# 2020-192 Careers, Initial counselling

Case summary

F & R Date: 2021-06-28

The grievor contested the Initial Counselling (IC) he received since, in his view, it was based on unfounded allegations. He also argued that he had not been offered the opportunity to provide comments before the IC was issued.

The Initial Authority was unable to render a decision within the time limits established through the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. However, a synopsis was prepared and disclosed to the grievor. It concluded that, while the IC was issued in accordance with the applicable policies, the narrative should be amended to indicate that the grievor breached the established standards of the expected performance only in some of the instances mentioned in the original remedial measure.    

The Committee found that the grievor did have the opportunity to provide the chain of command with his views during the informal grievance resolution process and that his comments were taken into consideration. The Committee also found that the grievor's deficiencies amounted to a lack of transparency and communications with his Commanding Officer and that these deficiencies were sufficiently conveyed to the grievor prior to the IC. The Committee concluded that the IC was justified and properly administered.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford the grievor redress.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), as the FA, agreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. The CDS found that, as a leader but non-medical practitioner, it is inappropriate for the grievor to cite medical concepts in his planned activities without taking the advice of the medical practitioners under his leadership into consideration. He also found the grievor had committed funds without authority. The CDS found that the IC was justified.