# PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019



## sgtdixon

Im dropping this board a line as I have to do about 40 pers Evals. at my Sqn for next week     to be in time for promotion selection boards. If anyone knows where to acquire these Personnel Evaluation Reports, that would be of great Help

Cdt/Sgt.(Maybe soon a F/Sgt come thrus.) Dixon


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It‘s now known as the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS). You can dowload the program here. It‘s 19megs, you better have high speed.

 http://www.dnd.ca/hr/cfpas/engraph/home_e.asp


----------



## sgtdixon

Gotta love High Speed ADSL
1 min37 secs hehe


----------



## mseoptrucker

The  P.E.R. systeam as it stands leaves too much open to personal opinion and as a result good leaders are being by passed and people who couldn't find their asses with a handfull of fish hooks are leading in many cases. the opportunity for advancement is based too much on the buddy buddy oldboy network mwo likes that guy fashion.I Believe that a promotion should be given for a person who has demonstrated a want, (THROUGH WORK ETHIC) For a promotion . And also that with a clean record,that after enough experience enough qualification and a set number of years that a person should be able to expect a promotion .I am on my 17th year of svc in the army have always been known as a hard worker have never been charged and P.E.RS  have always been above average never masted even though I'm being led often at times by people who have mastered far less then myself .and it didn't stop their promotions .The systeam is unfair it lends it self to abuse and created resentment among those of who have always worked hard but get no where . i have 4 years to go in the army and not to complain but I cant wait till its over ill get my 20 and its bye bye army and I'm taking my experience and my qualifications with me.and they can replace me with someone who has half the work ethic a quarter of the respect for the job he does and an eighth of the motivation . Bu if he is a funny guy that makes the boss laugh he likely will make Sgt in 20.


----------



## Infanteer

Why don't you make a specific proposal for change of the PER system (its been done before on these forums) that actually identifies and argues the problem and makes rational solution rather then just throwing out a hard-to-read rant that really solves nothing.


----------



## mseoptrucker

Its not a rant its a statement and the statement suggests a course of action if you took the time to read it. Abolish the P.E.R systeam and make promotions more goal achievement based .is that hidden in my so called rant as you call it.


----------



## Infanteer

I can hardly read it due to a lack of paragraphs.  But I did read it, and all I can see is that you state:

1) That advancement in the military is through nepotism (the "buddy, buddy system").

2) Personel should be able to expect a promotion after a set period of time, regardless of suitability.

Above that, all I seem to detect is bitterness (in the form of a rant) about not being promoted.

PS: I'm agreeable to a change in the PER system to one based upon some form of "360 degree" evaluation (ie: your subordinates respect you) and objective-task criteria (ie: you're capable of leading a section in battle).


----------



## mseoptrucker

well I have to say i am a bit bitter,But this is by no means the reason for the post I truly believe that the systeam of promotion be not just repaired but totaly reworked. It is not a power thing So much as it is a family wellness issue . As you know there are 4 incentives as a Cpl and after that you have no pay increase without a promotion. If your family grows and your pay stays the same you may find yourself in ka ka . This is my situation, im not writting this in hopes it will change my situation as I have said before I have but 4 years left . I am saying that if someone gets his qualifications has a spotless career gets enough expearience and shows through some form of testing the ability to go to the next rank that after a set number of years he should have the opertunity to at least show weather he is able to perform at the next rank through some performance test.  
   Iwill  even ask you a question, Why do dental hygenists and band personnel have automatic Sgt rank when their courses are compleat? it is not un heard of what I am saying  . and i am not saying that a person be prommoted regardless of ability as you say. i am saying that it should depend on more then your bosses oppnion. 
        And as for your my writting I am not a good writter and never have been for that matter. I will excuse myself I have also been away from english for 8 years and have a bit of a hard time with it all.  spell check is not working for me tonight :O)


----------



## Infanteer

mseoptrucker said:
			
		

> And as for your my writting I am not a good writter and never have been for that matter. I will excuse myself I have also been away from english for 8 years and have a bit of a hard time with it all.   spell check is not working for me tonight :O)



You raise some good issues.

As well, I apologize for the slight on the _langue_.


----------



## pbi

There are some problems with our PERs, but IMHO it is not with the system. The CFPAS system, if applied properly and completely   with properly run sub-unit and unit rating boards, is a very good one. The rating boards, as well the practice of having several levels of review, should ensure accuracy and fairness. As a system, it is much, much fairer than anything we had before, and IMHO than anything that I have ever heard of on civvy street where promotion seems to be either quite arbitrary or based on seniority. The real problem IMHO is with the people who lack the courage to rate people where they really should be. I have seen several PER systems over the years, and each one eventually suffers from the same problem: the desire to get our people promoted, coupled with our inability to tell mediocre or marginal performers that that is what they really are.

Let's face it: the majority of people are average: no more. Average to me means you perform the duties expected of you in a competent manner, meet the standards set, do not screw up such as to harm the mission or the team, and are good to have around. Therefore, most people should be rated right around the middle. As well, we have a small but significant number of people whose performance is mediocre to marginal. They show little or no initiative, do not peform all of their duties adequately, do not meet the standards, and require more supervision than normal. They are not necessarily good team members. These people should   be rated below average, over towards the left side. Probably, they should be put on the RW/C&P/release track if no improvement is seen.

Unfortunately, in my experience, what happens is that within a year of issuing a new PER system, we have begun to debase it by dragging everybody over to the right side of the scale, regardless of what they have actually done or failed to do. "Average" becomes the baseline rating that we give out, no matter how inadequate a person's performance. People who should be rated as "average" or perhaps slightly above, begin to drift to the right. Once that rightward drift starts, it is hard to stop or reverse because that is seen as "harming" the individual, regardless of whether or not the person actually deserves the scores. Aggravating this is a belief (strongest, I am sorry to say, amongst some older WOs...) that a younger person in a rank level "should not" get rated above those with more seniority in rank. This IMHO is unionism plain and simple, and just as in the civvy unionized work world is the weapon of the lazy and complacent against the hardworking and dedicated.

The Army, especially the Cbt Arms, is frequently criticized as being "too harsh" in PER ratings. (IMHO that is rubbish-we are often just as guilty as anybody else...). I have had several complaints against PERs I have written because the recipient felt that the scores were too low. Having defended my rating intent at unit rating boards before putting pen to paper, I believed I was rating them honestly. In the end I had to retract and rewrite on all of them.

