# 2015-250 - Promotion Criteria

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–12–01

The grievor pursued his education by taking a specialized Military Training Plan (MTP). During his studies, the military profession he hoped to enter upon completion published a directive indicating that captains entering the trade were required to serve for a period of four years after obtaining all the basic skills of the military profession before they could be considered for promotion to the rank of major.

The grievor alleges that this directive runs counter to current practice and normal career progression as it had been explained to him when he was admitted into the MTP.

The Initial Authority did not rule on the grievance.

The Committee noted that the same four year period provided for in the directive in question was also included in the directives that apply to all CAF officers and specialist officers. In this sense, the Committee was of the opinion that the directive did not cause hardship to the grievor. However, the Committee heard testimony from a former staff officer who was directly involved in the recruitment and promotion of officers who had taken the MTP for this profession. He confirmed the grievor's allegations that all the officers who had completed the MTP had been promoted following their first Personnel Evaluation Report after having obtained all of the basic skills for the profession. The Committee looked into and confirmed this information, and determined that the directive, as issued, caused hardship, not only to the grievor, but also to all captains who had taken the same MTP and who had not yet been promoted to the rank of major.

The Committee also took note of a CANFORGEN published in 2012 that introduced changes to the conditions for entering specialized military professions within the framework of an MTP. The officers affected by this CANFORGEN could not be considered as having conditions similar to those of the grievor.

The Committee recommended that the CDS promote all captains who had successfully completed the MTP for the grievor's military profession to the rank of major in the year following their first Personnel Evaluation Report after having obtained all of the basic skills.

FA Decision Summary

The FA agreed in part with the findings and recommendations of the Committee allowing the grievance.

Unlike the Committee, which was of the opinion that JAG Directive 01/14 (Promotion of a legal officer to the rank of LCdr/Maj) simply announced a return to applying the general prerequisites for promotion, the FA noted the distinction between the EPZ date for an applicant to the Direct Entry Officer (DEO) program and an applicant to the Military Legal Training Plan (MLTP). He concluded that the Directive contained significant changes in the conditions governing promotion for memebrs of MLTP (in CFAO 11-6). The FA stated that although the JAG could provide for a return to the general promotion rules for members of the DEO program, the JAG could not apply these general rules to MLTP applicants without the approval of the DGMC, as this constitutes a major change in the provisions of CFAO 11-6, which sets out an exception (paragraphs 29, 30 and 31). The FA ordered the cancelation of Directive 01/14 and a review of the grievor's promotion file.