# 2018-023 Releases, Release - Compulsory, Release - Conduct/Performance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-09-20

The grievor disputed the recommendation by the Commanding Officer (CO) for compulsory release under item 2(a) of the table to Queens Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces 15.01, arguing that the recommendation was in retaliation for the submission of a harassment complaint by the grievor. The grievor sought to have the release recommendation retracted.

The Initial Authority found that the CO had retracted the original release recommendation after the submission of the grievance, and that there was no remaining act or omission for him to consider.

The Committee found that, although the CO had retracted the original release recommendation, he had then forwarded a second one to the Director Military Careers Administration (DMCA) recommending the grievor's release under item 5(f). When the DMCA advised the CO that there were insufficient grounds to support a 5(f) release, the CO initiated a recommendation to release the grievor under item 5(d) for a training failure.

The Committee noted that the grievor had previously grieved the training failure in question, and that the Committee had found in the grievor's favour on the matter. Therefore, the Committee found, in this case, that proceeding with a release under item 5(d) would be premature. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) grant redress.

FA decision summary

Of note, the Committee issued two Findings and recommendations reports and the FA responded in one decision for files 2017-107 and 2018-023. The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), as FA, partially agreed with the Committee's recommendations to partially uphold the grievances. The CDS found that the issue of the notice of intent (NOI) for release was moot given that the NOI was purged from the grievor's file and that the second one was put in abeyance pending Canadian Forces National Investigation Service investigations. The CDS agreed with the Committee that addressing issues pertaining to the NOI would be premature at this time and directed that the grievance related to the NOI be closed. He noted that the grievor would have the right to grieve the NOI, if issued in the future. The CDS noted that a harassment investigation started in 2016 was still under review. Regarding the Basic Military Officer Qualification (BMOQ), the CDS disapproved of the grievor's misconduct (death threats to a course mate) but found no evidence that she was provided with an opportunity to overcome her difficulties. He therefore found that the Progress Review Board should have recommended that she continue training with proper counselling. The CDS also agreed that a recorded warning (RW) was not policy-compliant and ordered that it be cancelled and removed from the grievor's file. The CDS agreed with the Committee that ordering the commanding officer to write a letter of apology could equate to a violation of his right to freedom of expression and would not be genuine. The CDS ordered that the grievor be nominated on the BMOQ-Land, that the 2015 NOI be removed from her file, that the 2017 NOI be kept in abeyance until the grievor reaches a final outcome on the BMOQ-L completion, that the RW be removed from her file and that a decision on her 2016 harassment complaint be rendered without any further delay.