# 2016-134 - Selection Board

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–12–12

The grievor was excluded from the annual Selection Board Candidate List (SBCL) because she had not completed a specific development period level, despite having a raw score above the SBCL threshold score. The grievor contends that excluding her file from the SBCL because she had not completed a program requiring her to attend a course she was never offered is against policies. She therefore requests that a supplementary board be conducted.

The initial authority (IA) did not render a decision, as he considers he lacked the authority to do so in this case. He nonetheless commented on the grievance and explained that excluding the grievor's file for not having achieved the development period required for promotion was in accordance with the Director General Military Career (DGMC) directives, the latter having approved the selection board report recommendations from the previous year.

The Committee concluded that DGMC never approved a change in policy; his acceptance of the selection board report is to be interpreted as an acknowledgment of receiving the said recommendations. The selection board guidance manual was never changed, nor was there any instruction to proceed otherwise. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the grievor's file should not have been excluded from the SBCL, and recommended that a supplementary board be held.

The Committee also noted that three other files were excluded for the same reason; hence, the Committee recommended that the CAF review those files to determine if they should also be reviewed by a supplementary board.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation to grant the grievance. The CDS agreed that the grievor's file should not have been excluded from the SBCL. First, the SBCL is an administrative tool designed to streamline the board process while ensuring that all competitive files are reviewed, not a tool to remove files that are arbitrarily deemed non-competitive. The CDS found that the grievor's file was extremely competitive and should not have been removed. Second, SBCL policy is that files are not precluded from consideration because they lack a qualification; therefore, removing the grievor's file was in violation of the policy. Third, the recommendation in the 2015 board report that certain files be excluded from consideration was merely a recommendation. It had not been implemented as policy; only the CAFSBGM is policy. The direction given by the RCN on excluding files was therefore null and void. The CDS expressed concern with the RCN's inappropriate exertion of direct influence on the pre-selection process. He stated that CMP and DGMC have worked hard to ensure transparency and fairness in the selection process and that this institutional credibility must be safeguarded.