# 2024-184 Careers, Promotion Criteria

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-08-14

The grievor disputed the administration of their component transfer (CT) from the Reserve Force to the Regular Force (Reg F). They argued that their CT had been intentionally delayed so it would take effect after the implementation of the amended Military Employment Structure Implementation Plan (MES IP) which eliminated the expedited promotion plan for qualified members in favour of the standard promotion policy. The grievor contended that, had their CT been processed in a timely manner, they would have had the necessary Reg F service, experience and qualifications to have been promoted prior to the MES IP's implementation. They also argued that they were unfairly excluded from a group of members who were “grandfathered” and retroactively promoted under the previous promotion framework in accordance with a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) decision on 21 March 2022 in another grievance. As redress, the grievor sought to be promoted in accordance with the referenced CDS decision. 

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Military Careers (DGMC), denied the grievance finding that the expedited promotion framework was applicable to those who, by the implementation date of the occupational MES IP, had completed their Qualification Level 6A course, served six months in the Reg F, and were only awaiting their Primary Leadership Qualification. The IA determined that the grievor had not been a Reg F member, did not have six months of Reg F service, and did not have the Reg F qualification or equivalency and were therefore not eligible for promotion and rightly excluded from the CDS direction. Though they found that the grievor had not been aggrieved, the IA reviewed the grievor's allegations about their CT process and found no evidence to support claims that the CT process was intentionally delayed. Instead, the IA found that the length of the CT was standard and due to the grievor's placement on the merit list and the availability of positions. 

The Committee found that, in accordance with the Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instructions 03/08 – Component Transfer, the approval and processing timeline of CT's, including delays, are subject to operational requirements. Evidence provided by the DGMC staff confirmed that there had been a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF)-authorized delay in processing CT's in the occupation in advance of the MES IPs implementation therefore the Committee concluded that while the grievor's CT had been delayed, it was not unfair as this was within the CAF's authority to do so and it was not uniquely applied to the grievor's CT. Furthermore, the Committee found that since the grievor's CT process had been administered correctly, the grievor was subject to the terms and conditions in her CT offer, including the new MES IP and new promotion framework. As such, the grievor did not meet the requirements to be included in the CDS's decision.

The Committee recommended the Final Authority not to afford redress.