# 2017-055 Careers, Personnel Development Review, Remedial Measures, Repatriation

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2018–02–21

Following a series of complaints against the grievor over a protracted time period, his Commanding Officer (CO) in theatre decided to take action. In the course of seven days, the grievor was issued an adverse Personnel Development Review (PDR) and a Recorded Warning (RW) on the same day; a vague, unsigned and handwritten harassment complaint was submitted against the grievor; the grievor was removed from his position; an alleged weapons offence against him was reported; and, he was repatriated from theatre. The grievor argues that his Category D repatriation, the adverse PDR and the RW were all unjustified.

The Theatre Commander referred to the PDR and the RW and stated his decision to repatriate the grievor was the result of a cumulative effect of documented instances of issues with the grievor's performance.

The Committee recognized that the grievor's conduct presented some shortcomings, however the condensed timeline of one week where all of the action was taken, instead of when the events allegedly occurred was troubling and raised doubts about the necessity/urgency to repatriate the grievor months after their occurrence. The Committee found that most of the allegations lacked substantive evidence and did not justify the administration of an RW. Similarly, the PDR process was not followed and the Committee therefore found that the PDR should be removed from the grievor's records. Having found that the administrative actions taken against the grievor were not justified, the Committee concluded that his repatriation should be changed to Category A.

The Committee recommended that the PDR and RW be rescinded and removed from the grievor's file; and, that his be records be amended to reflect a Category A repatriation.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), as Final Authority, agreed with the Committee's recommendation to partially uphold the grievance. The CDS found that the grievor was not afforded procedural fairness and that his repatriation to Canada was unfair. The CDS questioned the intent and the timeliness of the RW and found that it was not justified. He noted that it was issued for an incident that occurred four months prior and for a problem that had been rectified at the time. The CDS found that the appointment of one of the grievor's subordinates to conduct an informal investigation of an alleged morale issue within the grievor's section was unorthodox and more likely than not undermined his credibility. He also noted that the harassment complaint against the grievor was determined to be unfounded and that the severity of the allegations were exaggerated and used to support the repatriation. While stating that all weapon infractions are serious and that one event alone could warrant repatriation, the CDS found that the incident as reported was insufficient to justify the grievor's repatriation and noted that it was again solicited to build a case against the grievor months after it occurred.

Having concluded that the grievor was aggrieved, the CDS turned to the question of the appropriate redress as per paragraph 8.10(d) of the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 2017-1, Military Grievance Process. The CDS directed the reclassification of the grievor's repatriation to a Category A and that all documents related to the original repatriation decision, a harassment complaint, a Personnel Development Review, a Security Clearance/Reliability Status Change of Circumstances Report, a RW and theatre Personnel Evaluation Report (PER) be removed from the grievor's files and destroyed. The CDS ordered the preparation of a PER exemption; but he explained that it was insufficient to order a new selection board for the year 2012/2013. The CDS explained that the grievor's file would be sent to Director General Military Careers for an assessment to determine whether a supplementary board is required. The CDS explained that he did not have the authority to grant the grievor the allowances and benefits he lost as a result of the repatriation. As for the grievor's request for a promotion to Lieutenant-Colonel in 2016, the CDS stated that he would not promote the grievor outside of the competitive process to maintain the integrity of the annual selection process and in fairness to his peers.