I recall a story concerning the German Army. At one point in its history, officer evaluations went from being closed documents (the individual never saw them) to being open, as we know them today. The point of the story was that once the individuals could see what was being written about them (and thus complain or create a confontation....) the quality and accuracy of rating deteriorated. Now, while I immediately recognize the ethical implications of "secret PERs", this story brings me to the other problem we face (and I have faced it too, believe me...). IMHO we are notoriously bad at telling weak and incompetent people that they are weak and incompetent, and what to do to fix it, or what will happen if they don't. Typically we do nothing, or "damn with faint praise" (see above). As a parallel, if you were coaching a sports team and told one of your players that they needed to improve their passing or catching, they would probably accept it. Far too often I find that we in the military seem to get quite upset when we are told we have a weakness-people seem to take it as a threat or veiled insult, rather than guidance to improve. When people do not improve, too often we do nothing but bitch behind the individual' back instead of taking corrective action.

This score inflation is insidious and actually pointless: if everybody is "superior", nobody is "superior".

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

Bang-on PBI - Great Post.

From what I've gathered, the "score inflation" - in an effort to be nice (we're programed by society to do so) - leads to a zero-defects mentality.   Because anything less then perfect is a career killer (since everyone else is getting scored on the far right of the bell curve) nobody wants to rock the boat and risk getting a "Good" or "Average".

Do you think a "closed document" evaluation system would be more advantageous (or perhaps one sealed, only viewable by the next C-of-C, for a specific duration of time).   Perhaps something like this, if combined with a "360 degree" system to protect against vindictive superiors (hmm...rated poorly, but his troops adore him, his NCO's say they'd follow him, and his fellow Officers feel confident with him on their left flank.....), would "shore-up the ratings system against structural flaws?


----------



## pbi

You raise a very interesting idea. I could see peer input (we already do peer ratings on courses, or at least we did..) and I think that there might be a way to integrate subordinate input (other than the NCO/SgtMaj net that exists now...I have often sought "subordinate" input on my officers by asking my SgtMj to come in and close the door, although one needs to be careful...). I must say though that I am somewhat uncomfortable with formalized subordinate input, lest we turn it into a popularity contest which would probably aid the lazy "good 'ol boys" and harm those who demand standards....maybe I am just old fashiond.

On the issue of closed evaluations in a formal sense, while I can see the value IMHO it is a total non-starter in our system today, and anyway somebody would just do an Access to Information request and get it all anyway. The real solution is honesty and courage in dealing with our subordinates... much harder said than done-I know very well that I have my failures in this area too.

Cheers.


----------



## Phillman

Even though a secret or closed P.E.R. may be more accurate, I prefer seeing mine not so that I can complain and whine about it, but so that I know where I can improve.


----------



## Ty

Phillman said:
			
		

> Even though a secret or closed P.E.R. may be more accurate, I prefer seeing mine not so that I can complain and whine about it, but so that I know where I can improve.



I truly believe that a closed evaluation (speaking from a non-military standpoint) is not the best way to do things. I understand the problems with the open-evaluation system, but everyone should be entitled to their supervisor's professional opinion- if only to develop themselves even better- as you stated above.  

To stem the behaviour of rating everyone as above-average, my department uses review boards after all evaluations are completed.  As a management team, a moderator, and a chair, we review each staff member evaluated by our colleagues and make changes when we feel it's warranted- do people on this form believe that to be an adequate measure to ensure evaluations are more honest and, in the end, valuable to the evaluatee?


----------



## AmmoTech90

Talking to my wife about this she brought up a good point about the closed system.  With the Access to Information act you cannot hold information back from a person relating to them, so having an closed system under Canadian legislation would probably not be possible.  Maybe someone with more experience with ATI could say if this is correct or not.


----------



## MdB

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Bang-on PBI - Great Post.
> Do you think a "closed document" evaluation system would be more advantageous (or perhaps one sealed, only viewable by the next C-of-C, for a specific duration of time).   Perhaps something like this, if combined with a "360 degree" system to protect against vindictive superiors (hmm...rated poorly, but his troops adore him, his NCO's say they'd follow him, and his fellow Officers feel confident with him on their left flank.....), would "shore-up the ratings system against structural flaws?



I think it's not necessary, since mediocre or average performer wouldn't lose their job. So, this is unionist any ways you look at it.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> On the issue of closed evaluations in a formal sense, while I can see the value IMHO it is a total non-starter in our system today, and anyway somebody would just do an Access to Information request and get it all anyway. The real solution is honesty and courage in dealing with our subordinates... much harder said than done-I know very well that I have my failures in this area too.



An open evaluation is necessary, because it's constructive, but also otherwise it would create a climate even more competitive and of malaise in that you don't know how your peers, superiors, and subordinates rate you or comment you. Would drive anyone crazy. In another way, it could drive people to perform the max they can, BECAUSE they don't know what the comments are and try to obtain good comments as much as he can.

Still, it's a matter of culture too. There are a great tradition of unionism and it influences how we look at it. Honesty and courage is definitely the way to go, but still, what structure would instill the culture necessary to grow a good way to evalutate? PBI, what would you say to someone who wants to get up in the system now? And what would you say him if it were in a good system? It's to compare the evaluation culture as it is now and as it would have to be.

The other thing not mentioned here is that members of the same rank are in competition at some level, how does it affect the evaluation system or would if in a 360 degree evaluation system?

I find the pay scale well organized in that you get higher pay with years, even though you stay the same rank. It's a good way for those who want to stay where they are and for those feeling they are wrongly evaluated and don't get up the rank, which is the only way to improve substantially the pay. Still, it's not just a matter of pay or don't have to be. Am I getting it wrong concerning pay scales and the role it plays?

Last thing, I really believe in objective-driven performance and evaluation. More, I really believe that part (how much, that to be decided) of that have to be a team-results evaluation, since it has to be an incentive to work as a team.


----------



## LCISTech227

MdB,
Just for clarity, in the NCM ranks there are only 4 pay level incentives.  So, after being in rank for 4 years you've had it, no incentives after that.  So, what incentive does an 8 year Corporal have, to do better?  Not Much.  I know there are a lot of ppl who contradict that last statement, but with human nature ppl will only do what they need to, to get by.  Basically, I mean they will only do as much as they need to, so they don't get in crap.

