# 2020-075 Careers, Component transfer

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-04-29

The grievor, a reservist, wished to be employed as a Special Operations Assaulter (SOA) officer. After making inquiries, he was told that he could apply for SOA selection only if his current military occupation would support his component transfer (CT) to the Regular Force (Reg F), in the event that his application was successful. This support was required because the grievor would remain in his current military occupation while serving as a SOA officer. The grievor requested that support for CT to serve as a SOA officer and subsequently grieved the decision to deny that request. 

The grievor's request was denied because:

1. his military occupation was listed as closed for direct entry officer or CT candidates
2. allowing the grievor to serve as a SOA officer would negatively impact his current occupation's ability to fulfil its primary responsibilities
3. existing demands have severely limited opportunities for Reg F members in his current military occupation to serve outside of the occupation's core areas of responsibility, and allowing the grievor—a reservist—to enjoy a benefit routinely denied to current Reg F members would negatively impact morale

The Committee found that the grievor's military occupation was under no obligation to support the CT of a reservist to the Reg F to facilitate employment as a SOA officer, that its preferred manning level provided limited flexibility for employing members outside of the occupation's core responsibilities, and that the decision not to support the grievor's CT was reasonable in the circumstances. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford the grievor redress. 

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, the FA, agreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. The FA found that the grievor had neither a right nor an entitlement to a CT. The grievor's CT request was subject to the needs of the service and the grievor's military occupation was not required to support it given that it was closed for CT to the Reg F at the time. The FA declined to grant the requested redress.