Summary
After an officer’s ACR profile improved through partial redress, a review promotion board retained his earlier board marks and again denied empanelment. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s directions because the review had to follow the original board’s actual standards and had been affected by incorrect ranking information, while preserving the board’s general discretion in future selections.
Issues
- Whether review promotion consideration had to use the standards actually adopted in the original board.
- Whether the Tribunal could intervene despite the board’s discretion over two subjective marks.
- What effect the incorrect service-ranking note had.
Held
- The policy generally permitted board members to assess the entire profile, not ACRs alone, for the two discretionary marks. Their expert judgment deserved substantial deference and required weighty material for judicial interference. The Tribunal’s contrary general approach and attempted distinction for the Medical Corps were erroneous. (¶¶ 8–9, 17–18)
- Nevertheless, the original board had actually awarded every officer’s board marks in line with the93 quantified marks. A review was an extension of that original exercise and had to apply the same standards to the revised profile; changing the approach only for this officer would be unfair and inconsistent with Article14. (¶ 19–21)
- The board note incorrectly suggested an improvement from16th to15th rather than7th and omitted that the revised quantified marks exceeded those of the promoted comparator. This material factual error also supported intervention. Tribunal directions were therefore sustained, without restricting future boards from assessing overall profiles under the policy. (¶ 22–24)
Result
Union appeal dismissed; Tribunal directions for fresh review consideration and associated relief sustained, with implementation required without delay. Future boards remain free to award discretionary marks on the overall profile under the promotion policy.