Also, in human nature, most ppl avoid a confrontation.  By this I mean, most ppl want to be liked, and not be the guy/girl that everyone hates.  This leads to complacency in their job performance.  They write someone who is obviously weak as being average to avoid the confrontation.  This basically equates to laziness to me anyway.  Plenty of times ppl overlook faults because they are too lazy to take the corrective action necessary to fix the problem.

Cheers,


----------



## mseoptrucker

Telling someone they are lacking, leaves you open to being labled a harasser. a racists or a sexist in many cases. Eventhough you may be cleared of these charges through the proper investigation of the accusation, you will never be in the eyes of all,be totally Innocent. Its a cover your ass ideal that was established during the witch hunt for Somalia culprits, and even the upper ranks were passing the buck .
        Fast forward to 2005 no one wants to take the chance.


----------



## Booya McNasty

I'm not sure how to improve the PER, but I'd just like to point out I've never really seen a person that was all bad.  Sure, a soldier may have sucked at drill, but may have been a great machine gunner - or he's lousy at organizing his kit, but he's a great instructor - or whatever.  We all have our strengths and weaknesses.  I like the PER because it does give you a chance to say that he's a great x but a crappy y.  It tells the guy what he has to work on.

I do think there is some bias in the selection process.  We've all seen some guys get fastracked through the ranks.  I don't think that's a forces specific problem.  It happens in the civvie side as well.  If you're the bosses son, you're going to be the next manager.  If you're in the clique, you're going up and other guys are getting stalled - no matter what industry you're in.


----------



## 2 Cdo

mseoptrucker said:
			
		

> Telling someone they are lacking, leaves you open to being labled a harasser. a racists or a sexist in many cases. Eventhough you may be cleared of these charges through the proper investigation of the accusation, you will never be in the eyes of all,be totally Innocent. Its a cover your *** ideal that was established during the witch hunt for Somalia culprits, and even the upper ranks were passing the buck .
> Fast forward to 2005 no one wants to take the chance.


Correcting personels faults is the job of the NCO, anybody who pulls the harrassment card or racist card for having their faults identified and offered ways to correct them are not worthy of wearing the uniform!

Troops need to grow up and quit playing the "woe is me, everyone is picking on me" crap. You are supposed to be adults, maybe it's time to act like it and quit whining!


----------



## Navalsnpr

Definitely agree with 2 Cdo.

Personnel in the Military are adults and should act as such.

I've seen instances where multiple courses work evenings (1600-2359) for whatever reasons. Anyway, one course who only had been loaded with 2 candidates were getting off a bit early, whereas this one class had to stay the entire time. It had a full course load. The candidates from the full course load had actually wrote in the course critique that they were being treated un-fairly compared to the other class.

Excuse me but you are getting paid by the crown and are in the Military. Suck it up and work when you are told to and for as long as you are told to.

Lets bring the discipline back into the Military!!


----------



## mseoptrucker

Excuse me but you are getting paid by the crown and are in the Military. Suck it up and work when you are told to and for as long as you are told to.

Lets bring the discipline back into the Military!!


       This is a bit off topic but a good point. Anyway the topic is weather you think there needs to be change in the PER systeam 
  and don't get me wrong there are good pointsabout the systeam as pointed out by booya mcnasty.I cant remember where I heard it but someone once told me that genus can be manifested in more then what you are able to learn from a book. I too believe that  there are strengths in everyone.  The trouble with our systeam is you have to show strengths everywhere to advance and thats just not realistic.It is very few the number who really master everything  on a PER, a hell of a lot less then are credited for it .And those who are granted higher marks then they deserve are granted those Marks based on what?  some higher ups opinion. 
       Our Sgts and Wos and Mwos hold way too much power to decide who gets what in the military and are not necessarily obligated to demonstrait equitable use of that power.They don't really have to answer to anyone as to why they want this or that person to advance or not to advance and the the redress systeam we have as our only recourse is lacking as well.
      Due to the amount of discussion on my topic,I Would say there is more then just me that feels as I do .There is no systeam that is too perfact to be improved upon . But there are always those who say leave it alone.  Change is not always easy but the military has to evolve as the rest of society does. I believe it is trying, and is going through growwing pains but there are some things that need attention more so then others. I think moral is one. 
     One way to build moral is to reward hard work and not be afraid to pat someone on the back for a job well done
another way would be to make the evaluation systeam less a competition and more of a performance based and aptitude tested experienced  based systeam. where people are given a chance to be tested on their ability to function at the next level.


----------



## Navalsnpr

I've been an Officer before in the Reserves and am now a Snr NCO in the Navy RegF.

First of all, the current PER system is definitely a lot better than the older system that was in place. 

In the Navy, Supervisors are required to keep Divisional Notes on their subordinates. Those notes go to the CO for monitoring on a regular basis, and as a supervisor, there should be an entry in the book at least every 2 weeks. This will give the supervisor written substantiation for a PER. As a subordinate, it is advised that you keep your own "I love me" book and if the PER doesn't match how you think you have performed, re-dress it.



			
				mseoptrucker said:
			
		

> One way to build moral is to reward hard work and not be afraid to pat someone on the back for a job well done



There are many leadership styles and as we all know the situation dictates the style. I've seen someone get a pat on the back weeks or months after an event.


----------



## mseoptrucker

there are safe guards everywhere and as maney are created there are also ways to circumvent them and i am in agreement that the systeam is better now then before but it is fair enough to insure that everyone that should be promoted gets promoted and those that shoulden't  it will never be perfact but it is still based on the old systeam why not try a new approach im a trucker and ill explain it like this as everyone seems rto compair the military to civi street . an mdo  civi dvr for the military van have differant levels how does an mdo2 go from a 2 to a 3 then to a 4 thus improving his pay and status (he writes a test and is scored on that test )if he scores well enough and has the experience he advances .Im not saying this be the only way to evaluate a member but it should be part of it


----------



## Navalsnpr

mseoptrucker,

The only way that would work is if a rank/position opens up, then it gets put to a competition. Interested parties would apply and then a competition would be held. The winner would then get the promotion or position that was sought.

This would be similar to the way the Americans run, from what I understand.


