I'm going to post in a locked topic here.
1st - Is it difficult to get in when you have Asthma? Yes.
Is it impossible? No.
Everyone's case is looked at separately. There are posters to this board
who have appealed and been enrolled.
2nd - Threads with the sub-topic "If only I hadn't told them about that" seem to appear on this board
every once in a while.
I have posted this before, but it needs repeating.
When you sign off the questionaire during the enrollment medical you are signing a legal
document. If you are caught making a false statement on your medical during enrollment,
your finished.
Here are two case studies from the CF Grievance Board website. In the first study
you will note that unintentional non-disclosure will get you released and out of the
military (Category 5e Irregular Enrolment). Intentional non-disclosure will get you discharged under item 1d
(1: Misconduct d: Fraudulent Statement on Enrolment). Bottom line is, you will
be released either way.
http://cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/casestudies-e.php?case_study_id=169
Case Summaries
Release - Fraudulent Enrolment
The grievor enrolled in the Canadian Forces (CF) on June 27, 2002. During an immunization parade in July 2002, the grievor disclosed his allergies. These allergies were not disclosed during the medical examination given to the grievor at the time of enrolment. As a result of his medical condition, the grievor’s medical category was downgraded from G2 to G4. This change meant that the grievor did not meet the medical standard required for enrolment in the CF, and he was released under Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&O) item 1(d). The grievor argued that he should not have been released, and requested that the release be cancelled.
The Initial Authority did not issue a decision in this case, as its request for a second extension of time in order to respond to the grievance was refused.
The Board found that the grievor did not meet the required medical standard and would not have been able to enroll in the CF had the full extent of his medical condition been appreciated at the time of enrolment. The Board also found that QR&O item 5(e) was a more appropriate release category than item 1(d).
The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance. The Board also recommended that the grievor’s release item be changed from 1(d) to 5(e), and, consequently, that the grievor’s service record be amended.
CDS DECISION
The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation to uphold the grievance in part. The grievor's release from the CF was appropriate and he would not have been enrolled if his complete medical information (allergies) had been known prior to enrolment. However, given the uintentional nature of his not disclosing relevant health information, the grievor's release item 1(d) will be amended by ADM (HR Mil) in order to reflect an item 5(e) release.
This second case study is in reply to the "But I know somebody who got in then got diagnosed"
argument. The Common Enrolment Medical Standard (CEMS) does not apply to someone
who is already "in". However, there is a Generic Standard and a specific standard for each
trade. If a medical condition develops that limits the member from meeting those standards,
another system of temporary medical categories, and possible accommodation takes place
for a set period of time before they too are medically released. ArmyVern already pointed
this out to crawdaddy in her post above.
http://cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/casestudies-e.php?case_study_id=224
Case Summaries
Discrimination / Medical condition / Release - Medical / Universality of Service
The grievor alleged that he was unjustly released from the Canadian Forces under item 3(b) – Medical of QR&O article 15.01, instead of receiving a second period of accommodation.
The Board found that, in principle, the grievor could have received a second period of accommodation based on the fact that, according to the Annual Military Occupation Review, the grievor’s Military Occupation was a “distress trade”. In addition, the Board found that the CO exceeded his authority when deciding not to offer the grievor a further period of accommodation, as he used irrelevant criteria to the “Guidelines for Retention of Members with Medical Employment Limitations” in order to make this decision.
Despite the fact that the grievor may have suffered an injustice, however, the Board found that a medical release for this grievor was, ultimately, the only possible outcome. The Board also found no merit in recommending that he be offered re-enrolment for a Fixed Period of Service equivalent to the length of another period of accommodation (i.e., three years). In attempt to correct the injustice caused to the grievor, therefore, the Board recommended that the CDS forward the grievance to the Director of Claims and Civil Litigation for consideration of a monetary award to the grievor.
CDS DECISION
The CDS endorses the Board’s recommendation to deny the grievance. The CDS is satisfied that the grievor was accommodated in accordance with the CF Accommodation Policy until the expiration of his Basic Engagement and that he was properly released on medicals grounds. The CDS is satisfied that the CF was not obliged to renew his terms of service to provide him a further period of accommodation. Finally, while the grievor’s CO did apply the wrong test in his recommendation for release, he was not the decision maker. Consequently, contrary to Board’s recommendation, the CDS is not satisfied that there are grounds to refer the grievor’s case to DCCL for consideration as a potential claim against the Crown.
The existing thread on the subject of lying or hiding facts during the medical is located here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/13190.0.html
