# 2013-097 - Selection Boards

Selection Boards

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–12–30

The grievor's file was assessed by an annual Selection Board composed of five members. The grievor grieved his ranking, as in his view, he should have placed in the top 10, which would have resulted in a promotion. In addition, the grievor alleged that a member of the Selection Board showed prejudicial bias against him and unduly influenced the Selection Board results. The issues before the Committee were whether the grievor's ranking by the Selection Board was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, and whether there was evidence of a negative bias against the grievor.

The Director General Military Careers, acting as the Initial Authority, did not support the grievor's allegation of undue influence. The Initial Authority reviewed the grievor's many accomplishments, performance evaluation reports and letters of commendation, and noted that they had all been considered in the scoring of the grievor's file. As a result, he denied the grievance.

The Committee examined each factor that the Selection Board considered and compared the grievor's results to those of his peers. These factors were: Bilingualism, Overall Performance (based on Fitness and Performance) and Overall Potential (based on Leadership, Experience, Personal Attributes, Professional Development and Education). Of particular interest was the grievor's score for Education, which was zero (0) out of a possible 15 points. The Committee observed that the grievor had not upgraded his education, an established and known requirement for the rank level in question, which was within his control. The Committee noted that, of all individuals assessed by the Selection Board, all but two (the grievor being one) received 10 or 15 points for Education. Consequently, the Committee found that the grievor's score for Education was the reason he ranked lower and was not promoted. The Committee found that the grievor's ranking on the Selection Board was equitable.

The Committee found no evidence of prejudicial bias or undue influence and the grievor did not provide evidence to substantiate his claim. Upon examination of the grievor's scores, the Committee found that the Selection Board's results showed no particular pattern from any of the five Selection Board members, but did show consistency in the assessment of the grievor's file.

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

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–05–26

The CDS agrees with the Committee's findings and recommendation and denied redress.

Page details

Date modified: