# 2019-042 Careers, Selection Board

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-07-26

The grievor could not understand how he ranked lower for promotion compared to previous years and claimed that attributing more points to members who Mastered performance in two different jobs over a period of three years prior to the Selection Board is unfair since the time spent in a specific job is often beyond a member's control. He further argued that the Selection Board Members misinterpreted the performance criteria, as otherwise, his previous Personnel Evaluation Report (PER) would have been considered and would have helped establish a pattern of Mastered performance. As redress, the grievor requested that a Supplementary Selection Board re-assess his file using the historical interpretation of the scoring criteria (SCRIT).

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievor's redress indicating that the scoring criteria are a reflection of the needs within an occupation and as such, they normally evolve and change with time. He added that the interpretation of the SCRIT by the Selection Board Members was in accordance with the Canadian Armed Forces Selection Board Guidance Manual. The IA confirmed that in order to receive the maximum score for performance, a member had to have three PERs rated as Mastered performance, in two different roles over the last three years.

The Committee found that the current interpretation of the SCRIT was different from that adopted in previous by Selection Boards despite the wording being the same. The wording used in the SCRIT, particularly the caveat concerning the requirement to have “Mastered” PERs in two different roles, could lead to two different interpretations of the criteria and negatively impact the assessment of a member by a Selection Board. The Committee also found that the interpretation of the SCRIT by the Selection Board was over restrictive and contrary to the Director General Military Careers guidance.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) afford the grievor redress by directing an assessment of his file using the interpretation of the SCRIT from previous years and if warranted, the conduct of a Supplementary Selection Board.

FA decision summary

The FA agreed with the Committee that the Selection Board had incorrectly interpreted the SCRIT in requiring performance at the Mastered level in two different positions within the preceding three years in order to receive top Mastered performance scores. The FA also agreed with the Committee that performance in rank outside the last three PER cycles should be considered to establish a pattern of Mastered performance.

Adopting the Committee's recommendation, the FA assessed the grievor's competitiveness for promotion and found that if the performance criteria had been interpreted correctly, he would potentially have scored above the last candidate promoted during the year. Accordingly, the FA determined that the grievor had been aggrieved and directed that a supplementary board be conducted.