----------



## mseoptrucker

I don't believe it should be the only means to determin if someone is qualified . For sure he has to show the physical ability and also that he can garner enough respect to be an effective leader. But there has to be automatic opportunity to show ones ability along with a test. 
   And its the same in the military when a promotion to Sgt is given that opens up a Mcpl position witch is filled from the top of the Merritt list.  Its not so differant except that sometimes the people on top of that list haven't really shown that they are really Superior to the 2 guy


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Telling someone they are lacking, leaves you open to being labled a harasser. a racists or a sexist in many cases. Eventhough you may be cleared of these charges through the proper investigation of the accusation, you will never be in the eyes of all,be totally Innocent. Its a cover your *** ideal that was established during the witch hunt for Somalia culprits, and even the upper ranks were passing the buck .
> Fast forward to 2005 no one wants to take the chance.



Got to disagree with you.   While I suppose it is possible to at least level a harassment charge against someone who tells you something that you don't want to hear, I protected myself against anything sticking to me by following the PDR process, keeping good notes and by keeping my subordinates up to date with what I thought of their performance.   Before I debriefed them on their performance, I thought pretty hard about any biases that I may have injected (inadvertantly) into the process.   I never worried about getting hit with a harassment complaint- I worried about not getting my job done or someone getting hurt because standards weren't maintained.   If one of my subordinates doesn't like my approach, I am available to discuss it with them, but I will not hide substandard performance from them.   If that makes me a bad guy, so what.   It is not a popularity contest (I learned that the hard way as a 2LT)

In theory, the practise of 360 review sounds good, but what happens to leaders who show up at a place where standards have not been maintained (it happens) and begins to clean house? Or this leader has to impliment a really unpopular set of orders he has been given by his boss?   Does he/she get turfed because his subordinates don't like what is happening?   Not saying we should not investigate it's utility, but we should be careful.   On another note, way back in the mists of time (1980s) we used to do peer assessments at Military College.   I'm a fan of this forming a part of every PER score (basically, everyone in the unit who is the same rank as you gets a crack at your performance).   It was scary how accurately we could rate each other.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'm going to wade in here with an opinion from someone who's been doing the same civy job since 89. I think a lot of the problem in the military is that the "system" [for lack of a better term] seems to look down on those who are quite happy and good at doing what they do at the level they are at. There always seems to be this "thought process" that people work hard to get promoted, which is not always the case, I don't think enough attention is paid to the fact that someone works hard because he/she likes what they are doing for the pay they are getting and promotion would only jeopardize that.
Maybe do like the civil service and hold "competitions", take those who would be in the running one particular year for promotion and have them "apply" [if interested] and then hold the "competition" consisting of interviews, written tests, etc. This way if someone is in their "happy place"  at this point in time of their career, they just need not apply and someone who would be into it right now could be promoted.
The other candidate's circumstances may change next time and he/she would be ready and conceivably then make a better leader.


----------



## Highland Lad

It seems to me that too many "career corporals" are not happy with their lot in life. I can't speak to the current PER system, but some points raised here seem fair - some form of 360 ° review would help (I have received Pers Assessments that disagreed wildly about my ability to perform, and seen them consistent by writer, rather than by task or assignment), as would some form of formalized competition (I've seen guys who didn't want to be promoted to Sgt - one who didn't want the added potential responsibility and one who felt he wasn't ready - guess who turned out the better Sgt in the long run?)

As to the point of only having 4 incentive levels - What's wrong with that? It discourages "coasting" for career corporals - If an individual finds themselves 'trapped' in rank, there is some financial incentive to look at what they really want from a military career, and to put up or shut up. The CF cannot afford to see the Peter Principle in action over and over again. If pay is the issue, it's time to look over at civvy street.

I'm not pointing any fingers or making accusations - I don't know anyone's individual situation, nor do I want to (unless you work for me).


----------



## 2 Cdo

I personally don't have a problem with "career corporals", not everyone can be a leader. Some of the smartest troops I've known over the years have been Cpl's with 15-20 years in. They know their job and they are happy with their load station. As for NCO's or officers that "show bias" I agree that it is wrong, but everyone is guilty of it to one degree or another.
A good NCO or officer has to work at overcoming his own bias and try to score people accordingly. I've been very fortunate in my career to have worked for NCO's that were honest and didn't promise things that they couldn't deliver. Sorry mseoptrucker maybe you just had the bad luck of working for weak NCO's, I don't know. The PER system is not perfect but no system ever is, someone will always complain about something.


----------



## Armymedic

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I personally don't have a problem with "career corporals", not everyone can be a leader. Some of the smartest troops I've known over the years have been Cpl's with 15-20 years in. They know their job and they are happy with their load station.


I agree.
One of the best Cpls I had the privledge to work with, knew his stuff inside and out, but he couldn't lead a kid to a candy store. He wanted to advance but he was dismal when it came to motivating others and supervision, and unfortunately he knew it as well...If you can't develop those traits, you can not be a MCpl or above in the CF.


----------



## Highland Lad

100% agreement here.

I used "career corporals" as an example to look at the 4 incentive levels as a means of examining career progression. If your career has stalled and you want more out of it, it's either time to put out more effort or to look elsewhere. If your career has taken you as far as you want to go, good for you, so long as the job is what you want and you do it well.

I agree that a long-term Corporal can be a great help for junior NCOs, and if someone is promoted into a leadership role that they don't want or can't perform in, you only hurt the CF by forcing them into it (both by losing a good corporal and by gaining an ineffective MCpl, in this example).

Part of any promotion is assessing how well an individual can perform at the next level, and this is a lot easier in some trades than others (in the infantry, for example, on exercise a Pl Comd can point at a sec Comd and say "bang! you're a casualty. Take over, 2 i/c."), and this can be an issue for some candidates for promotion.

My 2 ¢ - The PER system ain't broke, but could use some tinkering, and honesty and objectivity are the best tools any leader can use when assessing a subordinate.


----------



## CH1

I AM CURIOUS AS TO YOUR POSITION.  I TAKE IT YOU ARE STILL A GRUNT AFTER 17 YEARS.  MY CAREER HAS BEEN RIDDLED WITH "ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT" ON MY PART.  THE ONE THING THAT HAS GOTTEN ME THROUGH MORE THAN DOUBLE YOUR TIME, WAS THE SIMPLE FACT I KNOW & DO MY JOB WELL & AT SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE AVERAGE.  IF I WOULD HAVE HAD TO DEPEND ON THE BUDDY SYSTEM I WOULD NEVER HAVE HAVE MADE IT PAST BOOT CAMP.  IT IS TRUE THAT I HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE WW II & KOREAN VETS WATCHING OVER  SO AS NOT TO STRAY BEYOND THE POINT OF NO RETURN.  NOW I HAVE BEEN AN OFFICER LONGER THAN I WAS IN THE RANKS.  I GUESS MY QUESTION TURNS TO CONFIDENCE AND WHY YOU DID NOT QUESTION THE OLD MAN AS TO WHY YOU WERE CONSISTENTLY BYPASSED.  I HAVE SEEN THE TIMES WHEN IT TOOK 10 YEARS TO MAKE LANCE JACK THEN TO THE POINT WHERE M/CPL's WERE COOKIE CUTTER.  THEY MADE M/CPL's FOR A TIME IF THEY MADE 6 MONTHS PAST BMT.  NO DISRESPECT INTENDED BUT I WOULD LOOK TO YOUR SELF CONFIDENCE AND BASIC CHARACTER.  MAYBE YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE BULL BY THE HORNS, AND REQUEST A SPOT ON THE APPROPRIATE COURSE, JR/SNR NCO, WHATEVER THE CASE.  LOOSE THE BITTERNESS AND TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR SELF.  WISH I HAD THE CHANCE TO DO IT AGAIN, BUT MY TIME IS ALMOST GONE WITH CRA WITHIN HANDS REACH.

.................GOOD LUCK & GOOD HUNTING


----------



## Armymedic

CH1,
good post with the exception of,

ALL CAPITALS  IS CONSIDERED shouting...

on the left side of your keyboard, third button up is a key called "Caps Lock", generally when it is pushed repeatedly a little light on your keyboard will light up...

Next time you post, please ensure that little light is off.

thanks.


----------



## CH1

Thanks, getting the sit rep clearly.  major learning curve.  too used to writing reports for mother hen down east.  Seems they cant get coke bottles big enough in ottawa!


----------



## mseoptrucker

I can add that Ii don't think I would be a Career Coporal if I had  idea of staying in the Military. As was suggested I did see my superiors about the stagnation of my career and as a result I have been put into a advancement position. The trouble I have is that I had to go and make my career intentions known. It was suggested to me that my bosses thought I was happy where I was and that the fact that I always worked hard and produced results where ever I was put showed that I didn't want to leave the floor if you will. i find this a cop out .I just believe I was, for want of a better word forgoten .I'm not looking for sympathy here I'm just highlighting what I believe to be a problem. I am one of maybe 2 or 3 English people in a French unit I don't believe as was suggested to me that my Superior didn't think I wanted to advance to the next rank. But I will give credit that after I approached them about it I was given my opportunity and I am making the best of it .However had it been the case that they thought I didn't want to advance shouldn't have someone approached and asked my intention I mean I'm not the type to blow my own horn at work.I work hard and wait till that speaks for me. Maybe thats my downfall but I think if you have to tell your boss that you are a hard worker and that your working hard to advance then maybe he isn't doing his job. I have been deserving of the position I have but I had to ask for it and wasn't asked if I was intrested in taking it and my first evaluation in that position is exemplary.I just think its too late.
        I  am frustrated after working for so long for nothing I am feeling too old and my body is not keeping up with it all. I don't think I will last any more then the 20 years I have too which is over in less then 4 years .
        a cpls time in the Field is harder on the body then a WO or a Mwos time, not taking away from what they do,  It is a required and they have usually done their time in the sh__ as well. Its just that at a certain age some of us won't be able to keep going due to bad aging, injuries ect ect. That is the time to get out.I think 40 years old is too old, for me anyway, to be still working at a Cpls level, after allready doing it for the better part of my career. 
        That being said I would suggest that had I not been passed bye I may have been in a position more suitable for me by now. I'm not saying Wo or Mwo, Just with a bit more choice in my career.If it were due to what my superiors thoughts about what my career intentions were then the change I have suggested in my messages would dispel any doubt as to the intentions of a member. If someone didn't want to advance he wouldn't want to take part in any type of advancement evaluation testing.
         It should be a members right to prove he or she can advance and not left it up to someones personal opinion I can be the best worker there is but if at one time in my career I pissed off the boss I can be held back.There is measures to prevent this but none are infallible and are subject to abuse. Anyone that says" there has never been someone deserving held back" is dreaming.It happens more then we like to admit.Like wise there is promoting going on that shouldn't be and the type of systeam I have suggested may go a long way in preventing such abuse.Not for me but others.


----------



## Highland Lad

I would have to say that one of the criteria that gets a lot of notice come promotion time is whether an individual is "seeking out and accepting increased responsibility" - in other words, no-one gets shot down for asking about promotion (unless it's the new pte asking about his chances at taking over the sec or Pl... I've actually seen that happen). IMHO, it's easier for commanders at any level to accept the status quo than to go out and look for promotable soldiers. That being said, the best officers don't typically accept that the easy way is the best way.

Congrats on being given the opportunity, and good luck with it!


----------



## tomahawk6

I imagine promotion in the CF is limited by vacancy ? If so the government could help morale by providing yearly pay increases and provide some type of housing allowance for enlisted/NCO's so housing costs wont have to come out of the monthly paycheck.


----------



## pbi

Tomahawk 6: We are actually already fairly well paid in absolute dollar terms, with an annual "incentive" increase for each year in rank, and an annual "cost of living" increase. 

Our military housing is handled differently from yours: we pay for our MQs, the rate graduated depending on our rank-junior ranks paying less for the same type of house. Although, unlike your Army, with very, very few exceptions there are no longer any "officer houses"-houses are usually allocated based on family size not on rank.

Depending on the average housing costs in the area we are stationed in, we can receive an Accomodation Assistance Allowance that can range from around 40 dollars/month to around 1,000/month. However, as only about 20% of our Regular Force actually lives in military housing, it really isn't a huge issue for the Govt or the military to do more about it. In the long run, the Dept intends to get completely out of the housing business altogether except for very isolated posts, of which we have only a tiny handful left.

Cheers.


----------



## tomahawk6

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## E31

The PER system works on both performance and potential. A soldier can be an outstanding performer but have very little potential for the next rank, which I assume is the catergory you fall in. I too have 20 years in, am a WO and have sat on  many merit boards, both at the Tp level and Sqn. Many times the tie breaker on 2 soldiers who have rated high in the unit will be courses completed, OPME's etc. I have run into many people like you in the CF, who are wasting all their time and energy worrying about what the other guy is doing (ie completing Middle management course's,taking second language trg, improving their education) instead of taking a good hard look at their own file and seeing what can be done to improve themselves. 

