# 2014-211 - Post Combat Reintegration Allowance

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–05–12

While posted abroad, the grievor was deployed on a mission in Kabul, Afghanistan. At the completion of the mission, he applied for Post Combat Reintegration Allowance (PCRA), which was denied by the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration, largely because his mission was not designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) as a combat mission. The grievor argued that he should have been entitled to PCRA because his mission, despite not being designated by the CDS as a combat mission, was indeed a combat mission given that he was part of a unit which actively engaged in adversary combat operations in a theatre of war.

There was no Initial Authority (IA) decision for the grievance given that the grievor requested that his file be forwarded to the Final Authority level and given the delays the Director General Compensation and Benefits was experiencing in processing IA decisions.

The Committee had to determine whether the grievor was entitled to PCRA following his mission in Kabul, Afghanistan.

The Committee requested information from various subject matter experts. It was confirmed that, during his tour, the grievor was given rules of engagement that were for self-defence and that are normally assigned for operating within a multinational force. In addition, it was confirmed that the grievor received all benefits applied to Operation ATTENTION (the Canadian mission in Afghanistan at the time). The Committee also confirmed that, since CAF ceased combat operations in 2011, no consideration was ever given to making these deployments combat missions after 2011.

The Committee reviewed Military Foreign Service Instruction (MFSI) 10.3.09, the policy on PCRA and noted that two conditions must be met for the grievor to be entitled the PCRA benefit. First, the CAF member must be part of a force engaged in combat operations, designated as such by the due to CDS. Second, the CAF member must not have been granted Special Leave (Mission) (SL(M)). While the second condition was met, because the grievor was not granted SL (M) for operational requirements, the first one was not, as the CDS did not designate the grievor's mission as a combat mission.

The Committee considered that while deployed, the grievor was operating within the Kabul perimeter, and there was no evidence that his unit was actively engaged in or exposed to any fighting. The Committee also noted that the Government of Canada had already announced in November of 2010 that its new priorities for 2011 to 2014 would not involve combat operations, but would focus on education and health, security, regional diplomacy, and humanitarian assistance. In addition, the mission in Afghanistan was in a time of evolution during the grievor's deployment, transitioning from a combat role to training, advising and assisting.

The Committee found that the conditions of the grievor's deployment did not meet the requirement of a force engaged in combat operations, and thus the CDS designation as defined in MFSI 10.3.09. As a result, the Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to PCRA. The Committee also found that the grievor was compensated fairly and in accordance with applicable instructions for the mission he was deployed to perform and the conditions attendant to that mission. The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–06–24

Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.