# 2024-175 Pay and Benefits, Pilot's Backdated Promotions to Captain, Pilot's Pay and Promotion

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-12-05

The grievor contested the Canadian Armed Forces' promotion policy outlined at Canadian Forces Administrative Orders 11-6, Commissioning and Promotion Policy – Officers – Regular Force. The grievor argued that this policy financially penalizes members like him, who, for reasons beyond their control, have faced and continue to face delays in receiving the training required for promotion. The grievor claimed that the application of this policy would not only delay his promotion but also result in a loss of income. As redress, the grievor requested to have his promotion to the rank of Captain (Capt) made effective sooner so that he could benefit from a higher pay scale as per policy Chief of Defence Staff Order 03/21. 

The Chief of the Air Force Staff Director Air Personnel Management 3, as the designated Initial Authority, notified the grievor that they would not be able to provide a response within the timeframe established in policy and informed him of his option to refer the grievance to the Final Authority (FA) in accordance with paragraph 7.15(4) of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Armed Forces. Subsequently, the grievor requested that his grievance be referred to the FA.

The Committee found that this grievance related to the same issue previously raised by the grievor and addressed by the Committee in 2024 and that there was no new information presented. The crux of the issue in contention, the date of promotion to Capt, remains the same. Pilots must be qualified and attain Wings standard to be promoted to Capt. While the Committee recognized that there were training delays, these were not deemed excessive (six months).

Notwithstanding the training delays experienced, the Committee concluded that the grievor had been promoted and paid in accordance with the applicable Pilot promotion policy, and that the policy was fair. Therefore, the Committee found that the grievor was not aggrieved. This conclusion aligned with the Committee's previous analysis and findings, which led to a recommendation of “not aggrieved,” a recommendation accepted by the FA.