# 2020-195 Releases, Procedural Fairness, Release - Compulsory

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-05-12

Following the receipt of adverse information, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS) denied the grievor a Top Secret clearance and revoked his reliability status. As a result, the grievor was released from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) under item 5(d)- Not advantageously employable of the table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O). The grievor submitted a grievance, alleging that the decision to release him from the CAF was flawed because he was denied procedural fairness during the security screening process. Specifically, he believed he should have been afforded a resolution of doubt interview, which was not conducted, and that this omission contributed to the revocation of his reliability status. As redress, the grievor sought a change of release item to 3(b) on the basis of mental health challenges arising from this experience, or alternatively to item 4(c), as well as monetary compensation to cover civilian mental health services, maintain his standard of living, and support retraining. He also requested the award of a Canadian Forces decoration.

In accordance with paragraph 7.13(b) of the QR&O, as the decision being grieved concerned a decision by the VCDS, an officer who is directly responsible to the Chief of the Defence Staff, the grievance was referred directly to the Final Authority (FA).

The Committee found that the applicable security screening process was followed in accordance with policy, no procedural fairness issues arose, and the grievor was given the opportunity to make representations and pursue an appeal. Given that a valid reliability status is a minimum requirement for employment within the CAF, the revocation of the grievor's reliability status left no alternative but his compulsory release. The Committee therefore concluded that the grievor's release was justified and carried out in accordance with applicable policies. It also found that the release item was appropriate, noting that there was no evidence supporting a medical release under item 3(b), and that a release under item 4(c) was not available due to the grievor's outstanding period of obligatory service. The Committee recommended that the FA deny the grievor's request for redress.