Harmonization of Definitions of Occupational Transfers in Military Careers Compensation and Benefits Policies

Topic

Harmonization of Definitions of Occupational Transfers in Military Careers Compensation and Benefits Policies 

Case number

• 2015-240 (F&R date: 2016-01-22)

Description

Significant differences exist among Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) career and compensation policies in the definitions of compulsory and voluntary occupational transfers (COT and VOT) and these differences cause confusion for CAF members. For example, an officer who is transferred to another occupation because they are unable to meet the standard in their current occupation would be considered a COT for administrative purposes, in accordance with Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 10-1. However, in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) 204.03, that same officer would be considered to be a VOT, for pay purposes. Members who are COT get pay protection while VOT members do not. Given that the type of occupational transfer directly impacts a member’s future compensation, the way occupational transfers are defined within the CAF should be harmonized.

Recommendation

The Committee recommended that the definitions of COT and VOT be harmonized within Chief of military personnel documents. While not exhaustive, the Committee recommended that the harmonization include the relevant provisions in CFAO 10-1, CBI 204.03 and the Military Administrative Law Manual [Chapter 17, Section 1].

Final Authority Decision

Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.