# 2015-145 Pay and Benefits, Allowance - Loss of Operational Allowances (ALOA)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–08–27

While on deployment in Afghanistan, the grievor suffered a foot injury because his weapon accidentally discharged during a firing range exercise. After being repatriated, the grievor was denied the allowance for loss of operational allowances (ALOA) because he was repatriated as a result of negligence on his part.

The grievor maintained that he could not be deemed negligent for the discharge of his weapon, as no summary trial or court martial was convened and, as a result, negligence had not been established. He maintained that the weapon discharged accidentally, not through improper handling on his part. He also maintained that the remedial measure that he was given as a result did not mean that he had been negligent. For those reasons, he felt that he should be eligible for the ALOA.

The IA found that, given that the grievor's weapon had been inspected by a weapons technician and had been deemed to be functional, the grievor could not be discharged from his responsibility to safely handle the weapon. The IA therefore found that the grievor was not eligible for the ALOA.

The Committee also found that the grievor could not remove himself from his responsibility to safely handle his weapon. The Committee noted that training within the CAF, including the training that the grievor received before his deployment, places a great deal of emphasis on safely handling weapons at all times, and very clearly sets out the responsibility of the soldier handling the weapon. The Committee found that, in order for a shot to be fired unintentionally, a series of conditions had to be in place, and that this situation could only occur as a result of improperly handling the weapon, which was, in and of itself, negligence. The Committee therefore recommended that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.