# 2014-180 - Promotion, Promotion Criteria

Promotion, Promotion Criteria

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–02–12

The grievor was required to relinquish his rank of Major upon admission to a subsidized military studies program leading to a voluntary transfer to a specialist occupation. While the grievor was in training, the head of the specialist occupation in question issued a new directive on promotions to the rank of Major. Arguing that the rank of Major was the working rank of his new occupation and not a competitive rank, the grievor expressed his view that applying the directive would delay his promotion to the rank of Major by four years. He asked that a “grandfather” clause be inserted to minimize the negative repercussions of this new directive for himself and others in his situation.

The Committee had to determine whether the new directive had changed the conditions for promotion in effect when the grievor was admitted to the subsidized military studies program in question. The Committee therefore had to determine if the grievor should benefit from an acquired right to the conditions for promotion that existed before publication of this directive.

The Committee found that the amended conditions did not apply to the grievor's situation and that he had failed to show that he had an acquired right to promotion to the rank of Major.

The Committee compared the new directive to the various Canadian Forces Administrative Orders (CFAO) governing postings and promotions and found that it was perfectly consistent with these orders. In particular, the Committee noted that the directive, like CFAO 11-6 – Commissioning and Promotion Policy – Officers – Regular Force, supports the notion that promotion is not automatic, establishing the conditions required for promotion to the rank of Major. The Committee also found that like CFAO 11-6, the directive requires that the member qualify in his profession after training and that he must acquire four years' seniority in the rank of captain following qualification before becoming eligible for promotion to Major in the new specialist occupation.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

The FA disagreed with the Committee's initial findings and recommendation to deny the grievance, but partially in agreement with it's subsequent modified findings and recommendations to grant redress in subsequent files on the same matter.

Contrary to the Committee's conclusion that Directive 01/14 (Promotion of military lawyers to LCdr/Maj) issued by the JAG was simply reinstating the general conditions for promotion, the FA noted a distinction between the EPZ date for candidates of the DEO program as opposed to those of the MLTP. The FA found that Directive 01/14 contained significant changes to the conditions for promotion of MLTP candidates (found in CFAO 11-6). The FA determined that while JAG had the authority to restore the conditions for promotion of DEO candidates, he could not do so with regard to those of the MLTP without the consent of DGMC, as it results in major changes to the provisions of CFAO 11-6 (paragraphs 29, 30 and 31). The FA ordered the cancellation of Directive 01/14 as well as a review of the grievor's promotion file.

Page details

Date modified: