# 2019-206 Careers, Succession Planning

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-09-04

The grievor, a Regular Force colonel in the Air environment, was not selected for succession planning (SP) through the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF)'s Air Personnel Management Board (Officer) (APMB(O)) process after being assessed as not having demonstrated the expected level of performance in his role. The grievor contested this decision noting that he was SP in the past, and arguing that his file was not properly examined and he was unfairly removed from SP.

There was no Initial Authority decision, as per article 7.13(b) of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, since the RCAF succession plan was approved by the Commander RCAF who, in turn, reports directly to the Chief of the Defence Staff.

The Committee noted that, in accordance with Air Force Orders 1000-7, the SP process is based on three principles, one being competence. The Committee also noted that a member's suitability for SP is revisited annually by the APMB(O), that it is a fairly subjective process, and that only those having demonstrated excellence in all assessed competencies merit selection.

The grievor provided detailed descriptions of numerous contentious interactions he had with his chain of command. The Committee examined these descriptions and determined that any lapse in performance below a highly competent level would be sufficient to prevent the grievor's selection. In thoroughly reviewing the descriptions provided by the grievor, the Committee found that the grievor had not consistently demonstrated a high level of proficiency at his current rank for certain core competencies, and so had undermined his suitability for SP that year. However, the Committee noted that the grievor could be reconsidered for succession planning in the future, if he addresses these challenges.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford redress.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) did not fully agree with the Committee's analysis but he concurred with the Committee's recommendation not to gran the grievor redress. The CDS agreed with the Committee that the grievor was not sufficiently tactful and sensitive in his interactions with superior officers and found that conflict could have been avoided through more nuanced communications and strategic patience. However, the CDS disagreed with the Committee's finding that it was inappropriate for the grievor to staff an Operation HONOUR complaint given that the grievor's supervisor was not in a position to adequately deal with the complaint, and he set aside the Committee's finding on that issue.