# 2015-111 - Course Failure, Progress Review Board (PRB)

Course Failure, Progress Review Board (PRB)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–09–03

While the grievor was taking occupational training, a Note To File (NTF) was placed on his training file as a result of defiant behavior towards his instructors. An Independent Review (IR) took place which resulted in a Progress Review Board (PRB). The PRB found that the grievor had not demonstrated a basic level of conduct required of a junior member and recommended that the grievor be ceased trained from the course. The Commandant approved that recommendation. The grievor objected to the PRB findings and the Commandant decision to cease his training. He provided examples of supportive and encouraging behavior towards his peers, and stated that he was engaged and studious during the course. He noted Defense Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 5019-4, Remedial Measures, which he believed could have better helped him understand his conduct deficiencies, but submitted that those remedial measures were never provided to him.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance. He stated that students are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times. He noted that the PRB demonstrated that the grievor's peers and instructors agreed that he did not demonstrate the basic level of conduct expected of a CAF member. With respect to remedial measures, the IA pointed out that the DAOD did not replace existing performance assessment procedures for untrained members, and submitted that the school provided appropriate measures including the NTF, IR and PRB.

The Committee found that while it was appropriate to convene a PRB which was conducted in accordance with policy, ceasing the grievor's training was premature. It was the Committee's view that a more formal counseling approach should have been undertaken in the grievor's circumstances. The Committee stated that the responsibility to ensure that a CAF member is aware of and understands that his performance or conduct does not meet the expected standard is that of the chain of command (CoC), who is responsible to put in place measures which allow the member to overcome the identified deficiencies. The Committee noted that the more formal remedial measures approach would have moved the grievor's situation from a training issue to a career issue. The Committee also submitted that the objective of training is for a member to learn and to qualify in the training. Given that none of the more formal remedial measures as provided for in DAOD 5019-4 were used in the grievor's case, for example an initial counseling, the Committee found that the decision to cease the grievor's training was not reasonable in the circumstances. As a result, the Committee recommended that the grievor be given another opportunity to attend the occupation training.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–03–30

The FA did not agree with the Committee's finding that the decision to cease the grievor's training was premature.The FA did not agree with the Committee that the formal remedial system under DAOD 5019-4 must be followed in all circumstances: the system of issuing chits for performance or disciplinary shortcomings is more suitable to the school/training environment. For the FA, the assumption is that the shortcoming can be overcome in a few weeks; if students are unable to adapt, their continued service is in jeopardy and can be terminated. The grievor was no longer interested in being reinstated in the trade, and therefore, the Committee's recommendation that he be given another opportunity to attend the training was no longer an option. In any event, the FA found that the grievor's removal from the training was reasonable and he did not grant the desired redress that the CT event be removed from his record.

Page details

Date modified: