Release after CTing from Pres to Reg Force

[orca73]

Situation: I have a Cpl who transferred from the PRes to Reg Force. They are BMQ and QL3 RMS qualified. They are on a VIE for 3 years and does not have any obligatory requirement. They are in the second year of the VIE. The CM has informed the member they cannot release; that the trade was "red" and to review the TOS and CT obligatory regulations. Nothing in writing has been returned to the member denying the release.

Questions:
1. Is the Human Resource Administration trade considered "red" for transferring out?
2. Can anyone think of a reason why the release might be denied?
3. Any compelling reasons for retaining an individual for the full three years VIE. There are no education or training obligations inquired due to the CT.

 

[rnkelly]

If there's no obligatory service or restricted release period there's nothing binding.  Wouldn't be entitled to release benefits but other than that good to go.  The trade being Red doesn't change anything, there would have to be a military emergency declared.

 

[dapaterson]

If there's no obligatory service or restricted release period there's nothing binding.  Wouldn't be entitled to release benefits but other than that good to go.  The trade being Red doesn't change anything, there would have to be a military emergency declared.

Wrong.  QR&O 15.02.  There is no right of release until TOS has expired.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Situation: I have a Cpl who transferred from the PRes to Reg Force. They are BMQ and QL3 RMS qualified. They are on a VIE for 3 years and does not have any obligatory requirement. They are in the second year of the VIE. The CM has informed the member they cannot release; that the trade was "red" and to review the TOS and CT obligatory regulations. Nothing in writing has been returned to the member denying the release.

Questions:
1. Is the Human Resource Administration trade considered "red" for transferring out?
2. Can anyone think of a reason why the release might be denied?
3. Any compelling reasons for retaining an individual for the full three years VIE. There are no education or training obligations inquired due to the CT.

Someone who has access to the full range of references (e.g. CFAOs) can confirm if CFAO 15-2 is still valid, in particular para 39 which is likely applicable to this situation.

RELEASE -ENROLMENT ON OR AFTER 1 JAN 82

39.    A member, except those serving under ROTP, MOTP, DOTP, or DITP, who
enrols, re-enrols or transfers into the Regular Force on or after 1 Jan 82,
and requests voluntary release, will not normally have that request
approved, except during a period of recruit training as specified in
paragraph 36 of this annex, for a period of three years commencing from the
date of enrolment unless compassionate circumstances exist.  Subject to the
requirement to complete the initial three year period of service, a member
must submit that request at least six months in advance of the preferred
date of release or the commencement of terminal leave whichever is earlier.
Subject to deferral for a military requirement, as prescribed in paragraph
44 of this annex, the request will normally be approved to be effective on
the date requested.  Should military and personal requirements be
compatible, the six-month period of notice may be reduced by the approving
authority at NDHQ.

 

[rnkelly]

Wrong.  QR&O 15.02.  There is no right of release until TOS has expired.

You seem way more admin savvy than me so I probably am wrong but since you waded in maybe you can explain some of the contradictions I see.  I've actually done some research on this in the past but all I got were blanks stares, radio silence and awkward pauses from people that should be in the know.  I welcome anyone who can shed some light on the actual binding power of these TOS.

If one cannot release before their TOS has expired, why does obligatory service and restricted release exist when an individual's TOS covers the prescribed time?  By the way, you can release while on obligatory service and restricted release as well but you would owe the education/training and salary costs.  Good luck getting an official quote of what you would owe though.

You can release before CEs and IE20/IE25 expire.  The CAF is a voluntary force and a voluntary release will be approved by the appropriate authority unless there's compelling reason, ie; an emergency has been declared.  A trade being red doesn't constitute an emergency.  I don't know of the emergency clause ever being used.  I think the forces would have an argument to make it binding so they get a return on their investment for all of the resources, time, money they spend on training someone.  However, having someone that doesn't want to be in the CAF isn't great for morale either.  It's crazy to me that something so basic is so confusing to everyone (me included), why is it called a Variable Initial Engagement and Terms of Service?  I'm pretty sure if any member who runs into resistance and decides to hire a lawyer or contact their MP, they would be released lickety-split.  It's really too bad that people at unit level and Career Manager's give answers to these members (usually informally and without authority) and they feel trapped.  Sometimes our retention strategies make me scratch my head.

I know it's not official, but here's some related discussion I found on this site in no particular order/format;

Effective 1 May 05 the CF has made some significant changes to the Terms of Service (TOS).  The term "contract" is misleading as it implies a binding agreement, legally enforceable.  So in typical CF style it is not a "contract" it's a Term of Service:

"TOS is an agreement between a member and the CF to provide military service until lawfully released.  TOS provides a framework for the training, employment and personnel development requirements of the CF.  The TOS consists of two parts, ie; a structure and series of control processes.  The policies associated with the TOS define the conditions for converting a member's term of service."

When you enroll you will sign a Term of Service (TOS) called a Variable Initial Engagement (VIE)  "the VIE is the new initial engagement for members of the Reg Force.  The duration of the VIE normally ranges from a minimum of 3 yrs to a max of 9 years, excluding subsidized training."

Example:  You enrol as an infanteer it's estimated that it will take 0-199 training days to bring you to your Operationally Functional Point (OFP), therefore your VIE is for three years.  However, say you enrol as a medic, it's estimated that it will take 400+ training days to bring you to OFP so therefore you sign a VIE of 6 yrs.  Think of it as we're spending x $$ in training you, providing equipment etc so once you have completed training we still get our "pound of flesh" for the investment made in you. 

But what if I decide I hate it…

In accordance with the release policies

Except during an emergency or as prescribed in this Section, a member
may request release at any time during a military career.  Such requests
may be approved subject to the conditions prescribed in this section.

" a member who requests voluntary release while undergoing basic military occupational training will not receive approval unless military and personal requirements are compatible.  This policy will continue to be enforced.  Strong communication is necessary to ensure that potential candidates understand the difference between the restricted release policy, obligatory service and TOS, especially VIE.  Once the period of restricted release or obligatory service is completed, a member may request release, even before the expiry of a VIE."   

Obligatory service period- Can release however the salary, tuition, books, PPNS allowance will be repaid prorated to how much obligatory service you have left.

Restricted release period- Same as obligatory service however you would have to repay the cost of MOC training.

Additionally, I checked if RMS Clerk (FSA/HRA) is red.  It is.  Anything below 10% PML is red and it's at 89.5%.  For perspective though, the CAF as a whole is 91.6% PML so take that with a grain of salt.  There's many other trades that are in way worse shape.

Release still has to be approved and processed of course.

 

[captloadie]

The referenced CFAO is the one that is pertinent. I recently received an official reply from D-Mil-C that refused to release a member before their 3 year initial engagement was complete. I agree that in some cases it doesn't make sense to hold a person that doesn't want to be in the military, but we also need to instill a standard. The CAF is meant to be a career and a profession, not just a job.

The CAF invests a large amount to train an individual, so it is important that it receives a return on its investment.

 

[kratz]

According to the Op, no training was invested by the RegF.

 

[PuckChaser]

Restricted release can apply for more situations than just joining the RegF, and can be for longer than 3 years. For an example, see the latest CANFORGENs on Pilot restricted release.

 

[rnkelly]

The referenced CFAO is the one that is pertinent. I recently received an official reply from D-Mil-C that refused to release a member before their 3 year initial engagement was complete. I agree that in some cases it doesn't make sense to hold a person that doesn't want to be in the military, but we also need to instill a standard. The CAF is meant to be a career and a profession, not just a job.

The CAF invests a large amount to train an individual, so it is important that it receives a return on its investment.

Interesting because a member can Voluntary release quite easily for a good portion of the initial three years of their contract during BMQ and Occupational training.  Does the release authority change once a member reaches OFP?  Did D Mil C give a reason?

CFAO 15-2 seems like a dated publication, restricted release requirements for Pilots isn't updated to 7 years.

 

[CountDC]

all our pubs are dated, changes are made via CANFORGEN rather than actually amending the pub.

CM's have a large influence on releases so we end up sometimes with different trades applying the rules differently.  Trade X may go with if the member doesn't want to be here, we don't want them here while trade Y sticks to the policy of 6 months notice prior to release and completion of your initial 3 years. Or at least we did in the past.  Certainly do need an across the board standard applied for all.

Not surprised the trades are red with all the releases I see going through.

 

[rnkelly]

CM's have a large influence on releases so we end up sometimes with different trades applying the rules differently.  Trade X may go with if the member doesn't want to be here, we don't want them here while trade Y sticks to the policy of 6 months notice prior to release and completion of your initial 3 years. Or at least we did in the past.  Certainly do need an across the board standard applied for all

This sounds believable and likely, probably even more dependant on the mood/competence of the particular CM.  You would think that all CM's regardless of trade, environment, officer or ncm would be managed by a leader that would dictate a policy that's consistent and follows a published order. 

It sounds like you were a CM CountDC, any comment?  Do you forward release requests to D Mil C for concurrence or approval/denial in most cases for a 4c?

 

[PuckChaser]

I may be a jerk, but unless the member has compassionate reasons to pull pin, I'd force a CT to stay in to complete their VIE, especially if there was a little over a year left. I see it no different than someone being forced to complete their BE once they've reached OFP (this post needs more acronyms). The member has made a commitment to the CAF, and being a PRes member previously, they would have significantly more of an idea on what they were signing up for.

There's 2 sides to every story, and further information on "why" the member wanted to release would violate too much PERSEC to post here. Unfortunately, its that "why" that is the amplifying factor as to why the CM is denying the release, and the absence of "why" would prevent more informed responses to the question. With the info given, I personally feel the CM is using "red trade" and TOS obligations as an easy button to deny a release that's not falling under a compassionate circumstance.  :2c:

 

[rnkelly]

I agree that it would turn into a gong show if it were too easy to release after taking all the training.  Some of the reasoning is suspect though.  Discretion should be used as you say but you hope that the one using discretion is smart.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I was personally in a similar situation as the member, I had it with the Navy and I submitted my release before my time would have been up. They never denied my release, but it was still a 6 month process.

To me denying the release is one of the stupidest things they can do as it leads to all sorts of unnecessary issues. I know my mental health improved significantly after leaving the Navy, and I haven't regretted it once. If I was the member I would submit the paperwork anyways, and receive a formal denial in writing if it is what they choose.

If denied, the member could still choose to do such things as talk to a padre, and see if that helps.

 

[Ayrsayle]

At the risk of having some strong reactions:

-A member who doesn't want to do his/her job anymore is not likely providing much of a service to the CAF - Keeping them in that job will get a lackluster return at best.
-A member who has signed on the line should be obligated to complete his TOS (its why there is such a wide variety of TOS past your initial one).  Short of a compassionate reason, I think most members should put in the work they committed to doing.

Personally, I eventually accept that you can't make people dedicated and obligated to their commitments and at the end of the day there will likely be someone else behind them who wants the job and wants to be doing it - Keeping people around who don't want to be there eventually becomes toxic to everyone involved.

Still a Volunteer military.

 

[mariomike]

For reference to the discussion,

Holding back a release 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/116468.0

VR being pushed aside 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/107212/post-1167367.html#msg1167367

VR Declined 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/109003.0/nowap.html

Voluntary Release
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5049-1.page#op
Date modified: 2015-10-15

"I would like to request a voluntary release for personal reasons before my period of obligatory service expires. What can I do?"
http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/en/ombudsman-questions-complaints-faq/index.page#vr1
Date modified: 2017-05-03

etc...

 

[CountDC]

This sounds believable and likely, probably even more dependant on the mood/competence of the particular CM.  You would think that all CM's regardless of trade, environment, officer or ncm would be managed by a leader that would dictate a policy that's consistent and follows a published order. 

It sounds like you were a CM CountDC, any comment?  Do you forward release requests to D Mil C for concurrence or approval/denial in most cases for a 4c?

Nope - just happened to know a few over the years and used to do the cm visits every year when they did them which was a great way to find out information.  Not really sure I would want that job either as they always looked really stressed when I saw them trying to juggle every ones wants with needs.  I would swear they all went grey or bald from it.