# 2019-036 Careers, Promotion, Selection Boards

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-03-16

The grievor contested selection board scoring criteria, specifically with respect to the use of scoring ranges for performance assessment according to position level. The grievor claimed that the tasks and responsibilities of his position were such that the position was upranked. Accordingly, he claimed that his position should have been treated as high range. As redress, the grievor requested that his file be reviewed by a selection board and that he be promoted, as appropriate.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance. The IA concluded that the grievor's position had not been upranked, but rather, a new position at a higher rank had been created to perform the duties of the position, among other things. The IA also concluded that the grievor's performance assessment by the selection board was compliant with selection criteria.

The Committee concluded that the scoring criteria used by the selection board were not compliant with the Canadian Armed Forces Selection Board Guidance Manual. Specifically, the Committee concluded that by using scoring ranges for performance assessment according to position level, the grievor's occupation group had implemented a process that allowed occupation advisors to select officers to be granted promotions, outside the process under the direction of the Director General Military Careers.

The Committee also concluded that determining position levels is the prerogative of occupation advisors and that the grievor had been assessed in accordance with the level determined for his position.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) order an additional selection board and cancel the restrictions imposed on the scores awarded for performance in accordance with position level.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA, rejected the Committee's recommendation, finding that the grievor had been treated fairly and in accordance with policy. The FA explained that establishing which positions were considered high level occurred annually prior to any posting decision, and that the regimental councils then discussed which officers to post into those positions. She noted that the Director Infantry Corps had explained that without the weighting, the selection board would find it difficult to rank officers who had performed equally well according to their Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs), but in positions of different levels of difficulty. He had noted that most PERs reaching the merit board had very high scores and without a means of distinguishing between them, it would be very hard to rank them. The FA found that rather than imposing controls on Performance Evaluation Report drafting, position weighting at the merit board had been imposed to recognize the differences, and that the authority responsible for merit boards had approved this.

The FA was satisfied that weighting PERs differently based on the position held was relevant and policy compliant. She agreed that the maximum score attainable for officers serving in positions classed as mid level could be up to 15% lower, but considered that in the majority of cases the score gap would be smaller, meaning in her view that those officers would be just as competitive for promotion as those in high level positions.

Responding to the Committee's concern that the weighted position scores allowed the occupation group to select officers for promotion by posting them to the higher scoring positions, the FA stated that the personnel evaluation system was a subjective process and therefore was closely supervised in order to minimize the risk of conflicts of interest. All deserving candidates had the same opportunity to be offered a high level position. Finally, as the Director Military Careers Support Services approved the scoring criteria proposed by occupation advisers on behalf of the Director General Military Careers, the imposition of criteria based on position levels did not constitute interference in the promotion process.