# 2024-232 Releases, Administrative Review, Administrative Review Process, Release - Compulsory

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-11-28

The grievor contested his Commanding Officer's (CO) Notice of Intent (NOI) to Recommend Release under item 5(f) arguing that the NOI lacked sufficient details for him to provide meaningful representation and was based on assumptions of guilt rather than proven facts, and therefore denied him procedural fairness. As redress, the grievor requested the NOI be withdrawn, the Administrative Review (AR) process be stopped, and an investigation be initiated into the CO's actions. 

The Initial Authority (IA) found the grievor aggrieved with regard to the NOI, though not aggrieved by the initiation of the AR process which followed. They found that the CO was justified in recommending that the Director Military Careers Administration (DMCA) initiate an AR, in accordance with Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 5019-2, Administrative Reviews, however the CO had unreasonably withheld the details of their recommendation from the grievor. Finally, the IA found that since the reasons for the NOI were later disclosed to the grievor as part of the AR process, the earlier unfairness has ultimately been remedied. The IA also conceded that the NOI to Recommend Release process is not well suited to cases where Notification (of an initiated AR) is required, but particulars of ongoing investigations cannot be divulged. 

The Committee found that in accordance with DAOD 5019-2, the CO was required to inform DMCA of misconduct however, the DAOD does not state that it must be done through an NOI to Recommend Release. The Committee also found that in accordance with the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces article 15.36, the CO was not required to issue a NOI however since he did, there was a reasonable expectation to provide sufficient details. As he did not, the Committee found that the NOI was improperly issued and the grievor was aggrieved.

The Committee found that the most appropriate remedy in this case would have been to re-issue the NOI with the necessary details, however, the matter was overtaken by events, namely the AR and it's respective disclosure process. As such, it would no longer have any force or effect to re-issue the NOI. 

The Committee recommended the Final Authority not afford redress.