# 2024-187 Careers, Compulsory Retirement Age

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-08-19

The Director Military Careers Administration (DMCA), the approving authority for service extensions, denied the grievor's request for extension beyond Compulsory Retirement Age (CRA) 60. DMCA noted that the grievor's occupation was above the authorized manning level for his rank and retaining him would have prevented the career progression of other deserving members in the occupation. The grievor disputed this decision arguing that his unit and occupation were experiencing staffing shortages and due to his experience and skills, his retirement would leave the unit lacking as he could not easily be replaced. As redress, he requested an extension of service to 64 years of age.

The Initial Authority, the Director General Military Careers, rejected the grievance as having been submitted beyond the time limit prescribed at article 7.06 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, finding that the grievor did not provide justification from the late submission and that it was not in the interest of justice to accept it. 

The Committee found that extension beyond the CRA is detailed in paragraphs 4.15 and 4.16 of the Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instruction (CF Mil Pers Instr) 05/05, Terms of Service, which notes that members must retire at their CRA unless otherwise approved, and approval of an extension must be based on a short-term military requirement for a specific position and the member's suitability for the position - rather than on a member's desire to be retained. The Committee concluded that members at that rank level in that occupation are meant to be employed primarily in leadership roles and since the grievor's chain of command confirmed that this was not how he was being employed, nor was it the basis of the rationale for his extension request, the grievor's extension did not meet the approval requirements as stated in the CF Mil Pers Instr 05/05, meaning a short-term requirement that the grievor would be uniquely qualified to fill, and that his being retained would, in fact, negatively affect the career advancement of other members in the occupation.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford redress.