Their is nothing wrong with the PER system, it has improved over the years. What hasn't is soldiers like yourself. Enjoy retirement.


----------



## Recce41

MSE
 If you felt you deserved better. You should have redressed your PER. What other job do you get off to take your kids to the doctor. Get 8 weeeks off payed (average). Get medical, and dental at a cheap cost for your family? Etc,etc. 
 Most jobs only giver you 2 weeks off in summer, you cannot just take off, or med care. One of my BoLs got out, and hated it. A week off in the summer, and a week off at christmas. Yes he was payed 35$ an hr, but if you don't work, you don't get payed. One of our Sgts got out to drive truck. Well, he works 7 days a week, 12 h/d, with no real time off. Now he waits to get back in. (AS A CPL)
 PBI
 The graduated PMQ rate has been dropped. I pay the same as the Cpl next door.


----------



## McG

mseoptrucker said:
			
		

> As you know there are 4 incentives as a Cpl and after that you have no pay increase without a promotion.


Well, there is the annual cost of living increase that comes from the government but that doesn't necessarily cover real cost of living increases.  I wonder if this isn't the primary cause of your bitterness.

In any case, I think it is generally accepted that there are many outstanding performers in the rank of Cpl that may not be suited (or may not want) to work as a leaders.  Why not introduce more incentives?  We have them for captains.



			
				mseoptrucker said:
			
		

> Why do dental hygenists and band personnel have automatic Sgt rank when their courses are compleat?


Good question.  Maybe it is time to review this practice.



			
				mseoptrucker said:
			
		

> Telling someone they are lacking, leaves you open to being labled a harasser. a racists or a sexist in many cases.


If the problem was identified on a PDR, then the member should have had chances to improve where they are lacking.  I prefer to be harder on PDRs because they have enough space for me to do so and because they give the member honest feed back on where to improve.  It also means that there should be no surprises for anyone at PDR time.  If something has been described as â Å“weakâ ? in several of the PDRs, then a relatively poor score can be expected on that assessment factor come PER time.  Likewise, if something has consistently been described as excellent, then that score can be expected.  If a soldier strongly disagrees with assessments, they can be disputed locally and before a PER is written.  However, if the assessment if fair, then the supervisor will have at least 3 PDR assessments on the soldier supporting the final assessment put on to the PER, and those three assessments will bear the approval of the assessor's supervisor.  Meaning that harassment labels would have to be thrown at least two levels in the CoC (more when one considers the section 6 review required in a poor PER).



			
				E31 said:
			
		

> The PER system works on both performance and potential. A soldier can be an outstanding performer but have very little potential for the next rank, which I assume is the category you fall in.


I think this is an important factor that is often overlooked in the writing process.  I've seen units conduct merit boards where members were ranked within their rank and then scores were assigned according to a bell curve (a process we are not supposed to do anymore, but which I suspect lives on anyway).  This process rarely allowed the writer to reflect an excellent performance but weak potential to advance.  Some soldiers deserve outstanding performance assessments without deserving the outstanding potential assessments.  Our PER system is designed to allow for this; it is up to the PER writers to ensure it is used this way.  (Note:  Potential also carries a greater weight toward the score because it is the most relevant to promotion suitability).



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> There are some problems with our PERs, but IMHO it is not with the system. The CFPAS system, if applied properly and completely  with properly run sub-unit and unit rating boards, is a very good one.


Agreed.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> The real problem IMHO is with the people who lack the courage to rate people where they really should be.


I would argue that the real problem is an artificial expectation of improvement.  I've dealt with PER redresses that were solely based on â Å“but I did better on my last PER and some of the areas that I lost points were not mentioned in my PDRs.â ?  I have not seen this type of redress win but it reflects the mentality.  I've also seen this mentality reinforced through the ranking process where efforts have been made to ensure scores do not drop from previous years (another process we are no longer supposed to do, and one that I think we are a little better at than ranking).



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Let's face it: the majority of people are average: no more. Average to me means you perform the duties expected of you in a competent manner, meet the standards set, do not screw up such as to harm the mission or the team, and are good to have around. Therefore, most people should be rated right around the middle. As well, we have a small but significant number of people whose performance is mediocre to marginal. They show little or no initiative, do not peform all of their duties adequately, do not meet the standards, and require more supervision than normal. They are not necessarily good team members. These people should  be rated below average, over towards the left side. Probably, they should be put on the RW/C&P/release track if no improvement is seen.
> Unfortunately, in my experience, what happens is that within a year of issuing a new PER system, we have begun to debase it by dragging everybody over to the right side of the scale, regardless of what they have actually done or failed to do. "Average" becomes the baseline rating that we give out, no matter how inadequate a person's performance. People who should be rated as "average" or perhaps slightly above, begin to drift to the right. Once that rightward drift starts, it is hard to stop or reverse because that is seen as "harming" the individual, regardless of whether or not the person actually deserves the scores. Aggravating this is a belief (strongest, I am sorry to say, amongst some older WOs...) that a younger person in a rank level "should not" get rated above those with more seniority in rank. This IMHO is unionism plain and simple, and just as in the civvy unionized work world is the weapon of the lazy and complacent against the hardworking and dedicated.


I like that our PER system has specifically stayed away from a performance score of â Å“average,â ? which is relative and can vary based on the average training, experience, and personalities of the assessed rank group within a unit.  However, the threshold of unsatisfactory, capable, etc is more static. 

I think it is fair to generalize that a soldier new in a rank will be learning the new responsibilities and likely receive a rating of â Å“Developing,â ? but I agree that this should not be the expected score.  I agree with your assessment that soldiers earning the unaccepted scores should be on the track to RW/C&P/release (or possibly on a track to reversion).  As long as we only promote those personnel that are ready and deserving, I think it is also fair to expect the number of soldiers consistently earning unacceptable scores to be far fewer than those earning above standard scores.  Basically, I think it is fair to assume â Å“developingâ ? should be the baseline score (however, this is still reasonably to the left).

I've been advised by various individuals that PERs should be justified (decide the score you want to give the soldier and align all the dots as far right as possible with that score).  The logic is that is presents a consistent performer to the selection boards & CM.  I find that to be a little bit of BS.  I've produced a few shotgun pattern PERs, but that is because the soldier's performance was all over the place.  Am I doing the guy a disservice?  Not as long as other PER authors are honest with the ones they write.




