# 2021-183 Careers, Selection Board, Promotion

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-07-12

The grievor contested the ranking he obtained at a promotion Selection Board (SB) and questioned the score he received for second language and for his prior professional experience. The grievor argued that due to COVID-19, he was unable to renew his second language oral proficiency before the SB as the exam was delayed until after the SB took place. In addition, the grievor argued that the SB unfairly disadvantage officers from the Commissioning from the Ranks Program (CFRP) who do not hold a university degree because they are not adequately compensated for their previous professional experience. As redress, the grievor requested to have his second language proficiency scores updated as well as a change in the merit process to compensate CFRP officers for their previous experience.

There is no Initial Authority (IA) decision on file since the grievor requested that his file be sent to the Final Authority (FA) after being notified that the IA would not be able to meet the prescribed time limit to render a decision.

The Committee found that the grievor's second language profile had been expired for approximately 16 months prior to his retest in August 2020 contrary to Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 5039-8, Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Second Official Language Certification Testing, which provides that CAF members are responsible to seek testing in the 12 months prior to the expiration of their second language profile. In addition, the Committee found that the CAF had made reasonable accommodations for second official language profiles to deal with the impact of COVID-19 on testing. However due to the length of time that had passed since the grievor's language profile expired, he was not eligible for any accommodation. The Committee also found that the grievor had already been properly compensated for his previous professional experience upon commissioning in accordance with DAOD 5002-10, CFRP. In addition, the Committee found that the SB process and merit criteria were fair and reasonable since the grievor was assessed against the same criteria as his peers.

The Committee recommended to the FA to deny the grievor redress.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA, agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation not to afford the grievor redress.