# 2014-177 - Entry into the Promotion Zone , Voluntary Occupational Transfer (VOT)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–04–28

The grievor obtained a voluntary reclassification before completing the basic training for his previous occupation. Two messages were sent providing for an enter promotion zone (EPZ) date at the rank of lieutenant based on his promotion to the rank of second lieutenant in his previous occupation. The grievor was instead promoted to the rank of lieutenant based on a period of service of one year following the voluntary reclassification in his new occupation, ie, 10 months after the EPZ date specified in the two messages. The grievor argued that his date of promotion to the rank of lieutenant should have been the EPZ date established in the two messages and felt that he had been further wronged because this decision had a direct impact on the EPZ date to the rank of captain. He alleged that the decisions of the career manager and the Initial Authority (IA) were based on a directive from the Director General Military Careers (DGMC) that contravenes the policy provided for at sub-paragraph 15 a of Annex A of Canadian Forces Administrative Orders (CFAO) 11-6 – Commissioning and Promotion Policy – Officers – Regular Force.

The DGMC, serving as IA, argued that the effective date for promotion to the rank of lieutenant of a CF member who has undergone voluntary or mandatory reclassification is the date on which the officer has completed one year of service in his/her new military occupation. The IA maintained that the grievor's argument was based on paragraphs of CFAO 11-6 that are not relevant to his case. The IA concluded that the grievor was treated fairly and in accordance with the applicable regulations and policies. However, the IA accorded the grievor partial redress by granting him 70 days of seniority for the BMOQ course he completed in his previous occupation.

The Committee concluded, taking into account current policy and the grievor's circumstances, that the EPZ date and the grievor's promotion to the rank of lieutenant had to take into account the date of his reclassification in his new occupation and not be established on the basis of his promotion to the rank of second lieutenant in his previous profession. Thus, the Committee concluded that the grievor's promotion to the rank of lieutenant had been carried out in accordance with the applicable policies. Thus, the grievor's EPZ date and date of promotion to the rank of lieutenant, as well as his EPZ date to the rank of captain, were all correctly determined by the DGMC.

The Committee was also of the opinion that the DGMC's decision to adjust the grievor's promotion date in recognition of the length of certain relevant courses in the new occupation was justified given the duties and powers he has now assumed.

The Committee recommended that the CDS deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–08–19

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