction (IR) status was revoked and recovery action was taken for Separation Expense (SE) benefits paid in excess of six months. The grievor challenged the Director Military Careers Policy and Grievances (DMCPG) interpretation of paragraph 7D of Canadian Forces General message (CANFORGEN) 184/12 in denying him the benefits. He contended that there was nothing in the paragraph to exclude a member who accepts a Component Transfer (CT) (skilled) offer into the Regular Force (Reg F) from being approved for IR status.

Paragraph 7D of CANFORGEN 184/12 states that members are not eligible for IR status on their first posting after reaching their Occupation Functional Point (OFP). The DMCPG interpreted this to mean that CTs, even if they had reached OFP are not entitled to IR on their first place of duty upon CT, regardless of any previous service. The Initial Authority relied on DMCPG's Frequently Asked Questions and their interpretation of para 7D to deny the grievance.

The grievor served 23 years in the Reg F during which time he reached OFP and had been posted to numerous locations. He then transferred to the Reserve Force, before transferring back to the Reg F seven years later. The Committee found that para 7D of CANFORGEN 184/12 did not apply to the grievor as he had reached his OFP many years earlier and his first place of duty on CT could not be considered to be his first posting; he had previously been posted many times. The Committee also reviewed the Military Personnel Instruction 03/08 – Component Transfer and found that DMCPG's interpretation of para 7D was contrary to the intent of the instruction, which clearly shows that skilled members who CT are not the same as new enrollees or re-enrollees.

The Committee recommended that the grievor's IR status be reinstated and any monies recovered from him be returned.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–06–19

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation and he upheld the grievance.