# 2024-267 Pay and Benefits, Occupational Transfer, Pay Protection, Promotion, University Training Plan Non-Commissioned Members

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-08-28

The grievor contended that he didn't receive pay protection when commissioning under the University Training Plan – Non-Commissioned Members (UTPNCM) program from a Non-Commissioned Member (NCM) to an officer role. After his acceptance into the program, the grievor was advised that members transitioning from his trade do not benefit from pay protection under the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) 204.31, which pertains to occupational transfers rather than commissioning from within the ranks. The grievor argued that the policy inadvertently penalizes members who commission within the ranks of his trade. As redress, the grievor sought pay protection while attending the UTPNCM program.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, determined that the grievor was treated in accordance with the applicable policies and regulations and denied the redress sought. He explained that paragraph 204.04(3) of the CBI, which describes the pay on promotion, does not apply to the grievor as he was not promoted, but rather commissioned into an officer rank. The IA stated that the UTPNCM is an annual occupational transfer program and falls under the condition of a vocational occupational transfer.

The Committee found that the grievor was not eligible for pay protection because transitioning from NCM to an officer inherently involves a change in occupation. Despite similarities in tasks, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) treat NCM and officer roles as distinct trades. While going through the UTPNCM program, the grievor was no longer carrying out the duties of his occupation. The Committee acknowledged that the grievor received a form of enhanced pay protection, as he was compensated at the Specialist Level 2 rate for his rank, rather than the basic pay associated with that rank. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress. However, the Committee emphasized that while the CAF policy is generally reasonable, applicants to the UTPNCM program may face short-term disadvantages related to pay protection, which could discourage otherwise qualified candidates. The Committee stated that the CAF may wish to assess whether this outcome was intended or if it reflects a policy gap, and ensure that applicants are fully informed about the financial implications of their decision.