# 2018-069 Releases, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Release - Conduct/Performance, Release - Medical

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-11-19

The grievor contested the Director Military Careers Administration decision to release him under item 5(f), “Unsuitable for Further Service”. He pointed out that the release instruction message confirmed that he became disabled due to his military service. Therefore, he sought a release under item 3(b) - on medical grounds.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance, finding that based on the information provided by the Director Medical Policy, the grievor was able to differentiate between right and wrong and therefore he was accountable for his actions. Therefore, the IA concluded that a release under item 5(f) was the most appropriate.

The Committee applied the evaluation methodology detailed in the Chief of the Defense Staff Guidelines [the Guidelines] for the attribution of the appropriate item of release where conduct issues are present along with an underlying medical condition that could have a causal link. Based on these Guidelines and the file evidence, the Committee found that the grievor's misconduct was closely linked to changes in his mental health condition. As such, the Committee concluded that a release under item 3(b) would be more appropriate because it places his misconduct into a context that more fairly reflects the medical challenges he was facing.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority afford the grievor redress by directing that his release item be changed from 5(f) to 3(b) - on medical grounds.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) disagreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievor's release item be changed from 5f) to 3b). The CDS found that the grievor was treated in accordance with the applicable policies, and he did not grant him redress.

Referring to the CDS Directive 5225-1, Annex A, para. 6, the CDS found that the initial reason for considering the grievor's release was his unsatisfactory conduct as assessed by his Commanding Officer. The CDS also relied on D Med Pol review who concluded that the medical conditions that led to the administrative review of the grievor's medical employment limitations were not related to the civilian charges or his 2 incarcerations and the grievor received intensive treatment for alcohol use disorder and major depression. The CDS also relied on D Med Pol's assessment that the grievor used of polysubstance began before he joined the Canadian Armed Forces, despite no conduct incidents occurred before the grievor was deployed in Afghanistan and with his doctor's confirmation of PTSD, depression and alcohol abuse.