# 2013-027 Careers, Cease-Training, Progress Review Board (PRB)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–05–09

The grievor was involved in a bar-brawl after hours on the evening prior to course graduation. He challenged the decision to remove him from training and return him to his unit as a course failure. The grievor sought to reverse the decision that was made on the recommendation of a Progress Review Board (PRB), submitting that he had successfully completed the performance objectives for the course and should be awarded the requisite qualifications.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the Commanding Officer (CO) of the training establishment had the option to immediately remove a student from training in the event of “a gross error” … “during off duty hours”. The IA took into consideration the fact that the grievor's training was considered a leadership course and candidates were expected to not only meet the technical requirements of the course but also meet the expectations of a leader both on and off duty. The IA denied the grievance, concluding that the grievor had demonstrated a lack of personal leadership qualities and/or conduct that could reflect poorly on the Canadian Forces (CF) and it was the grievor's actions and lack of judgment that were key to the decision.

The issue before the Canadian Forces Grievance Board (the “Board) was whether or not the decision to remove the grievor from training and deny him his qualifications was justified. The Board found that the IA, in denying the grievance, did not address the specific information provided by the grievor as to the nature and degree of his involvement in the off duty hours incident. How the IA was able to assess actions and judgment without knowing the facts was not explained.

The Board found a lack of procedural fairness in this instance where the CF had taken action without first determining the facts. There had been no police investigation into the incident in question, no summary investigation and no other form of enquiry. The PRB report was found to be so bereft of detail it was impossible to say what information was in front of the members or how it was obtained. The Board found it unfair to rush to judgment without knowing the facts and concluded that the PRB report should be set aside. Likewise, the CO's decision was found to be unreasonable given that it was based on the PRB. The Board noted that the CO's decision needed to include the major points in issue and describe the reasoning process followed.

The evidence on file showed that the grievor had completed all of the course performance objectives. Thus, the Board was of the opinion that the grievor's qualifications should be granted and his course report amended accordingly.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff uphold the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–03–13

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be upheld.