# 2022-044 Careers, Initial Counselling, Remedial Measures

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-04-04

The grievor received an initial counselling (IC) for missing a medical appointment, which was reported to the grievor's chain of command (CoC) by a Primary Care Nurse (PCN). The grievor contended that the Health Unit made an error by advising his CoC that he missed a medical appointment, that the date given was wrong and that he did attend the appointment on the actual date. He grieved the IC, and as redress, he requested that the IC be removed from his files.

The Initial Authority (IA) stated there are a number of regulations and policy which outline the expected conduct of members, including the Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Forces (CF) Code of Values and Ethics, and Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada. The IA noted the PCNs direct evidence that the grievor missed the appointment, and the lack of a counter-factual statement from someone who could verify the grievor attended the appointment. The IA stated that the failure of a Canadian Armed Forces member to report to a medical appointment was in contravention of the expected conduct. The IA found that the IC was reasonable, justified, and would remain on the grievor's file.

The Committee determined that, despite the grievor disputing that he had an appointment, the PCN had no vested interest in being untruthful. The Committee concluded that the grievor did undertake to attend the appointment but failed to do so without a reasonable explanation. As a result, the Committee found that the grievor's conduct breached the standards expected of Canadian Armed Forces members in the DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics and Duty with Honour.

The Committee found that the grievor's conduct warranted an IC and recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA, agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation not to afford the grievor redress. The FA agreed with the Committee that the IC as written has identified the incorrect date and Defence Administrative Orders and Directives reference, and that a sentence has to be reframed. Consequently, the FA issued a replacement IC to correct these errors.