# 2023-094 Careers, Leave Entitlement, University Training Plan Non-Commissioned Members

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-12-13

The grievor contested her Commanding Officer's (CO) decision to deny her special leave request for academic advancement, stating that she had already taken 14 days of leave for Academic Advancement earlier for the current fiscal year. The CO justified the denial, stating that the course in question was not necessary for the grievor's eligibility under the University Training Plan for Non-Commissioned Members (UTPNCM), as she already met the prerequisites for this program and for the transfer to the Logistic occupation she was pursuing. The CO also mentioned that education should not be pursued to the detriment of assigned military duties and recommended that the grievor cancel her university classes to focus instead on her current Sergeant position's performance. On the other hand, the grievor argued that every course she had taken was a prerequisite for her academic projects and that these courses would benefit the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) by supporting her career growth. Additionally, the grievor criticized the CO's comments regarding her professional performance, which she found offensive. As redress, she sought a formal apology and reimbursement for fees associated with a University of Ottawa session. She also reported incurring extension fees for a separate course due to the denial of her leave request.

The Initial Authority (IA) partially upheld the grievance, determining that the CO mishandled the request by initially denying it without authority, causing unnecessary delays. The IA found the CO's rationale—based on a misinterpretation of prerequisites for UTPNCM acceptance—to be flawed. However, the IA deemed the CO's denial of the leave request appropriate, given the grievor had already been granted 14 days of special leave in the same fiscal year. The IA also noted that the CO's comment regarding the grievor's performance was relevant to balancing the CAF's operational needs with the grievor's academic aspirations. The IA directed reimbursement for course extension fees incurred due to delays.

The Committee found that the discretionary nature of special leave approvals allowed the CO to weigh operational priorities against the grievor's request. The Committee concluded that the denial of special leave did not impede the grievor's ability to complete her academic program or career progression, as evidenced by her eventual acceptance into UTPNCM and transfer to the logistic occupation.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor further redress, as there were no grounds for reimbursement of the University of Ottawa course costs or further action regarding the CO's comments.