# 2014-074 - Progress Review Board (PRB)

Progress Review Board (PRB)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–06–24

The grievor argued that he was prematurely assessed for a career course failure against pass/fail criteria that had not been approved. He complained that he was removed from training without being considered for additional training or for being re-coursed.

Although there is no Initial Authority (IA) decision, a synopsis prepared for the IA concluded that the pass/fail criteria used to assess the grievor had been approved in principle and properly authorized for use. The synopsis further concluded that the progress reviews and the Progress Review Board (PRB) had been conducted in accordance with regulations and policy.

The Committee agreed with the grievor that the pass/fail criteria had not been authorized in writing by the approving authority and could not conclude that the approving authority had even been consulted. Therefore, the Committee found that the pass/fail criteria were not approved for use in the grievor's case and that the appropriate policy that should apply was the Version 1.0 of the Provisional Qualification Standard (QS).

The Committee then reviewed the grievor's recorded performance against Version 1.0 of the Provisional QS and concluded that he had not failed enough Enabling or Performance Objectives to meet the failure criteria. Therefore, the Committee found that the Version 1.0 of Provisional QS had not been correctly applied in the grievor's situation.

The Committee agreed with the grievor that the Commandant of the School had the option to authorize additional training. However, the Committee noted that he also had the authority to convene a PRB when he believed such a review was warranted. Notwithstanding its finding that the grievor was not automatically a course failure, the Committee concluded that the grievor's performance showed sufficient deficiencies to establish that he was failing the course. The Committee found that the convening of a PRB was within policy, justified and did not create a bias.

The Committee reviewed in detail the grievor's training record as well as the grievor's and witnesses' testimonies and was satisfied that the PRB's conclusions aligned with the testimony of the Course Director, the instructors and the grievor himself. It was clear to the Committee that the grievor did not perform well in an operationally dynamic environment, an essential element for his occupation. Accordingly, the Committee found the PRB recommendation to cease training to be reasonable and justified.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–04–21

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation to deny the grievance.

Page details

Date modified: