# 2015-011 - Overpayment, Pay, Pay Error - Member's Rigth to be Made Aware, Recovery of Overpayment
F&R Date: 2015–06–23
The grievor, an untrained officer in the rank of Second Lieutenant (2Lt), transferred to the Reserve Force in the Navy after six years in the Regular Force (Reg F). On transfer, she was paid by error at the pay level designated for officers Commissioning from the Ranks (CFR). Naval Reserve Headquarters (NAVRES HQ) discovered the pay error and the grievor was required to repay $5,764.12. The grievor argued that her Reg F experience in the rank of 2Lt was not fairly recognized by being paid at a pay level for Direct Entry Officers (DEO) 2Lt on transfer. She stated that she was being paid like a civilian off the street.
The Commander NAVRES, as the Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance on the basis that the grievor had not been entitled to the pay rate she received on transfer. The IA stated that although the conditions of the grievor's transfer message indicated that her pay level was to be set to DEO, her pay statements indicated that she was being paid at the CFR level, which was clearly an error that had to be corrected.
The Committee agreed with the IA, finding that the grievor had received the wrong pay level upon her transfer, and that the CAF was justified in recovering the overpayment. The Committee also found that the grievor's Reg F experience had been properly recognized by assigning her Incentive Pay Category 3, the highest pay increment available at her pay level.
Finally, the Committee observed that this was not the first pay error file it had reviewed where the affected CAF member had not been copied on the message or email traffic directly impacting their pay and allowances.The Committee made a systemic recommendation that any correspondence generated by pay authorities regarding the pay of a specific CAF member must be disclosed to that CAF member.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2016–08–19
The FA agree with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. The FA did not address the Committee's systemic recommendation.
- Date modified: