OFFICERS COMMISSION SCRIPT

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And that, D.A.A. confirms what I have been saying:

(1) The officer "may" ... to "facilitate" the transfer. The choice is that of the officer and there is NO obligation on his part to do so. If the officer chose not to, well the transfer "may" be more difficult, but that's just the CAF administrative machine's problem. I would like to see the basis for refusing such an officer a transfer just because he did not wish to relinquish his/her commission to "facilitate". That would make an interesting grievance.

(2) You may note that even in this case, his commission is considered "suspended" and it is "revived" when commissioning again. That certainly indicates that it is the same commission, not a second or new one.

 

[Pusser]

(1) The officer "may" ... to "facilitate" the transfer. The choice is that of the officer and there is NO obligation on his part to do so. If the officer chose not to, well the transfer "may" be more difficult, but that's just the CAF administrative machine's problem. I would like to see the basis for refusing such an officer a transfer just because he did not wish to relinquish his/her commission to "facilitate". That would make an interesting grievance.

I suspect that the result of an officer refusing to "suspend" his/her commission in order to facilitate a transfer through the ROTP would be considered a refusal of the offer.  That's essentially what I was told in 1985 when I started the ROTP.  I wasn't commissioned in the Reserve, but I was released from the Reserve and then immediately enroled in the Regular Force.  The end result of this was the loss of any vested rights I may have had to pay (a Reserve LS made considerably more than an ROTP OCdt).  It was admittedly a pretty gray area, but I was essentially told that relinquishing any rights I may have had was a condition of enrolement in the ROTP.