# 2024-302 Pay and Benefits, Education Reimbursement Policies

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-09-18

The grievor contested the decision of the Canadian Defence Academy (CDA) Monthly Funding Allocation Board (MFAB), which denied his request for Education Expense Reimbursement (EER) for a fourth and final course toward a Master of Arts (M.A.) degree at a college in the United States. He acknowledged that the denial resulted from the course not meeting the required threshold for funding eligibility. However, the grievor argued that, since the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) had sponsored his Canadian Joint Command and Staff Programme (JCSP) equivalent qualification in the United States, he should have been entitled to leverage those courses as credits toward the M.A. Accordingly, he contended that the scoring matrix should have allocated points for a U.S. institution at the same level as for a Canadian university. As redress, the grievor requested that his funding submission be rescored, with the U.S. Institution evaluated on par with a Canadian one.

The Comd of the CDA, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), reviewed the decision made by the MFAB and refused to grant the redress sought. The IA stated that the score is calculated by the Self-Development Program EER software and that the MFAB does not have the authority to change it. In addition, the IA explained that the grievor's request for funding was not approved as funding restrictions required that the scoring floor be elevated to a level higher than his calculated score.

The Committee found the grievor does not qualify for reimbursement for two reasons. First, reimbursement is not an entitlement, and the CAF can choose which program to sponsor and which course to fund. Comd CDA has the authority to develop and approve a scoring system and to prioritize Canadian educational institutions. Second, the Committee established that the grievor had not been sent to the JCSP equivalent program to obtain a M.A. degree, but rather to qualify for his Developmental Period 3. The Committee recognized that while the grievor was able to leverage some of the academic components of the program toward earning a second M.A., this outcome was considered a personal advantage rather than the intended purpose of the training. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.