# 2021-222 Careers, Compulsory Occupational Transfer, Entry into the Promotion Zone, Time in Rank

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-12-21

The grievor contested the decision of the Director Military Careers Policy and Grievances with respect to his enter promotion zone (EPZ) dates to Lieutenant (Lt) and Captain (Capt) following a compulsory occupation transfer - medical (COT-M). He contended that the recalculation of his EPZ dates was not consistent with CANFORGEN 012/17 - Delinking of Medical Condition from Promotion Criteria. As redress, the grievor requested that his EPZ dates be returned to their original dates before his COT-M.

There was no Initial Authority decision given that the Director General Military Careers (DGMC) was unable to adjudicate his grievance in a timely manner, and the grievor requested that his file be sent to the Final Authority for determination.

The Committee reviewed the applicable policies, including Canadian Forces Administrative Order 11-6 - Commissioning and Promotion Policy - Officers - Regular Force. In accordance with the CFAO, EPZ dates are based on time in rank (TIR), and promotion to the next rank is TIR and qualification driven. It also states that if an officer fails occupation training on the first attempt, promotion to the rank of Lt will be one year from the date of promotion to Second Lt, plus time spent on the course failed and time awaiting training for a second course. The policy states that when an officer undergoes a COT to a new occupation, for whatever reason, promotion to Lt will be one year from the date of the COT, minus TIR awaiting initial occupation training up to the day before the start of new occupation training.

The Committee found that, in the grievor's circumstances, none of the delays encountered were unreasonable based on the applicable policy. 

Further, the Committee noted that CANFORGEN 012/17 disconnected medical fitness as a condition for promotion, but other conditions for promotion remained. The Committee found that the grievor was not qualified for promotion to the rank of Lt until he had completed his new occupation training after the COT-M. The Committee also found that the re-calculation of EPZ dates made by DGMC was policy compliant. The Committee concluded that the grievor's revised EPZ and promotion date to Lt were based on the date of his COT-M, and accounted for TIR accrued while awaiting the start of his new occupation training. The Committee found that his current EPZ to the rank of Capt was correctly set for two years after the date of promotion to Lt.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.