Case # 2011-053

Pay, Transfer from Reserve Force to Regular Force

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–06–29

The grievor enrolled in the Reserve Force in January 2005 and was offered a component transfer to the Regular Force (Reg F) in December 2006. The offer message indicated that the grievor would be paid at pay increment (PI) 1. The grievor accepted the offer and was transferred to the Reg F in January 2007. An enrolment, transfer, posting (ETP) instruction message was issued reflecting that the grievor would be paid at PI 1.

The grievor was apparently given a copy of a draft and unreleased ETP instruction message which contained a typographical error, indicating the grievor's pay would be at PI 3. The grievor presented this message to a clerk at her orderly room and the latter, without verifying the accuracy of its contents, amended the grievor's pay records to reflect PI 3 instead of PI 1.

Some three years later, it was discovered that the grievor's PI level was entered into the pay system incorrectly and corrective measures were taken. This resulted in a debit note being placed in the grievor's pay guide.

The grievor contested the change in her PI level stating she had made a commitment to the Canadian Forces based on the PI 3 offered in her ETP instruction and indicated that to reverse her PI level would have detrimental implications on her family. She requested that the ETP instruction indicating PI 3 be considered valid and that the debit note on her pay guide be removed.

The initial authority denied the grievance indicating that although it was unfortunate the grievor was given an unreleased message that contained an error, the rank and pay offered and inputted into the pay system initially upon her transfer was correct based on her experience and qualifications at the time.

The Board found that the grievor's qualifying service was correctly calculated in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instruction chapter 204 and did not substantiate a PI higher than level 1. Therefore, the grievor had no entitlement to PI 3 and the pay she received in excess of her entitlement constitutes an overpayment which must be repayed. However, in the interests of fairness, the Board was of the view that the grievor should have the option of repaying the debt over the same time period for which she received the overpayment.

The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff to deny the grievance.

The Board also recommended that the option of recovering the overpayment over the same timeframe for which the overpayment was made be given to the grievor.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–04–27

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.