# 2022-142 Pay and Benefits, Recovery of overpayment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-05-16

The grievor disputed a pay recovery for overpayment. He argued that a pay policy message from the Director of Pay Policy and Development (DPPD) [006/2020] changed the Flight Engineer (FE) Specialist 2 Incentive Pay Category calculation on occupation progression. The grievor contended that he had been paid correctly prior to the DPPD message. As redress, he requested that his pay recovery reflect only that amount he was overpaid following the DPPD message.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, did not render a decision on this grievance because the grievor requested that his file be forwarded for Final Authority review, following disclosure of the IA synopsis. 

The Committee found that the National Defence Act empowers the Treasury Board (TB) to set military pay policy, which is done through the Compensation and Benefits Instruction (CBI). The Committee noted that paragraph 204.03(5) of the CBI applies to the grievor's circumstances and was modified by the TB in 2017, before the grievor met his FE progression criteria. The Committee found that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) pay system had failed to apply the CBI provisions correctly to the grievor's pay and had overpaid him from the date he met his FE progression criteria. Lastly, the Committee found that, although the CAF was responsible for the pay error, article 201.05 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces obliged the grievor to return all monies paid in excess of entitlement under the CBI. 

After reviewing the grievor's circumstances, the Committee concluded that the grievor could repay the debt without incurring undue financial hardship. As such, the case did not merit a submission to the TB for remission of the debt. The Committee recommended that no redress be granted.