How about those that were involuntarily released? The ones that the military were to lazy to deal with properly. The ones that were released because of their PTSD.
Are they allowed to complain?
That's a discussion I could really get into! If a member isn't medically fit for duty, physically or mentally, then they should be released. End of story. It's in the best interest of the institution and its member that this happens, as much as it isn't fair to the individual. This usually isn't questioned so much with a physical injury, such as the loss of a limb. Should mental injuries be treated differently from physical injuries? And if so, why? Can every member diagnosed with PTSD be rehabilitated to the point that they can return to service? Can PTSD be cured, or is it something that an individual has to deal with indefinitely?
Is the military the best environment for them to stay in? I know it's what many sufferers want - it's an environment they are familiar with, they have peers that have shared experiences and all that, so I get the pros for them to stay in. But in the long run, is it best for the CAF and its other members? How would you best accommodate the injured?
Are the mental health health services offered to those diagnosed with PTSD lacking significantly compared to those with physical injuries? I don't think that cutting back on the support system, as is happening now, is a responsible or prudent action. Our vets - both serving and released - need that support to give them a fighting chance at living a semi-normal life, and the evidence is overwhelming that they aren't all getting what they need to do so. It's a shame.
To answer your question: Yes, sufferers of PTSD have the right to complain, they're paying the price. But, perhaps more importantly, we as a society also have the obligation to listen.