# 2015-028 Pay and Benefits, Re-Enrollment

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–04–27

The grievor grieved the decision to rescind an amended Enrolment Transfer Posting (ETP) instruction that granted increased pay increments (PIs) and time credit for promotion (TCP). He reverted to the ETP instruction that was initially issued upon his re-enrolment. The grievor had a break in service of more than five years prior to re-enrolment but argued that he acquired valuable skills and qualifications while earning a university degree during this break. As redress, the grievor requested that these skills and abilities be considered to be of “military value” and serve as substantiation for granting the reinstatement of the TCP and corresponding PIs in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) 204.015(4).

The Initial Authority (IA) found that because the grievor's break in service was more than five years, he did not meet the policy requirement set out in the CBI to recognize his previous service. The IA found that the grievor's university courses did not provide the “value” necessary to fulfill the intent of the exception specified in CBI 204.015(4) as they did not replace any trade training or reduce costs to the organization. As a result, the IA found that the grievor's courses would not qualify as an exception and denied the requested redress.

Since the grievor remained outside of the CAF for more than five years, the Committee found that his previous service could not be applied towards his rate of pay due to the exception found in CBI 204.015(4). The Committee noted that in order for skills or qualifications to be considered of “military value”, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that they may be beneficial to a member in the course of his or her service; there must be a particular military aspect to the skills or qualifications.

The Committee concluded that the decision to rescind the amended ETP instruction and reinstate the grievor's original ETP instruction was appropriate.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–05–25

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.