# 2024-304 Pay and Benefits, Commissioned From the Rank, Occupational Transfer, Pay Protection, University Training Plan Non-Commissioned Members

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-10-09

The grievor contended that his Search and Rescue Technician (SAR Tech) Specialist level 2 pay was unjustly removed when commissioning under the University Training Plan – Non-Commissioned Members (UTPNCM) program from a Non-Commissioned Member to an officer role. He stated that he received confirmation on two separate occasions from the Director Pay Policy and Development (DPPD) that his level of pay would be maintained throughout the UTPNCM program. He argued that the DPPD misapplied the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) intended for occupational transfers (OT) and commissioned officers, which do not apply to his situation as an Officer Cadet (OCdt) entering the UTPNCM program. He noted that it took three years for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to discover that he wasn't paid correctly, which resulted in a significant overpayment. 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. The IA explained that upon accepting the UTPNCM program offer, the grievor underwent both an OT and a change of rank from Sergeant to OCdt, which required his pay to be calculated based on Chapter 204 of the CBI. The IA further explained that prior to April 2021, SAR Techs entering the UTPNCM program lost their allowances due to no longer performing trade-specific duties, and that reverting pay to pre-amalgamation levels is considered equitable.

The Committee found that the grievor was aggrieved by the maladministration of his pay. Specifically, the CAF's failure to correctly set his pay rate upon OT and then to detect and correct the error in a timely manner deprived him of the opportunity to make a fully informed decision regarding his career aspirations. As a result, the grievor accumulated significant overpayment, which later triggered a substantial recovery process. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) considers undertaking an assessment of the financial impact on the grievor and offers a suitable form of redress and issues an apology for any misinformation that may have led the grievor to pursue a path he might not have otherwise chosen. Additionally, the Committee recommended that since the grievor is earning significantly less than expected, the FA offers the grievor the opportunity to return to the SAR Tech occupation without incurring any obligatory service for his subsidized education program.