# 2019-282 Releases, Release - Compulsory, Release - Medical

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-01-27

After enrolment in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) the grievor suffered a number of injuries due to military service. The grievor's chain of command deemed her as “unable to adapt to military life” and she was released under item 5(d) - Not Advantageously Employable, to the table to Queen's Regulations and Orders Chapter 15. The grievor contested the release item, stating that it should have been 3(b) - Medical. The Commander, Combat Training Centre, acting as the Initial Authority stated that after a number of years in the CAF, the grievor had not yet reached occupation functional point in a reasonable amount of time. He determined that the grievor's release item should be 5(d), which was justified and in accordance with relevant policy.

The Committee determined that the evidence showed that the grievor was successfully able to adapt to military life, and should have been offered an occupation transfer instead of release. The Committee found that imposing a 5(d) release items was unfair and unreasonable. The Committee also found that the grievor's injuries were attributable to CAF service. In the event that the CAF did not consider the grievor advantageously employable in another occupation, the Committee found that a 3(b) release item was reasonable. If the CAF determined that the grievor could have been advantageously employed in another occupation, the Committee found that an item 4(c) - Voluntary, would be appropriate given it would be her choice to remain in the CAF. The Committee recommended that the grievor's release item be changed to either item 3(b) or 4(c), depending on her employability in a different occupation.

FA decision summary

The FA, the Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, agreed with the Committee's finding that the grievor was aggrieved but he was not prepared to support the Committee's recommendation that the release item be changed. The FA determined that the grievor's Medical employment limitation did not breach Universality of Service but rather that her failure to meet Occupational Functional Point was a performance issue. Although the FA found that the grievor's release under 5d) was reasonable, the FA found that unfortunately the grievor was not afforded an opportunity to be assessed by a PSO to determine suitability for another occupation. For that reason, the FA found that she normally would grant an expedited enrolment process to determine if a more suitable occupation, for which the grievor meet all the minimum requirements, is available, but this point is moot as it was confirmed that the grievor is not interested in re-enrolment.