# 2025-210 Careers, Class C Reserve Service, Promotion, Promotion Criteria

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-08-04

The grievor challenged her unit's decision not to grant her an appointment to the rank of Master Corporal (MCpl) on the date she met all of the requirements for that rank. According to the grievor, the decision was based solely on the fact that she had just accepted a period of Class “C” Reserve Service in the rank of Corporal (Cpl), even though the applicable directives did not prohibit such an appointment. The grievor further argued that, after being made aware of the relevant directives, her unit changed the rationale for its decision. The justification reportedly shifted from her Class “C” assignment to the absence of a recommendation from her chain of command (CoC), despite the existence of an internal document indicating that her upcoming deployment was the primary reason for the denial. In her view, this situation demonstrated an attempt to conceal the true reasons for the decision and adversely affected her career progression. Finally, the grievor argued that no directive prohibited an appointment during a deployment in a position established at a lower rank, and she faulted her CoC for failing to verify whether such an appointment would actually have jeopardized her participation in the deployment. As redress, the grievor requested an appointment to the rank of MCpl, retroactive to the date on which she met all of the required qualifications, together with the corresponding pay, including for the period covered by her Class “C” service period.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the CoC had acted reasonably. The IA explained that the grievor had chosen to deploy in a position established at the rank of Cpl. Accordingly, the IA stated that the issue of her appointment had not been pursued in order to respect her decision and avoid jeopardizing the deployment. The IA concluded that the grievor had been treated fairly and in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations, and policies. However, the IA granted partial redress by approving her appointment to the rank of MCpl effective the date of her return from deployment, without retroactive effect.

The Committee first concluded that the IA's decision must be set aside because the IA, in his capacity as Commanding Officer, had made the original decision being challenged, contrary to Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces paragraph 7.14(2). The Committee explained that, although the grievor met the minimum eligibility requirements for appointment to the rank of MCpl prior to her deployment, meeting those requirements did not automatically entitle her to such an appointment. Appointments remain based on merit, the availability of a position, and the exercise of the unit commanding officer's discretion. The Committee noted that there was no evidence on file demonstrating that an MCpl position was available at that time, nor was there sufficient information to assess the grievor's performance or promotion potential. The Committee also found that the applicable policies did not establish that the grievor should have been appointed prior to her deployment on Class “C” service and that the exceptions permitting a member to occupy a position established at a lower rank did not apply to her circumstances. Finally, although the Committee was of the view that the CoC should have communicated the options available to the grievor more effectively and in a more timely manner, it found that this shortcoming did not render the decisions inconsistent with the applicable policies and found that the grievor had not been aggrieved. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority not grant the grievor redress.