# 2024-141 Careers, RMC Physical Performance Test

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-11-25

The grievor contested the decision and recommendation rendered by a Progress Review Board (PRB), which resulted in his Compulsory Occupation Transfer (COT) to a Non-Commissioned Member (NCM) occupation. The grievor contended that, having failed the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) Physical Performance Test (PPT), a PRB determined that he would be placed under the Continuing Education Officer Training Plan (CEOTP). Subsequently, he was found guilty of a fourth academic integrity violation (AIV) and notified of a one-year suspension from RMC. The grievor argued that combining academic suspension with a COT to an NCM occupation was unjust and disproportional to the offence. As redress, he requested that the results of the PRB be set aside, his academic suspension stand, and be given the opportunity to complete the fourth year of his degree under the CEOTP at RMC. 

The Commander Canadian Defence Academy, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance noting that, after failing the PPT, the grievor had been given the opportunity to continue in the Regular Officer Training Program - Civilian University. Moreover, the grievor had also been given leniency regarding three previous AIVs; however, he had then committed a fourth one. The IA remarked that a fourth AIVs demonstrated a significant shortcoming in exemplifying the Canadian Armed Forces' (CAF) standard of ethos. The IA determined that the PRB recommendation had been fair and the grievor had been treated fairly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations, and policies. 

The Committee determined that the grievor had failed to meet not only the RMC's physical fitness pillar but the academic pillar as well, having committed four separate AIVs. Furthermore, despite failing the PPT and accumulating four AIVs, the grievor was granted the opportunity to continue his military career as an NCM. The Committee found that given the grievor's circumstances, considering the possible alternatives including release, the CAF's decision was justified and consistent with policy and therefore, the grievor was not aggrieved by this decision. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.