# 2022-319 Pay and Benefits, Allowance - Loss of Operational Allowances
Allowance - Loss of Operational Allowances (ALOA)
Case summary
F&R Date: 2024-10-01
The grievor challenged the denial of Allowance - Loss of Operational Allowance (ALOA) upon early medical repatriation from deployment. The grievor was assessed as having suffered an acute mental health crisis related to an accumulation of psychological stressors, some of which were related to events that occurred during his special duty service.
The Initial Authority (IA), Commander Canadian Joint Operations Command, found that the grievor met the eligibility criteria stipulated in Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI), except for the direct or proximate causal link to one of three conditions specified at CBI 205.536(2)(d). Thus, the IA found that the grievor was not entitled to ALOA and denied redress.
The Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to ALOA. The evidence showed that the grievor was affected by certain events during his special duty service, which, along with already existing stressors, contributed to the degradation of his mental health leading to the grievor's early repatriation. However, the Committee found that the circumstances did not meet the conditions set out at CBI 205.536(2)(d) requiring a direct or proximate causal connection between the grievor's condition and either the environmental conditions at the place of special duty service, an enemy or non-combatant attack upon the grievor, or an offence committed against the grievor under the Code of Service Discipline. Consequently, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) deny the grievance.
The Committee provided an observation on the intent of the ALOA. Under previous versions of the applicable CBI, ALOA was granted when a Canadian Armed Forces member became a “military casualty,” which was defined as “who fell ill as a direct result of the conditions of the deployment.” In 2017, the scope of eligibility criteria was narrowed to three without explanation. The Committee suggested that the FA may wish to review whether the amendment continues to serve the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces.