# 2016-023 - Career Progression, Succession Planning

Career Progression, Succession Planning

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–08–04

The grievor complained that he was treated unfairly and contrary to CAF policy when his 2014/2015 applications for the Initial Baccalaureate Degree Programme (IBDP) were denied and/or not referred to the IBDP selection board (SB) for consideration.

The grievor, an officer enrolled under the Officer Cadet Training Plan (OCTP), complained that the CAF ignored his merit based ranking and instead offered the allocated positions to officers enrolled under the Continuing Education Officer Training Plan (CEOTP) who were ranked lower on the SB list. The grievor argued that he was ranked sufficiently high that his application for the 2014 IBDP process should have been approved for funding.

The initial authority (IA), the Director General Military Careers, found that although the Director Military Careers (D Mil C) is responsible for establishing the IBDP selection criteria and running the SB, the environmental commands can establish the suitability criteria which form the basis for making strategic use of their advanced training list (ATL) credits. In that regard, the IA noted that the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) policy of prioritizing CEOTP officers for the IBDP is in place to support its institutional requirements and has not changed since December 2012. The IA indicated that D Mil C and the RCN can establish suitability criteria as required and concluded that the grievor was treated in accordance with applicable policy.

The Committee determined that the administration of the IBDP was governed by the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 5031-7 – Initial Baccalaureate Degree Programme, and by Canadian Forces General (CANFORGEN) messages issued in anticipation of annual IBDP competitions.

The Committee found that DAOD 5031-7 establishes a complete competitive merit based process, managed and funded under Chief of Military Personnel (CMP) authority for the selection of successful candidates to be posted to subsidized university training.

The Committee also found that DAOD 5031-7 is binding on Department of National Defence (DND) employees and CAF members and that the D Mil C career managers (CM) are bound to comply with the operating principles and established selection process.

The Committee confirmed that the grievor was bypassed on the 2014 SB list and found that the bypass action was contrary to the IBDP operating principles, the selection process and the merit principle.

The Committee noted that Canadian Forces Administrative Order 11-6, Commissioning and Promotion Policy – Officers – Regular Force, requires the personal approval of the Chief of the CDS in the case of bypassing an officer for promotion. The Committee concluded that the requirement for personal CDS approval is to ensure that such a departure from the merit principle would require justification at the highest levels.

Regarding the grievor's CM not submitting his application for the 2015 IBDP competition the Committee found that the CM was obliged to submit the application to the SB for consideration and, therefore, the grievor was prejudiced by this decision.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be upheld and that the CDS direct that the grievor be posted to an IBDP ATL position for subsidized university training to complete his degree.

FA Decision Summary

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievor be posted to an IBDP ATL position for subsidized university training to complete his degree.

Page details

Date modified: