# 2024-183 Careers, Acting Rank, COVID-19, Release, Universality of Service Principle

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-10-02

The grievor argued that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) promotion policy was discriminatory against CAF members unable to complete the Fitness for Operational Requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces Employment (FORCE) test due to medical employment limitations. He asserted that the COVID-19 pandemic waiver of the FORCE evaluation for substantive promotions should have applied to his circumstances in accordance with Canadian Forces General Message (CANFORGEN) 017/21, Direction on Promotions for the 2021 Promotion Year in Response to COVID-19. The grievor further contended that upon his medical release from the CAF, his Canadian Forces Severance Pay (CFSP) should have been calculated using his higher acting/lacking (A/L) rank rather than his lower substantive rank. 

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority, denied the grievance, explaining that the FORCE test was a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) for a substantive promotion and therefore was not discriminatory. Pursuant to Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) 204.40, the calculation of the grievor's CFSP based on his substantive rank on release was correct. 

The Committee first found that requiring the FORCE evaluation for a substantive promotion to the next rank was not discriminatory, as it was an established BFOR for the Universality of Service (U of S) principle, which is a legitimate condition of service in the CAF and not discriminatory under the Canadian Human Rights Act. 

The Committee then found that CANFORGEN 017/21 did not apply to the grievor, as it was cancelled before the effective date of the grievor's A/L promotion. CANFORGEN 092/22, Direction on Promotions in a Persistent COVID-19 Environment, then restored the requirement to meet minimum operational standards related to U of S, requiring the FORCE evaluation for a substantive promotion to the next rank. As such, the Committee found the grievor was ineligible for a substantive promotion to the next higher rank.

Finally, the Committee found that the grievor's CFSP was correctly calculated in accordance with CBI 204.40, which is based on a member's last substantive rank on release.  

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