HONEST  <--  and there is the one word correct answer to fair PERs and a fair PER system.


----------



## Recce41

MDg
 The trades that go right to Sgt after their 5s are concidered Professionals. This is to keep them. I have a friend that is a Dental  equipmant tech. He had to complete his 5s before the cash flowed. Also the promotion is very slow. 
 Yes in the combat arms are slow also. But that is the person. Not because the trade is sooooo small. there is only 16 in the trade. As I am told. 1 MWO, 2 WOs, 5 sgts and 8 or so Cpls. You cannot have all of them MWOs? They are posted across Canada and 1 or 2 on tour.


----------



## DaveK

I feel that mentioning points for improvement on the PER is quite useless.  The PDR covers improvement points.  

Unfortunately as pbi and others have alluded, the PER is not perfect and does need some improvement.  As for writing ability and PER's are concerned, I know some people that have sat on actual merit/promotion/CFR selection, etc boards in Ottawa and they rarely have time to read the entire narrative portion.  If your SLR score combined with the other 40% of points for items such as education, second language etc. is unique or tied with two or three others, the narrative is rarely read.  

I think we do a disservice to subordinates who have aspirations for advancement when we write an 'honest' PER when we know that unit'X' is inflating scores for promotion of certain individuals.

The PER is truly the instrument for promotion, as we don't have exams or other criteria for promotion other than prerequisites.  If you want your subordinate promoted, a firewall PER will do it most of the time.  If you want an excellent soldier to become bitter with the system give him a few of those "I'm building you up year by year" numbers.  Troops love those.


----------



## pbi

> Not as long as other PER authors are honest with the ones they write.



There's the kicker--right there. Honesty by ALL PER writers.



> I think we do a disservice to subordinates who have aspirations for advancement when we write an 'honest' PER when we know that unit'X' is inflating scores for promotion of certain individuals.
> 
> The PER is truly the instrument for promotion, as we don't have exams or other criteria for promotion other than prerequisites.  If you want your subordinate promoted, a firewall PER will do it most of the time.  If you want an excellent soldier to become bitter with the system give him a few of those "I'm building you up year by year" numbers.  Troops love those.



And here's an example of the effects of that lack of universal honesty: writing an "honest" PER is seen as a disservice to the individual who gets it, because some other bugger with no scruples is writing all his people "hard right" (and believe me we have organizations that are notorious for this practice...). The effect is the insidious and rapid ruination of the value of the rating system. A couple of years ago, our Comd LFWA (then BGen Ivan Fenton, a very fine officer) issued direction to all his subordinate commanders that we were to be honest and accurate in our assessments of people, particularly officers. He stated that we were not helping the Army by letting undeserving people slide through. (I once worked for a commander who seriously believed that everybody should get a good PER: IMHO if everybody is "good" then the term is debased and becomes meaningless. Everybody is not good, and both we and those individuals must realize it.) Have I been guilty of helping out my "dog in the fight"? Yes: sad to say, I have. _Mea culpa_, but that doesn't fix anything.

I have been on the receiving end of several complaints and grievances because of the PERs I have written, attempting to follow the Gen's guidance in being honest, fair and accurate. This experience has led me to believe that, yet again, lack of moral courage has put our rating system into the ditch. If people are weak: TELL THEM THEY ARE WEAK.  Then tell them what they need to do to get better, and help them to do it. If they pick up: great. If they don't..well--I already gave my course of action for that outcome. Sometimes I almost think we should go back to the days when we had a "ration" of score ratings per battalion, and every score had to be accounted for by the CO on a record sheet. It was an accounting nightmare, but maybe it had some restraining value on our natural inflationary tendencies.

Cheers


----------



## DaveK

pbi

Maybe some of the problem could stem from the fact that promotion or the recommendation thereof comes from some level bloody well next to Her Majesty.  What do you think if a Bde Comd had the authority to promote to Sgt or WO?

Cheers 

Dave


----------



## pbi

DaveK said:
			
		

> pbi
> 
> Maybe some of the problem could stem from the fact that promotion or the recommendation thereof comes from some level bloody well next to Her Majesty. What do you think if a Bde Comd had the authority to promote to Sgt or WO?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave



In the Army Reserve, the authority does reside with the Bde Comd. This works well: it polices the units (the Bde G1 staff must vet the promotion documentation for correctness and completeness before he Bde Comd signs it off), yet it speeds things up.In a number of cases the Bde Comd may know the indiv in question.

This is a not a system that developed rationally: it is rather a fortunate legacy of the fact that neither the Army Res nor NDHQ ever really wanted Res pers matters to go through NDHQ. The end result has been that the Army Res is able to resolve most of its pers issues within the Army chain of command, while us poor RegF guys are caught in the Purple People Eater. (You're talking to an undying foe of Unification-don't look to me for objective discourse on THAT subject!!!)

Cheers.


----------



## NMPeters

Whatever happened to the 6 month Personnel Development Review (PDR) which everyone is suppose to get in order to review their performance and improve in areas that may need improving before the PER is written? Has it gone by the wayside? And if it has, why am I staring at mine right now? (albeit a little late since we've been without a Project Director for the better part of this fiscal year). Aren't you all receiving yours? Now to answer some of those questions myself, I have been in this position for almost 4 years and this is only the 2nd PDR that I have seen/read/discussed/signed. I think if more effort was put into this document and interview, the ability to express less than stellar performance on the PER will be easier and it will also be justified thus stemming the fear of repercussions and/or grievances by those who have been rated low. It's very difficult to accept criticism from someone if they've never told you in the past that you are doing something wrong. I feel that the PDR should be mandatory (although it is suppose to be), even to the point of reprogramming the software to not allow a superior to write a PER on someone if the PDR hasn't been completed and registered...or something along those lines.


----------



## MJP

> Whatever happened to the 6 month Personnel Development Review (PDR) which everyone is suppose to get in order to review their performance and improve in areas that may need improving before the PER is written? Has it gone by the wayside?



I can't speak for other units but I know we adhere to the 2-3 PDRs per year before giving a PER.  Even when we send personnel on task to a training center they arrive back with a PDR, heck I've gotten PDR for soldiers that were on task for less than a week.  So I like to think the rest of the army is pretty much in tune with this...but who knows?  



