# 2014-047 - Promotion Criteria

Promotion Criteria

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–07–02

The grievor, scheduled to be promoted upon the completion of his Subsidized University Program, was promoted nearly 18 months later because he did not meet two promotion requirements, namely the physical fitness and the medical criteria. He argued that he was never made aware of these requirements and that he did not know that he had to complete an annual physical fitness evaluation. As a redress, he requested that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) waive the promotion criterion for his fitness test and that his promotion be retroactive to the eligibility date.

The Initial Authority, Director General Military Careers (DGMC), denied the grievance indicating that the grievor was issued a Subsidized Education Guide, which clearly stated that the fitness testing was an annual requirement. Additionally, the DGMC found that the evidence on file showed that the grievor had also been informed of this fitness requirement through other means.

The Committee had to determine whether the grievor's promotion date was reasonable or if it should be set at an earlier date.

First, the Committee noted that the Canadian Armed Forces' (CAF) intent to make physical fitness a promotion condition was publicized and known as early as December 2005, prior to the grievor commencing his Subsidized University Program.

Then, looking at the grievor's circumstances, the Committee found written statements to the effect that the grievor had been informed of the physical fitness requirement, that he was in possession of the Subsidized Education Guide which clearly highlighted the importance of having a valid physical fitness test and that his last fitness test form indicated that he had to complete his next fitness test the following year, two years prior to his promotion date. The Committee therefore did not accept the grievor's plea of ignorance and concluded that the grievor failed to comply with his obligations and responsibilities.

On the other hand, the Committee noted that Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 5023-2 identified Commanding Officers (CO) as being the individuals responsible for ensuring that CAF members serving under their command are tested against the applicable physical fitness standard and for initiating remedial actions as required. The file revealed that the grievor's physical fitness test had expired and that it remained non-valid for many years. The Committee also observed that the grievor's chain of command ignored this situation and allowed it to continue, unaddressed, for several years, in direct contravention of DAOD 5023-2. The Committee therefore concluded that the grievor's situation was not properly managed and that his CO failed to act on his responsibilities as stipulated in DAOD 5023-2.

In assessing whether the CDS should exercise his discretion and waive the physical fitness promotion criterion, the Committee took into consideration its previous findings that both the grievor and the CO had failed to comply with their respective obligations and responsibilities. In the end, the Committee determined that the grievor had been on notice since 2005 of the importance of being physical fit, that he had knowingly let his fitness test expire, and that he did not get tested for more than five years. The Committee concluded that the grievor's personal failures could not be excused by or attributed to his CO's inaction.

The Committee did not believe that the grievor's situation was sufficiently exceptional or unique to warrant the use of the CDS' discretion.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–02–05

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

Page details

Date modified: