# 2016-202 - Career Action, Career Progression

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–05–19

The grievor contested his non-selection for a Qualification Level (QL) 6A course. He claimed that he ought to have been course-loaded based on his personnel evaluation reports. He further noted that despite his career manager's insistence that the course-loading was merit-based, some of his peers and subordinates had been loaded on the course ahead of him. As redress, the grievor sought an examination of the course loading process, to be course loaded on a comparable civilian based course, and an investigation into his treatment by his occupational chain of command.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Military Careers, advised that the QL 6A course-loading decisions were based on the annual merit list, and that the grievor was not merit listed for the year in question. However, the IA also noted that some non-merit listed candidates may be selected based on service requirements and availability. The IA further indicated that when a last minute vacancy for the course arose, the grievor was not available to attend the course. The IA found no evidence of any mistreatment of the grievor.

The Committee first compared the annual merit list results with the QL 6A course loading message to determine whether all members named for the course had in fact been merit-listed. This review identified four course loaded members who had not been merit listed for promotion that year.

The Committee then found that two of those four members could reasonably have been selected for the QL 6A course due to holding key positions. However, the Committee found that the grievor merited selection ahead of at least two other members who had been course-loaded for the QL 6A training.

Regarding the grievor's non-selection for a last minute vacancy on the course, the Committee found that the candidate selected over the grievor was equally deserving, and that the decision to select the other member over the grievor was not unreasonable.

The Committee did not find any evidence of reprisal or mistreatment by the grievor's occupational chain of command.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff uphold the grievance by acknowledging that the grievor ought to have been selected for the QL 6A course. The Committee did not support the grievor's request to be loaded on a comparable civilian course.

FA Decision Summary

FA Decision Pending