# 2018-074 Releases, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Release - Compulsory

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-07-30

After the grievor was convicted of several offences by a General Court Martial, he was ultimately released under item 2(a) of the table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. The Committee found that the decision of the Director Military Careers Administration to release the grievor failed to respect the principles of procedural fairness and did not comply with Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) policies. The Committee recommended that the decision be quashed and the grievor be offered the opportunity to re-enrol in the CAF if he wished to do so and if he met all other pre-requisites for enrolment.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defense Staff (CDS) agrees with most of the Committee findings except for the following: In light of the violation of the principles of procedural fairness, the Committee finds that the administrative review (AR) and the decision to release the grievor under item 2(a) were fundamentally invalid and that they should be quashed. The CDS disagrees. The CDS finds that, as the Final Authority, he has the power to correct deficiencies concerning procedural fairness. He believes that all the documents that have been submitted for a final decision have been disclosed to the grievor and that he has had the opportunity to study them and provide with his comments. In this sense, the CDS is satisfied that the deficiencies in procedural fairness have been corrected.

From the CDS’ perspective, one of the elements that has not been taken into consideration as part of the AR is the grievor’s entire period of service, rank, military occupation, experience and position. The CDS also notes that the grievor provided reference letters to support his retention in the CAF, one of which indicated that he was a valuable member of the unit. However, although the grievor had no conduct deficiencies that had been previously noted, his actions related to drug possession and his admission to being in possession of stolen National Defence (DND) material and attempt to sell them, represent conduct that cannot be excused or overlooked.

The Committee was of the view that the AR did not take into consideration the CDS Directive dated 14 July 2011 that addresses the release of CAF members who are undergoing mental health issues. The Committee was also of the view that Director Military Careers Administration should have been more open-minded and conscientious in conducting the AR and should have properly considered this factor. The CDS disagrees. Taking into consideration the information, the CDS could not reasonably make a connection between the grievor's mental illness and the fact that he was in possession of stolen DND property, which he tried to sell. Furthermore, it was the grievor's decision not to seek help upon experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and rather engaged in illegal conduct. As such, the CDS finds that releasing the grievor was the appropriate course of action for the CAF, and since he pleaded guilty to and was convicted of four offences by a service tribunal, the CDS finds that item 2(a) is the most accurate item in this case.