# 2011-085 Pay and Benefits, Component Transfer (CT), Pay, Special Commissioning Plan (SCP), Transfer from Reserve Force to Regular...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–09–29

The grievor, a Sergeant (Sgt) in the Primary Reserve, applied for a component transfer (CT) to the Regular Force (Reg F) in a health services occupation. A prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) assessment and a review of previous experience assessment were conducted. As a result, a CT offer was made under the Special Commissioning Plan (SCP) that included an immediate commissioning and promotion to the rank of Lieutenant (Lt) at pay increment (PI) 6.

Following an initial eight-month delay due to difficulties in entering the grievor’s data into the Reg F pay system, the grievor’s pay level was corrected and amended to Lt PI 4. The grievor argued that the original CT offer was a contract that should be upheld. She also suggested that she should have been transferred as a Direct Entry Officer (DEO) rather than under the SCP because she had never been a Sgt in the Reg F and, therefore, the initial assessment of PI 6 should stand. The grievor also opined that the General Service Officer pay policy may not apply to her because her new occupation was listed as a specialist officer.

As redress, the grievor requested that her pay rate of Lt PI 6 be reinstated.

The initial authority (IA) denied redress explaining that the grievor’s CT was completed using the correct plan, the SCP, in accordance with applicable policy. The IA found that the grievor was not in a specialist occupation for pay purposes. The IA determined that the grievor’s pay rate was correctly calculated as Lt PI 4 according to Compensation and Benefits Instructions.

The Board agreed with the IA’s findings that the grievor was correctly transferred under the SCP and that she was not in a specialist occupation for pay purposes. The Board also agreed with the IA’s analysis and calculation of pay rate and found that the grievor’s correct pay rate on CT was Lt PI 4.

The Board recommended to the final authority that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–04–23

The CDS did not agree with the Board's recommendation to deny the grievance and he authorized that the grievor be paid Lt pay increments 6 under CBI 204.211(4). The CDS found that it was within his authority to grant the grievor additional pay increments in recognition of her master's degree even though it may not be directly related to her occupation, as long as it deems to be of military value.