# 2019-016 Careers, Compulsory Occupational Transfer, Entry into the promotion zone

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-12-19

The grievor was challenging his enter the promotion zone (EPZ) date to Captain following a compulsory occupational transfer (COT). The Committee found that the grievor's EPZ date had been correctly set in accordance with the applicable policies. However, based on the experience the grievor had gained prior to his COT, the Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) afford the grievor redress by waiving the Time in Rank (TIR) requirement and promoting the grievor earlier.

The Committee observed that CANFORGEN 150/15 clarified that members of all specialist officer occupations, regardless of commissioning plan, are required to complete a minimum of three years "in the Military Occupational Structure Identification Code " in the rank of Lieutenant/Sub-Lieutenant to be promoted to the rank of Captain/Lieutenant(N). The Committee found that the CANFORGEN makes the policy very clear and simple, but it does not leave room for consideration of previous military experience, which might be relevant to the new occupation. The grievor was being treated in the same manner as a newly commissioned officer with no previous service. The Committee found this to be unfair and failed to recognize the experience held by the grievor at the time of his occupational transfer (OT). To that end, the Committee indicated that the Final Authority (FA) may wish to consider including a mechanism for triggering an analysis and consideration of a member's TIR from a previous occupation when an OT has been authorized to a specialist occupation. Such an analysis could focus primarily on the member' s accumulated, transferrable military officer leadership, skills, knowledge and experience.

FA decision summary

The Acting CDS agreed with the Committee's recommendation to afford the grievor redress, although not by waiving the TIR requirement. The Acting CDS found that he was satisfied that Health Care Administration (HCA) is a specialist occupation. However, it was disappointing that it had taken an application for redress of grievance when determining if an occupation is a specialist one should be clearly stated in readily-available sources. What was the most disappointing for the Acting CDS was that CANFORGEN 150/15, which is the reference used to effectively delay the grievor's promotion and was at the crux of this matter, failed to properly identify HCA as an affected (i.e. specialist) occupation almost 25 years after the occupation was created. This represents, for the Acting CDS, a significant lack of institutional attention to detail.

The Acting CDS added that CANFORGEN 150/15 only replaced Appendix 1 to Annex B to Canadian Forces Administrative Orders (CFAO) 11-6 and only a part of Annex B itself; it did not replace the entirety of CFAO 11-6, the rest of which still applies, notably the section relating to OTs. In other words, CANFORGEN 150/15 must be read in conjunction with the remainder of CFAO 11-6, not in lieu of it. The wording of CANFORGEN 150/15 (e.g. “regardless of the commissioning plan") implies that it is about the promotion of specialist officers who were enrolled and commissioned in those specialist occupations. In the Acting CDS' opinion, the grievor was neither enrolled nor commissioned as an HCA officer but underwent a COT which is not a commissioning plan. Furthermore, the Acting CDS found that in cases whereby personnel policies are seemingly contradictory, they must be reconciled in favour of the member. Consequently, paragraph 30 of CFAO 11-6 was a better applicable disposition. Consequently, he determined that the grievor should have been promoted on the mentioned date based on the following criteria:

• He was qualified in that he had achieved operationally functional point.
• He was eligible in that he had sufficient time in rank as a Sub-Lieutenant.
• CANFORGEN 150/15 does not apply to officers who occupationally transfer into specialist occupations because it fails to account for all valid and applicable military leadership experience.
• CFAO 11-6 remains, and it must be read in conjunction with CANFORGEN 150/15.

Since the grievor's situation may not be unique, the Acting CDS directed Chief Military Personnel to conduct a review of all files for Sub-Lieutenant/Lieutenant who have occupationally transferred from General Service Officer (GSO) to specialist occupations since the promulgation of CANFORGEN 150/15 (5 August 2015) and issue amended promotion instructions, if applicable, in accordance with the principles stated in his decision:

a. clarify the promotion policy for Sub-Lieutenant/Lieutenant to Lieutenant(N)/Captain in cases of OTs from GSO to specialist officer occupations, again in accordance with the principles described in the decision, amending procedures and issuing new instructions as required; and

b. ensure that all interested parties are aware at all times of which occupations are specialist occupations and that this designation is recorded in readily available sources in order to avoid speculation and confusion when questions arise.