D-063 - Adjudication Board Decision

The Appellant admitted to the particulars of two allegations of disgraceful conduct regarding one incident in which he had driven while impaired and had allowed a non-Force member to have control of, and wave around dangerously, his Force-issued pistol. He had been convicted of three criminal offences regarding the misconduct. The Adjudication Board imposed a sanction of an order to resign and a reprimand. The Appellant appealed the sanction imposed.

On August 5, 1999, the ERC issued its findings and recommendations. The Committee found that, given the lack of medical evidence to support the Appellant's own prognosis that his problems with alcohol had definitely come to an end, it would have been putting public safety at too great a risk to allow the Appellant to remain with the Force. The Appellant had not provided any compelling evidence to establish that the Force could be reasonably satisfied that he was unlikely to engage in serious misconduct in the future as a result of his drinking. He did not provide any medical evidence to support his contention that his prognosis for recovery was good.

The fact that the Appellant had twice previously undergone in-house treatment for alcohol addiction was certainly a relevant factor for the Board to consider in determining whether it had sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion as to the Appellant's prognosis for full recovery. While the Committee did not necessarily agree with the Board's statement that a third attempt at rehabilitation was unlikely to succeed, it was reasonable to state that the evidence was inconclusive.

The Committee was satisfied that the Board had not erred in its comparison of this matter to the case of ERC 3200-95-002 (D-43), (1996), 28 A.D. (2d) 107 (Comm'r). It also found that none of the Appellant's arguments regarding alleged errors in the Board's appreciation of the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case could have led to a recommendation to allow the appeal against sanction.

The Committee concluded that the Board's decision to order the Appellant to resign had been the correct one. In consideration of the gravity of the misconduct at issue, the lack of convincing evidence to establish a positive prognosis for the Appellant's recovery rendered the risk to be borne by the Force in retaining the Appellant, too great. It recommended that the Commissioner dismiss the appeal and confirm the sanction imposed by the Board.

On October 5, 1999, before the Commissioner could render a decision, the member withdrew his appeal. The Commissioner therefore did not have to decide the matter.