# 2016-175 - Regular Officer Training Plan (ROTP)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–12–28

The grievor challenged the refusal to grant him the Royal Military College of Canada (RMCC) Graduate qualification and the associated privilege of using the post-nominal “rmc” for failing to meet the standard for the Athletic component of this qualification. He argued that his level of fitness had been proven by means of a different predictive VO2 Max Test due to his inability to perform the 20-metre shuttle run (20 MSR) as a result of an injury he suffered during training. He asked that his results on this alternative test be exceptionally accepted and combined with the results achieved on the other tasks of the RRMC Physical Performance Test (RMCC PPT) to show that he met, even exceeded, the minimum standard required by the RMCC Qualification Standard (RMCC QS) in respect to the Athletic component.

The Commander of Military Personnel Generation, as the Initial Authority, found that the grievor failed to meet the athletic requirement of the program and was not in good standing for the graduation board. As a consequence, he concluded that the Athletic Component Board's decision, to deny the grievor the qualification, was reasonable and proper. He denied the grievance.

The Committee found that predicting the grievor's VO2 max capacity, with a minimum operational requirement of 49.2 millilitres per kilogram per minute, and not running 84 x 20 metre laps, is the true standard required of RMCC candidates. The Committee confirmed that the alternative test, the Rockport Submaximal Predictive VO2 Max test, had been administered by a fully-credentialed physical fitness professional at the RMCC who was aware of the various testing methodologies available and had a complete understanding of the physical fitness standard required of RMCC graduates. The Committee was satisfied that the Rockport test is a valid alternative to the 20 MSR for the purpose of determining whether the candidate had met the VO2 max standard of the Athletic component of the RMCC QS. The Committee was also satisfied, when combining the result the grievor achieved on this alternate test with the results he achieved on the other tasks of the RMCC PPT, that he exceeded the minimum standard required for the successful completion of the Athletic component.

In that the RMCC Graduate qualification is purely a military qualification the Committee is satisfied that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) has the full authority to exceptionally accept the Rockport test as a valid alternative to the 20 MSR in this case.

The Committee recommended that the CDS:

• Exceptionally accept the Rockport test as an adequate predictor of the grievor's VO2 max capacity in lieu of the 20 MSR, for the purposes of the RMCC PPT;

• Determine that the grievor exceeded the physical fitness standard prescribed in the RMCC QS and grant him a “Pass” for the Athletic component; and

• Grant the grievor the qualification and the privilege to use of the post-nominal “rmc”.

.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS agreed with most Committee's findings and recommendations. The CDS disagreed with the Committee's recommendation to exceptionally accept the grievor's Rockport test results in lieu of a shuttle run, finding that the RMCC Physical Performance Directive already provided that OCdts with medical limitations were to be assessed through the FORCE test or other test used as the CAF fitness standard. The CDS noted that there had been a number of breaches of procedural fairness in the grievor's case: amongst others, he was not provided with the minutes of the ACB meeting at which the decision was made and these could not be located and reviewed, as well, his mitigating circumstances appear not to have been presented and considered. The CDS also expressed concern that the former Cmdt RMCC who was ultimately responsible for the decision not to award the qualification, upon receiving the grievance in his new position, did not recognize that he should have elevated it to the next level rather than acting as IA. The CDS found that there was ample evidence in the grievor's file that he was in excellent physical condition apart from an injury, and that medical personnel had assigned MELs and prescribed the step test rather than the shuttle run due to the injury. The CDS noted that both the previous and the current D Cdts had confirmed that there had never been an ACB pass on the grounds of extenuating circumstances: the CDS did not agree with them that ACB as they were being conducted are comparable to merit boards, and questioned the purpose of the ACB review if the decision was predetermined.

The CDS found that the refusal to consider the Qualification Standard's provision for alternative testing, and the disregarded for the instructions of CAF health providers, were entirely unacceptable. Furthermore, the CDS noted that his review of the grievance file had not permitted him to identify a clear operational requirement for setting a higher level of physical fitness for ROTP candidates than the CAF MPFS. He directed a review of the athletic pillar qualification standard. He expressed concern on the RMCC's record-keeping, given that documents pertaining to the ACB could not be located, and pointed out that the RMCC had contravened subsection 8(1) of the Privacy Act in providing OCdts with a list of the names of all those who had not passed the athletic requirement. He directed that CMP review the RMCC athletic standard with a view to aligning it with the current CAF MPFS. He directed that the Cmdt RMCC appropriately protect OCdts' personal information, ensure that all boards and decisions affecting an OCdt's interests follow procedural fairness and keep appropriate records, respect OCdts' assigned medical limitations, use the prescribed alternative CAF fitness test, and ensure that the medical limitations are considered in ACB deliberations.