# 2013-121 - Selection Board Candidates List Process, Selection Boards

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–03–31

The grievor claimed that the scoring process used to establish the Selection Board Candidates List (SBCL) is unfair. The SBCL policy prescribes a mathematical assessment of the last three Personnel Evaluation Reports (PERs), with a reduction of PERs in the previous rank by half. The grievor contends that members at his rank are disadvantaged as the minimum time in rank for promotion is three years, meaning that they will have only received two PERs in their current rank when they become eligible to be assessed by a Selection Board. The grievor submitted that had his first PER not been reduced by half, his file would have ranked much higher on the SBCL and been put before to the Selection Board. As redress, the grievor requested that the provision to reduce the score of PERs in the previous rank be repealed, that his file be rescored and that he be considered for a retroactive promotion.

The Director General Military Careers, as the Initial Authority (IA) in this matter, denied redress finding that the grievor's SBCL score was calculated correctly and in accordance with policy. Addressing the grievor's claim that the scoring process was unfair, the IA pointed out that the SBCL process included a mechanism whereby the Career Manager reviews the files of those candidates who have been excluded by the purely mathematical calculations to determine whether they are competitive and should be included for Selection Board review. The IA noted that in this instance the grievor's Career Manager did not add any additional files and found no reason to question this decision.

The Committee agreed that the grievor's SBCL score was calculated in accordance with policy but found that the grievor's file was competitive and that the Career Manager should have exercised his discretion and add the grievor's file to the SBCL. The grievor was disadvantaged by the combination of a series of permitted policy-related decisions: reduction by half of a PER where the grievor was employed in a position of a higher rank and labelled for succession planning purposes; attendance on second official language training, delaying his ability to perform and be assessed in his substantive rank; and duplicating the score of his first PER in rank.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) uphold the grievance and order a Supplementary Selection Board to assess the grievor's file and determine if he should have been promoted. In addition, the Committee recommended that the CDS promote the grievor, in an Acting While So Employed capacity, for the period during which he was employed in a higher rank position.

Finally, having reviewed the basis to the provision of reducing PERs in the previous rank by half in establishing the SBCL, the Committee made a systemic recommendation to review the merits of this practice.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–08–26

The Final Authority (FA) did not agree with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be partially upheld. The FA found that the decision not to present the grievor's file to the 2013 Selection Board was reasonable, and that he was treated fairly in accordance with the applicable regulations. The FA did not agree with the Committee that the grievor's file was competitive and should have remained with those Selection Board Candidates List (SBCL) files for consideration by the Selection Board.

While the FA acknowledged that the application of a 50% reduction factor assigned to PERs in a previous rank is not a perfect system, it accomplished what it was meant to do: that being the standardized assignment of less weight to a PER from a previous rank, thus favoring those top performers with experience in the current rank. Consequently, the FA did not agree with the Committee's systemic recommendation that the current Director General Military Careers policy be changed. Contrary to the Committee's finding, the career managers provided a human dimension to the process in that they were given the discretionary authority to bring forward those files that were ranked below the SBCL cut-off line but that were still considered competitive.

Notwithstanding the Committee's recommendation, the FA did not find sufficient evidence to support the grievor's Acting While So Employed (AWSE) promotion during the time in question.