# 2011-133 Careers, Progress Review Board (PRB)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–03–09

The grievor objected to a Progress Review Board (PRB) decision to cease-train and re-course him. The PRB was convened to review the grievor's conduct throughout his qualification level 3 (QL3) course and found that the grievor had not demonstrated the conduct required for his military occupation; however, it was deemed that the grievor possessed the potential to correct his deficiencies and he was therefore offered the opportunity to redo a portion of the course.

The grievor was of the view that he had met the required standard to graduate; he maintained that the decision to re-course him was flawed as he had not been given sufficient time to prepare, nor had he been properly assisted throughout the PRB process; the grievor also submitted that the PRB had encompassed a much broader review of his conduct than he had anticipated. He requested that he be granted his QL3 qualification.

The Board noted that, as a result of allegations of harassment against the grievor after he had been re-coursed, another PRB took place and the grievor was deemed to be unsuitable for his chosen military occupation. Although both the initial authority decision and the synopsis prepared by a member of the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority dealt with both PRBs, the Board found that the grievance before it only dealt with the first PRB and therefore did not examine the process and result of the second PRB.

A review of the PRB Record Sheet indicated the grievor was given notice, together with a disclosure package, the day before the PRB convened to review his "conduct throughout the course" and he was asked at the beginning of the PRB whether he required more time to prepare to which he answered "No". The grievor knew that his entire history on the course would be reviewed and the transcript reveals he was prepared to speak to the various matters put to him. The Board agreed that the course Sergeant ought not to have been assigned to assist him, especially if he was a member of the PRB; however, the Board was unable to conclude that the grievor was disadvantaged. Based on the self-portrait painted by the grievor, the Board was not left with the impression that he would be reluctant to ask for time or further consideration as needed. Additionally, while irrelevant comments and opinions may have been expressed by two PRB members, the Board noted that there were seven members in total forming the PRB, including the Commandant of the School, who appears to have been the decision-making authority.

In the circumstances, the Board found that the PRB complied with the basic principles of procedural fairness and the decision to re-course the grievor was reasonable.

The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff that he deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–11–13

The FA agreed with the Board's recommendation that the grievance be denied