# 2024-255 Releases, Release, Release - Conduct/Performance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-01-05

The grievor contested the decision rendered by the Director Military Careers Administration that resulted in his release from the Canadian Armed Forces under item 5(f) - Unsuitable for Further Service – of the table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. The grievor asserted that his former supervisor had advised that if he took a rehabilitation program on Prevention and Treatment of Addictions, he could instead be released under item 5(d) - Not advantageously employable. As redress, the grievor requested that his release item be changed to 5(d). 

The Director General Military Careers, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance on the basis that the release item assigned to the grievor was compliant with policy. The IA contended that the distinction between release items 5(d) and 5(f) hinges on whether the underlying factors that led to the misconduct were beyond the member's control, as is the case with 5(d), or within the member's control, as is the case with 5(f). The IA asserted that family violence and alcohol-related misconduct were issues within the grievor's control and for him to rectify. 

The Committee determined that support and treatment were made available to the grievor, as the chain of command considered that a medical condition could be an underlying factor at play. However, the evidence indicated that the grievor did not agree with this assessment, nor did he feel treatment was necessary and Medical Employment Limitations were not assigned. Therefore, there was no evidence that the grievor was diagnosed with a medical condition relating to substance abuse. In the absence of a medical diagnosis that would allow an assessment of whether a nexus between a medical condition and misconduct existed, what remained were serious incidents of misconduct, including criminal behaviour, that required appropriate action. Accordingly, the Committee found that based on the evidence available, a release under item 5(f) was reasonable and therefore, the grievor had not been aggrieved. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.