# 2023-164 Careers, COVID-19

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-07-07

The grievor contested the Director Military Careers Administration's (DMCA) decision to change his release item from 3(b) - On medical grounds, to item 5(d) – Not Advantageously Employable, in accordance with the Table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. The grievor contended that DMCA had previously found his Medical Employment Limitations (MELs) to be in breach of the Universality of Service principle and approved him for a medical release, when his Commanding Officer (CO) acted vindictively by interfering in the release process to request that DMCA delay his medical release and pursue an alternate release item for misconduct. The grievor requested his release item be changed to 3(b) along with other measures against his CO. 

The Initial Authority (IA) rejected the grievance, finding that the grievor's submission did not follow appropriate formatting and did not include the fundamental requirements of a grievance to be accepted and considered at the IA level. The IA elaborated that that the grievor failed to articulate the decision, act or omission grieved and that the submission contained unsupported allegations and insubordinate and vexatious language.

The Committee found the grievor's career history contained periods of significant misconduct and substance abuse which led to confirmed diagnoses and in cases where there are concurrent medical and conduct issues that could justify more than one release item, the Approval Authority (AA) must follow the process laid out in the Chief of Defence Staff's Directive on Consideration for Attribution of a Release Item to select the item which is appropriate to the reasons for release. The process directs the AA to consider the initial reason for considering the release, mitigating circumstances, potential service consequences and finally, balancing the analysis to select the most appropriate release item. After applying this four-step process, the Committee found that the only valid Administrative Review (AR) for the grievor's circumstances was the AR/MEL which determined that a 3(b) release was appropriate based on the grievor's medical diagnoses and there was a direct correlation between the grievor's misconduct and his medical condition. Ultimately, the Committee found that the decision to release the grievor was justified. However, item 3(b) best represented the reason for his release and the grievor was aggrieved by the DMCA's choice to assign item 5(d) instead.

The Committee then found that the CO's insistence on pausing the grievor's medical release to consider his misconduct did not appear to be vindictive but did unnecessarily delay the process to no benefit, as it was clear that the grievor would be released either way and his file would be flagged for additional consideration should he ever seek to re-enroll. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority afford the grievor redress by amending his release item from 5(d) to 3(b).