# 2020-165 Careers, Counselling and probation

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-08-27

The grievor believed that he had been treated unfairly by the decision to permanently revoke his Chaplain's mandate. The grievor also argued that the removal of his Chaplain's mandate did not support the intent of a remedial measure he had previously received since he was not afforded the opportunity to overcome his deficiency. The grievor also claimed that he was neither aware nor interviewed as part of the investigation into the allegation of unprofessional conduct against him. The grievor did not deny the actions that led to the remedial measure and the removal of his mandate; rather, he argued that the context and his personal circumstances affected his judgement. As redress, the grievor requested the reinstatement of his Chaplain's mandate or a payment corresponding to the pension entitlements he would have received if he had continued his career until the retirement age of 60. 

The Commander Military Personnel Command, as the Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievor redress. The IA found that the decisions made by Director Military Careers Administration to administer a remedial measure and by the Chaplain General to revoke the grievor's mandate were administered in accordance with the applicable policies. The IA disagreed with the grievor’s argument that the removal of his mandate negated his remedial measure as the grievor successfully completed his monitoring period following the removal of his mandate. The IA further stated that the grievor's assertion that he had remediated his unprofessional conduct as chaplain did not line up with his own admissions to his supervisor that he had made a serious mistake. The IA concluded that the grievor, as a religious leader, had demonstrated a lack of professionalism contrary to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Code of Values and Ethics as well as the Statement of Ethics for CAF Chaplains. 

The Committee examined the Administrative Review that led to the grievor being issued a remedial measure and found that it had been processed fairly and in accordance with the applicable policies. The remedial measure clearly laid out the deficiency and an action plan for the member to overcome this deficiency. The Committee also conducted a review of the decision to revoke the grievor's mandate and found that, based on the available documentary evidence, the grievor had acted in a manner contrary to the Statement of Ethics for the CAF. Based on this finding, the Committee found that the Chaplain General acted within their power to revoke the grievor's mandate. 

The Committee recommend that the Final Authority deny the grievor redress.