# 2015-069 - Prior Learning Assessment Review (PLAR)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–02–12

The grievor challenged the decision not to grant him his Primary Leadership Qualification – Land (PLQ L). In his opinion, the Reserve Force (Res F) Combat Leaders Course (CLC) that he had completed in the past was equivalent to the Regular Force (Reg F) CLC, and under Land Force Command Order (LFCO) 24-20, he should have automatically obtained his PLQ L qualification. As redress, the grievor requested the retroactive reinstatement of his rank of master corporal (MCpl).

The initial authority (IA) denied the grievance, explaining that the CLC the grievor had taken in the Res F no longer met the current requirements for the Primary Leadership Qualification – Army (A-PLQ). However, the IA indicated that the grievor's experience had been analyzed in depth and that he had been given the appropriate equivalencies, i.e. for A-PLQ modules 1 and 2. The IA also recognized that the grievor had held positions in a variety of military occupation categories, particularly different positions at the rank of MCpl, but stated that none of this experience had provided him with the skill set required for an army MCpl and taught in A-PLQ modules 3 and 4.

The Committee contacted an Army Professional Development officer for clarifications on the equivalency process for Army occupation qualifications. The latter confirmed that the grievor had obtained the CLC qualification and that at the time the Canadian Defence Academy had decreed that the CLC and the PLQ-L were equivalent and that this equivalency was permanent.

The Committee concluded that, in accordance with LFCO 24-20, the grievor should have obtained the PLQ L when he transferred to the Reg F. The Committee noted that, contrary to the IA's contention, the changes to the A-PLQ in 2013 did not apply to the grievor because he was already qualified.

The Committee therefore recommended that the CLC completed by the grievor be recognized, that he be granted the A-PLQ and that he receive a backdated promotion to the substantive rank of MCpl. Lastly, the Committee recommended that the grievor's severance pay be adjusted based on the substantive rank of MCpl.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–06–03

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations.