# 2012-152 - Cease-Training, Progress Review Board (PRB)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–12–06

The grievor submitted two grievances (2012-152 and 2103-090) that were reviewed by separate Initial Authorities (IA), which the Committee elected to treat as one. At issue are the decisions to cease train the grievor, on the recommendation of a Progress Review Board (PRB), and his release from the Canadian Armed Forces, subsequent to an Administrative Review (AR). The grievor contended that his rights were violated and he was denied procedural fairness.

The IA for the PRB grievance denied the grievor's request to declare the PRB null and void. The IA found that it was properly convened and had conducted its proceedings in accordance with applicable policies. The IA was of the opinion the PRB made a fair and well supported recommendation and was supportive of its conclusion that the grievor had failed to meet the standards required to continue training. The IA found that the decision by the Commanding Officer (CO) of the training establishment to cease train the grievor was reasonable

.

The IA for the release grievance found that, upon completion of an assessment for occupational transfer, the grievor could no longer be retained in his occupation and had chosen not to be reassigned to another occupation that was open at the time. This left no other option for the AR but release; the IA denied the grievance. The IA recognized that the AR decision did not provide detailed written reasons, as required in accordance with Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5019-2, but found that the only impact of this failure would have been the inability to submit a grievance; the IA observed that this was not at issue in this matter.

The Committee found that although the grievor advanced numerous procedural rights claims in support of his grievances, he made no substantive argument against the rationale for the decisions and provided no evidentiary foundation to support his claims. The only substantive procedural issue, in the Committee's opinion, was the fact that the grievor had not been permitted to be present during the PRB proceedings, as he was only allowed to appear to present his own statement. Despite this finding, the Committee was of the opinion that the grievor was ultimately treated fairly given that the CO of the training establishment was the decision maker. The PRB made recommendations only to the CO and, before rendering his decision, the CO met with the grievor who had received the PRB recommendations and all witness statements. As such, the grievor had sufficient disclosure of the case he had to meet and was able to make informed representations to the decision maker prior to the decision being rendered. The Committee was satisfied that the grievor had been afforded adequate procedural fairness. In light of the evidence, the Committee found the PRB recommendation to be reasonable as well as the CO's decision to cease train the grievor.

The Committee was of the opinion that the recommendation to release the grievor under item 5(d) of the Queen's Regulations &Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O) was reasonable given that the grievor was not interested in any of the other available military occupations. The Committee found that due process was followed when initiating the grievor's release and found no evidence the AR was conducted in an unfair manner. It is to be further noted that the grievor had waived his right to disclosure of the AR in order to expedite his release. The Committee concluded that the AR recommendation and subsequent release decision were reasonable and appropriate. The Committee recommended that both grievances be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–01–05

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that both grievances be denied.