# 2018-125 Careers, Progress Review Board, Training failure

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-12-13

The grievor committed several acts of misconduct, which led to a recorded warning (RW) referring to a harassment situation. Subsequently, the grievor twice failed a performance check during a qualification course for his occupation. A progress review board (PRB) concluded that the complainant was unlikely to achieve a passing grade if given a retest and recommended that his training be discontinued. That recommendation led to the conduct of an administrative review, which resulted in the grievor being released under item 5(d) – Not Advantageously Employable, of the table to article 15.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.

The grievor filed three grievances. In his first grievance, he grieved the RW, claiming that no harassment complaint had been filed against him. In his second grievance, he argued that the PRB did not take his medical situation into account before deciding to remove him from the course. In his third grievance, the grievor contested his release, claiming that the Director Military Careers Administration had based its decision on erroneous conclusions and a lack of understanding of his medical condition. The grievor therefore requested the removal of any mention of harassment from his remedial measures, the cancellation of his release, his reinstatement to his occupation's qualification course and appropriate accommodation of his medical condition.

The grievances were referred to the Final Authority (FA) before an Initial Authority rendered a decision.

The Committee found that the RW, while not in full compliance with the remedial measure policy, detailed serious misconduct that the grievor did not refute, except for the statement indicating that he had allegedly violated the harassment guidelines. The imposition of a remedial measure was therefore warranted. The Committee also found that the PRB did consider the grievor's medical condition, but that the grievor had a responsibility to consult with health services to assess the impact of his medical condition on his failure and performance. Finally, with respect to the grievor's release, the Committee found that the file contained a continuing pattern of misconduct unrelated to his medical condition, but rather due to his personality traits, and that his release under item 5(d) was justified. The Committee recommended that the FA not grant any redress.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation not to afford redress to the grievor. However, the CDS ordered the Director of Knowledge and Information Management to withdraw the RW and replace it with the new version prepared in the official language of the grievor's choice, included with the decision.