# 2017-071 Pay and Benefits, Component Transfer, Denial of Imposed Restriction Status – CANFORGEN 184/12 subparagraph 7(d), Imposed Restriction

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017-08-11

In January 2014, the grievor was denied Imposed Restriction (IR) status based on the interpretation of sub-paragraph 7(d) of Canadian Forces General Message (CANFORGEN) 184/12 – “Changes to Imposed Restriction Policy”. It was his first posting following Component Transfer (CT) back into the Regular Force (Reg F). The grievor contended that CANFORGEN 184/12 did not clearly exclude skilled members with prior service who accepted a CT into the Reg F from being eligible for IR status. 

In previous grievances on the same issue, the Final Authority (FA) found that sub-paragraph 7(d) of CANFORGEN 184/12 was ambiguously worded as it was not apparent that it was intended to apply to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members upon skilled CT. In particular, the Committee noted that in Committee file 2016-127, the FA found that CANFORGEN 034/15 – “Clarification Paragraph 7D CANFORGEN 184/12”, was not in force at the time of the grievor's first posting following CT, and directed the Chief Military Personnel to grant the member IR status.

The Committee noted that the present case is similar to file 2016-127, as the grievor's request for IR status pre-dated CANFORGEN 034/15. Therefore, the Committee found that the grievor's IR status should be approved on the same basis.

The Committee further observed that while the intent of subparagraph 7(d) of CANFORGEN 184/12 has been clarified since 23 February 2015, and now clearly excludes CAF members who CT or re-enroll from being eligible for IR status, it is difficult to see how this policy is congruent with the CAF's need to efficiently place trained and experienced members directly into vacant Reg F positions.

The Committee recommended that the grievor's IR status be approved for the requested period of his 2014 posting and that his file be reviewed for reimbursement of Separation Expense (SE) in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions 208.997 – “Separation Expense”.

The Committee also made a systemic recommendation regarding other CAF members who may have had their IR status denied between 2012 and 2015 on the basis of subparagraph 7(d), and who nonetheless proceeded to their first posting unaccompanied at their own expense.

FA Decision Summary

The Acting Chief of the Defence Staff (A/CDS), acting as FA, agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations concerning the grievor. He held that sub-paragraph 7(d) was sufficiently ambiguous for him to reverse the decision not to grant IR. He found that the grievor's circumstances justified granting IR. He agreed that the grievor's file should be reviewed for reimbursement of SE.

The FA did not comment on the Committee's systemic recommendation.