# 2012-057 - Course Failure, Release - Compulsory
F&R Date: 2012–08–31
The Grievor successfully completed Basic Officer Training, but was eventually released after failing the Construction Engineering Officer Course (CEOC) twice. The Grievor objected to this decision and criticized the fact that the Commandant of the Canadian Forces School of Military Engineering (CFSME) refused to consider reassigning him to other occupations for which he viewed himself as qualified. The Grievor requested that his release be set aside and that he be reassigned to another occupation with retroactive reimbursement of the pay and benefits he would have received.
The Board noted that the Grievor raised a number of general points to explain his failure but that he focussed mainly on the decision to not transfer him to another occupation and to release him. As the evidence in the file demonstrates that the Grievor did not complete the CEOC, and that he himself did not contest this fact, the Board concentrated its examination on the decision to release the Grievor. Before doing so, the Board made a point of commenting on the two following aspects: first, in the Board’s opinion, the CFSME met its obligations by giving the Grievor sufficient opportunity to successfully complete the CEOC; and second, examination of the file revealed no deficiency regarding the release process per se. Consequently, according to the Board, the essential outstanding issue was to consider whether the Canadian Forces (CF) ought to have redirected the Grievor’s career instead of ordering his release.
Since the Grievor had completed his basic training, there were two possible options after failing the CEOC: releasing him, or referring him to the office of the Personnel Selection Officer (PSO) for a compulsory occupational transfer. The Board noted that the description of the performance and behaviour of the Grievor in reports from the Initial Assessment Period, the Basic Officer Training Period, and during the Common Army Phase did not describe a candidate with insurmountable difficulties in adapting to military life. The Board concluded that the facts of the case did not demonstrate that the Grievor lacked the capacity to pursue his military service.
The Board noted that, under the file review process for a member’s occupational transfer as described in the Personnel Selection Services Manual, a PSO must perform a rigorous assessment of the member’s candidacy in order to determine whether a compulsory occupational transfer is a suitable and viable option. In the case at hand, and despite an explicit request from the Director Military Careers Administration (DMCA), the Board was of the opinion that the PSO had failed to conduct an adequate review of the Grievor’s file. As a consequence, the DMCA did not receive a proper answer to the question as to whether the Grievor could or could not be reclassified.
The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) partially uphold the grievance.
The Board recommended that the CDS order a PSO review of the Grievor’s file to determine whether it would have been appropriate to carry out a compulsory occupational transfer.
Should the review determine that the Grievor should have been given compulsory transfer, the Board recommended that the CDS order and facilitate the Grievor’s re-enrolment in the appropriate occupational group, if the latter still wishes to serve in the CF. Should this not be the case, the Board recommended that the CDS order that the results of the review be communicated to the Grievor.
The Board also recommended that the Grievor’s file be referred to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation to determine whether there are grounds for compensating him as redress for his improper release.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2013–06–14
The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendations.
Report a problem or mistake on this page
- Date modified: