# 2016-177 Careers, Military Legal Training Plan (MLTP)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–12–09

The grievor attempted to apply for the Military Legal Training Plan (MLTP) but was told that his application would not be processed as the program was not open to non-commissioned members (NCM). The grievor contended that the policy which precludes NCM from applying for the MLTP is unfair and unreasonable.

The Commander Military Personnel Command, acting as the Initial Authority, determined that as there were a sufficient number of eligible officers for the MLTP there was no need to open the competition to include NCM, or to make an exception for the grievor's application. The IA concluded that the grievor had not been aggrieved and denied redress.

The Committee determined that, in accordance with Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5002-0, the Canadian Armed Forces' recruitment and selection programs must be flexible to allow the CAF to set its goals, priorities and limits based on service requirements which may change from year to year. The Committee found that it was within the CAF's management right to set criteria which limit applications to various programs and that the decision to limit the selection area for the MLTP was both fair and reasonable.

Consequently, the Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations that the grievance be denied. He explained that the eligibility criteria for the MLTP are based on operational requirements, that the CMP relies on multiple stakeholders and the training positions are allocated to occupations annually in accordance with the needs of the service. The FA also stated that the Strategic Intake Plan's objective is to meet the institution's force management requirements; not the members' aspirations. The FA noted that the Legal Officer's occupation preferred manning level in 2015 was not in distress and that the grievor was treated in accordance with policy and that the 2016 MLTP competition was fair and reasonable, despite the exclusion of NCM.