# 2022-020 Careers, Promotion, Recorded Warning, Removal from Military Duties

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-01-23

The grievor argued that the decision to deny his promotion was politically motivated and that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF)' handling of the situation and cancellation of the posting has effectively halted his career. The grievor stated that his temporary removal from command being negligently released to the media and the subsequent association with other sexual misconduct scandals caused irreparable harm to his reputation. The grievor stated a month after being informed of the conclusions of the investigation that there was no sexual misconduct or harassment and that no charges would be pressed, he was told he would be required to recompete for his promotion and be subject to a Remedial Measure (RM). The grievor submitted that the RM he received should not have prevented him from being promoted. As redress, the grievor requested a back dated promotion, an assignment to an operational tour or posting at the new rank, and the publication of a new bulletin upon promotion to his satisfaction with a positive and constructive tone to correct damage done to his reputation by the previous bulletin. 

There is no Initial Authority decision or analysis on file. As the grievance is related to a decision or act made by the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), the file was submitted directly to the Final Authority (FA).

The Committee sought and reviewed the Unit Disciplinary Investigation report as it formed the basis for the decision to cancel the grievor's pending promotion. While the investigation concluded that no sexual misconduct or harassment took place, it did determine that the grievor made comments that devalue female CAF members, contrary to and in violation of the Statement of Defence Ethics and the CDS Direction on Professional Military Conduct. The investigation also recommended charge against the grievor under section 129 of the National Defence Act, Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline however the grievor's unit instead choose to pursue administrative action and issue the grievor a RM. In addition, the grievor's unit submitted a letter of non-concurrence with his promotion based on the findings of the investigation. The Director General Military Careers in his response to the Committee's inquires confirmed that this was the basis for canceling the grievor's promotion as he no longer met all the criteria for promotion. Specifically that he was no longer recommended by the appropriate authority. The Committee found that the actions by the grievor's chain of command and the CAF were reasonable based on the findings of the investigation and that due to the letter of non-concurrence the necessary conditions for the grievor's planned promotion to move forward were not met. 

The Committee recommended to the FA to deny the grievor redress.