# 2023-119 Releases, Administrative Review, Administrative Review Process, Release - Compulsory, Release - Conduct/Performance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-02-23

The grievor challenged the Director Military Careers and Administration's decision to release them 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 (QR&O) following an administrative review (AR) that was initiated after an accumulated series of remedial measures (RM) related to sexual misconduct. The grievor argued that the AR process was premature due to outstanding grievances on the RM, lacked evidence, was procedurally unfair, and resulted in an unreasonable outcome of release. They also contend that their conduct should have been addressed under the Code of Service Discipline, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. As redress, they requested that the AR and decision to release them be quashed.

The Director General Military Careers, acting as the Initial Authority, failed to render a decision within the prescribed time limit under paragraph 7.15(2) of the QR&O. Accordingly, the grievor requested that their file be forwarded to the Final Authority (FA) for consideration in accordance with QR&O paragraph 7.15(4).

In reviewing the AR process applied to the grievor, the Committee found that there was clear and convincing evidence that met the standard of proof, on a balance of probabilities, that the grievor had demonstrated multiple serious conduct deficiencies. The Committee referred to Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 5019-4, Remedial Measures, where it is explained that administrative actions are not punitive and can operate independently or complement disciplinary measures under the Code of Service Discipline. The Committee concluded that the steps for ensuring procedural fairness in the AR were respected as outlined in DAOD 5019-2, Administrative Review, as the grievor was provided with opportunities to provide representations at each step, which were considered by the decision maker. Based on the entirety of evidence, the Committee found that the AR process was appropriately administered, justified, procedurally fair, and the grievor's release item was properly determined due to the grievor's patterned sexual misconduct. 

The Committee recommended that the FA not afford the grievor redress.