# 2016-106 - Occupational Transfer (OT)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–07–18

The grievor, an intelligence officer in training, submitted two grievances. In the first file, concerning his application for occupation transfer, the grievor claimed that certain comments made by his unit commanding officer could have negatively affected his application. In the second file, regarding his release from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the grievor maintained that higher headquarters made this decision without considering all the elements at stake. The grievor asked that the decision concerning his release be cancelled, and that a new application for occupation transfer be made without the comments of his unit commanding officer. He also requested that he be permitted to change occupations.

The commander of the Marine Forces Pacific, the initial authority (IA) in this issue, denied both grievances, indicating that, since the grievor had later on accepted an informal resolution in another grievance file that allowed him to remain in the CAF as an intelligence officer, the grievor's requests had already been granted (i.e., the grievor's release was not initiated and his occupation transfer application and his unit commanding officer's comments were withdrawn from his personnel file).

The Committee found that the information in the file showed that the grievor's unit commanding officer had unequivocally supported the grievor's occupation transfer application and that it was reasonable for him to provide information in support of his recommendations. Therefore, the Committee determined that the unit commanding officer's comments did not disadvantage the grievor and that his application for an occupation transfer had been refused because there were no openings in the target occupation.

The Committee also found that the grievor's allegations were unfounded because he was not forced to take his release from the CAF and he was offered another option so that he could continue his military career. Moreover, the Committee determined that the informal resolution reached between the grievor and his chain of command in the previous grievance file had eliminated the need to continue the release process / compulsory occupation transfer.

The Committee recommended that the grievances be denied.

FA Decision Summary

The FA, the DGCFGA, agreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievances. The FA found that the comments of the grievor's CO were appropriate and noted that he had supported the occupation transfer request, even though he had noted some issues to improve. The FA was surprised by the grievor's stubborn desire to argue about an issue that was no longer relevant to his release, as he had accepted an offer to retake the training.