# 2022-112 Careers, Promotion Criteria

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-01-04

The grievor argued that he met the requirements and qualification standards to be promoted in November 2018. The grievor further argued that his course reports for the Primary Leadership Qualification course demonstrated that he met the same qualification standard as his peers, and that some of those peers were subsequently promoted to the rank of Master Corporal (MCpl). As redress, the grievor requested that his qualifications be reviewed, to justify a promotion to MCpl.

There is no Initial Authority (IA) decision on file. In the synopsis prepared by the IA grievance analyst, it was assessed the grievor did not by that date possess the required qualifications for promotion. The IA grievance analyst also noted that the grievor had three years from the training realignment implementation date to complete Infantry Section Commander Course, which would have removed the roadblock impeding the grievor's rank progression. The IA grievance analyst recommended that the grievor be loaded onto a future Rifle Section Commander Course and resubmit his promotion request once he had obtained the required qualification.

The Committee found that following the issuance of the Director of the Infantry Corps' training realignment directive, the grievor did not have all of the qualifications required for promotion. The Committee further found that the grievor's 2018-2020 merit history was also factored into his ineligibility for promotion to MCpl. The Committee noted that the grievor did not merit high enough for consideration for promotion to MCpl Acting Lacking, nor did he merit high enough to be considered for one of a limited position on a course that would have granted him the qualification he required to be promoted. The Committee further noted that before the grievor had advanced high enough on the merit list in 2020, he had released.

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