# 2013-045 Careers, Component Transfer (CT)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–09–20

The grievor applied for a Component Transfer (CT) back to the Regular Force, which, at the time, was administered on a first come, first served basis. Shortly before his Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR) was requested, the grievor was substantively promoted. Upon informing the Director Military Careers (D Mil C) 7 that all the necessary documentation had been completed for his promotion, he was advised that the CT process had changed to a merit-based one, and that a Merit Board would be required because there were more applicants than available positions. The Merit Board, held the following spring, ranked the grievor's file number 8 of 17 considered for the two available positions at his rank. The grievor continued to inquire regarding the status of his CT application and he concluded that he would have been next in line to be offered a CT under the previous system.

The grievor argued that he should have been offered a CT prior to his PLAR being approved because the Career Manager had indicated to him that there was an available position. In addition, the grievor suggested that he should have been offered a CT notwithstanding the Merit Board results since he should have had vested rights to his previous next in line position. He also suggested that the Merit Board Scoring Criteria had not been properly approved until after the Board had sat. Finally, the grievor complained that his file was mishandled and he questioned the requirement for the PLAR, indicating that it took an excessive amount of time.

The Initial Authority denied the grievance, finding that the grievor's file was handled correctly. He stated that at the time that the grievor's PLAR was received, the CT process had already changed to a merit based system. He also stated that the grievor did not rank high enough on the merit listing to warrant a CT offer the following spring.

The Committee reviewed the CT policy and found that a PLAR was required and that the grievor's PLAR had been completed in just four months where typically the assessment requires six months. The Committee also found that while the evidence on the file suggested that the grievor could, at one point, have been next in line to receive a CT offer, this was irrelevant since the selection process had already changed to a merit-based system at that point. The Committee observed that the Scoring Criteria had been approved prior to the conduct of the Merit Board and found that the grievor was not eligible for a CT offer based on his argument of having vested rights to the next in line position because he was not eligible for a CT until after the decision was made to switch to a merit-based system. The Committee found that he was not eligible for a CT offer the following year because he did not rank high enough on the merit list. Finally, the Committee concluded that there was no evidence on file to indicate that the grievor's CT application was mishandled. The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–10–07

Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.