# 2013-009 Releases, Administrative Action, Administrative Process Leading to Compulsory Releases, Cease-Training, Course Failure, Initial Counselling (IC), Remedial Measures

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–07–10

The grievor grieved three issues; a recorded warning for which the monitoring period overlapped his component transfer from the Reserve Force to the Regular Force, a refusal to transfer to yet another trade despite being untrained for his trade in the Regular Force, and a notice of intent to recommend release. The grievor argued that the recorded warning should be removed from his files based on a draft personnel evaluation report he was shown three days prior to receiving the remedial measure which did not refer to any of the identified shortcomings. Further, the grievor indicated that the recorded warning would hamper his component transfer. The grievor also requested that he be transferred to a different occupation based on a prior learning assessment. Finally, the grievor requested that the notice of intent to recommend release be destroyed based primarily on the draft personnel evaluation report. Therefore, the issues before the Committee were whether the recorded warning, the refusal to transfer and the notice of intent were reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

The Initial Authority, the grievor's Commanding Officer (CO) denied the grievance. The CO stated that because the monitoring period of the recorded warning overlapped with the grievor's component transfer, it could not be removed from his file. The Initial Authority indicated that the grievor signed a document upon component transfer acknowledging that if he were not successful in meeting the requirements for his new trade, he would be subject to release. The Initial Authority also stated that the basis for the notice of intent to recommend release was that he was unsuccessful in completing training for his new trade and that the grievor had provided insufficient evidence to justify the cancellation of the notice of intent.

The Committee reviewed two draft personnel evaluation reports on file, which the grievor felt justified the removal of the recorded warning. Despite noting that there was a slight difference in the performance and potential scorings, there was no evidence that a final evaluation report was ever produced. The Committee found that the grievor did not make any argument that would warrant the removal of the remedial measure. In addition, the recorded warning did not hamper the grievor's component transfer. The Committee found that it was unable to conclude that the recorded warning was unjustified in the circumstances, and found that it should remain on file.

With regard to a transfer to another trade, the Committee noted that the grievor had twice unsuccessfully completed training for his new trade in the Regular Force; the second time he was removed from course at his own request. Further, during his second attempt, the grievor received several warnings and another recorded warning. As a result of a review by a Personnel Selection Officer, it was determined he was unsuitable for other occupations. The Committee found that the decision to deny the grievor an occupation transfer was therefore reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

Lastly, the notice of intent to recommend release was issued to the grievor because he did not successfully complete occupation training, and as a result of the numerous remedial measures awarded to him with unsatisfactory signs of improvement. In addition, the grievor signed a statement that if he did not complete occupation training upon component transfer, he would be subject to release. The Committee found that, based on all of this evidence, the decision to proceed with a notice of intent to recommend release was reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

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

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Pending