# 2024-101 Careers, Acting While So Employed

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-05-15

The grievor contested the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) decision to revoke his promotion to the rank of Acting Lieutenant (A/Lt), asserting that he was entitled to this promotion under subparagraph 3(c) of Canadian Forces General Message (CANFORGEN) 017/21 CMP 009/21 012000Z FEB 21, DIRECTION ON PROMOTIONS FOR THE 2021 PROMOTION YEAR IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19. The grievor believed this CANFORGEN applied to his individual circumstances as he held the substantive rank of Second Lieutenant (2Lt) at the time. As redress, the grievor requested to be granted retroactively the rank of A/Lt and pay at this rank. 

The designated Initial Authority, the Director General Military Careers, did not render a decision within the prescribed time limit. Thus, the grievor requested Final Authority (FA) consideration of his grievance pursuant to article 7.18 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders. 

At the time the Committee reviewed this grievance, the grievor had been retroactively promoted to the substantive rank of Lieutenant, and subsequently to the rank of Captain. Therefore, the time elapsed since the submission of his grievance had provided the grievor with the redress sought. Nevertheless, the Committee determined that, with respect to CANFORGEN 017/21, the waivers outlined in paragraph 3, including subparagraph 3(c), are subordinate to paragraph 2, in particular to the term “merited”. The Committee noted that this policy applied solely to “merited” promotions from the selection board merit list. At the time the grievor requested his promotion, he was still a 2Lt on the Basic Training List, who had not achieved Pilot Wings. As a result, the provisions regarding promotion under this CANFORGEN were not applicable to the grievor's circumstances. Therefore, the Committee found it appropriate and consistent with policy for the CAF to have revoked his promotion to A/Lt and implemented the necessary rank and pay corrections. The Committee observed that the administrative mistakes that had allowed for the grievor to be promoted in error were regrettable. However, the Committee concluded that the grievor had not been aggrieved and recommended that the FA not afford the grievor redress.