> It's very difficult to accept criticism from someone if they've never told you in the past that you are doing something wrong.



Plus makes it easy for them to redress the PER and get it changed.  Not to mention it's hard to give a soldier a RW or put them on CP if they haven't been informed of their shortcomings and counselled.


----------



## KevinB

Really Mike - you sure...

 Please locate mine for the past year  ;D


I've seen them (not mine others) and keep wondering where mine have gone...

Of course I alway found it funny that the sum (PER) did not add up to its parts (PDR's).  Come to think of it I always found it odd that a Cpl in a 2i/c position getting superior PDR's coudl get a lower PER than a non leadership positioned Cpl working in Coy HQ...


----------



## 043

Sorry boys, messed this one up!


----------



## garb811

mseoptrucker said:
			
		

> The trouble I have is that I had to go and make my career intentions known. It was suggested to me that my bosses thought I was happy where I was and that the fact that I always worked hard and produced results where ever I was put showed that I didn't want to leave the floor if you will. i find this a cop out .I just believe I was, for want of a better word forgoten .



Directly from the CFPAS Help File:





> Member's Responsibilities
> To prepare for the discussion with the supervisor, members are asked to think of their strengths and weaknesses. The member also reviews Section 1 of the PDR Form in preparation for discussing the Critical Tasks and whether he/she has successfully met the Expected Results. In addition, the member completes Section 3 of the PDR Form by writing a list of accomplishments, which includes work-related and extracurricular activities the supervisor may or may not have observed. The member also completes Section 4, Member's Career Goals, by listing any career goals he/she has in terms of jobs, postings, courses, or other aspirations the member is striving for.



So for what it's worth at this point, you *are* now responsible for letting your supervisors know what your career goals are, short and long term, and this includes aspirations for promotion in my book, even if it isn't mentioned specifically.   In spite of this, I never fail to be amazed at the number of subordinates who will arrive at a PDR session with Section 3 and Section 4 either not filled out or done so poorly they shouldn't have bothered.   If they can't be bothered to put any effort into preparing for a critical element of their personal and professional development, it tells me a lot.

One place where you may be able to get a gold mine of information on "how to be promoted" is via the presentation the Career Managers give when they come for a visit.   I'm not sure how it is for other trades but our Career Manager *always* explains in detail how the points were allocated at the last merit board in Ottawa.   Although each board is different, in my Branch for the last "x" number of years there have always been the same items appearing, so if you pay attention you may find out what you need to do to get ahead of, or at least compete with, your peers.   If the Career Manager doesn't come to visit this year, go to their website, the presenation should be posted there for anyone to view.   Despite having this information, constant prompting during PDR sessions and general "harassment" from me to start implementing their action plan which generally includes the "must have" items from the CMs briefings, there are still those who are gobsmacked that Bloggins got promoted ahead of them even though they know Bloggins was taking night classes, coaching minor hockey and had gone on tour while they had been sitting at home watching Paris Hilton and eating Doritos because they had come up with yet another reason not to deploy, the only reason they send their kid to hockey is to get him out of their hair for a few hours a week and "they don't play that game because what should only count is what they do at work", never mind the skills they gain which are directly transferable to the CF by doing these "non-work" activities.

It's true that many still have difficulty in understanding the importance of the PDR cycle and implementing it, and like others have said, I have had maybe two PDRs since the system was introduced. The problem here is, as pbi pointed out, people writing PERs which are, when viewed critically, dishonest.   By the book, if you fail to follow the PDR cycle you should receive an Unacceptable score in "Evaluating and Developing Subordinates", which should pretty much rule out any thought of promotion for the next three years, yet we see those people being promoted the next year because their superiors overlook that "small" shortcoming as it's only the "PDR", he did get the PERs done on time...mostly".   After being burnt with a redress once, I now enforce the cycle on my subordinate leaders by setting a due date for them to complete the PDRs for their subordinates which, conviniently just before their PDR interview with me.   Fail to complete the cycle, guess what the first lines on "Areas for Development" and "Action Plan" are?   At that point I would have everything I would need to write an "honest" PER although thankfully it hasn't come to that...yet.

Finally, the best advice I ever received from my first Shift IC was "You're your own Career Manager, if you don't make things happen for yourself, no-one else will." and this has served me well throughout my career.

Edited to fix errors introduced by the Spell Checker...go figure.


----------



## MJP

KevinB said:
			
		

> Really Mike - you sure...
> 
> Please locate mine for the past year ;D
> 
> 
> I've seen them (not mine others) and keep wondering where mine have gone...



Of course I for got to mention there are always people that get missed for one reason or another Kev, really no excuse though for missing soldiers especially in the Bn.  Usually it's indicitive of a lack of organization in the sub-unit I think...where in the Bn did you come from again???  ;D  Since I've started writing PDR/PERs, we've religiously ensured that everyone in the Pl/Coy got one, to the point where I have written up soldiers that I've had for only a week or two.


----------



## KevinB

Mike,  True...
 Thought I did not get a PER one year while in Mortars - none of the CPL's did...


----------



## gallantcj

Ok everyone, I guess the best way to sum this up is easy, the CFPAS system can tend to be very ineffective when it comes to evaluations at my rank level, I have spent almost 5 years as a Pte, and it kinda ticks one off...the PDR process is useless to be perfectly honest, other than laying out what is "expected" of a person.  You live up to those goals, and nothing happens, well, let's see, I have a very clean record, and have been promised many things, but in accordance with the Canadian Forces Personnel Assaulting System, I am not meeting my "expected" range of performance.  Plain and simple, the program is still at the hands of a supervisor, and if you tick said supervisor off, well, you do the math...and as far as Career Goals go, I have been working my hands to the bone for the last five years, and am nowhere but a dusty circle that I managed to carve up.  I am not sure as to the opinion of others in my rank level, but I would assume that they are in the same boat.  And for any supervisors out there, please don't tell you ppl something that you have no plans of doing!

I dunno, there is my beef!


----------



## Sapper6

PteG82 said:
			
		

> Ok everyone, I guess the best way to sum this up is easy, the CFPAS system can tend to be very ineffective when it comes to evaluations at my rank level, I have spent almost 5 years as a Pte, and it kinda ticks one off...the PDR process is useless to be perfectly honest, other than laying out what is "expected" of a person.   You live up to those goals, and nothing happens, well, let's see, I have a very clean record, and have been promised many things, but in accordance with the Canadian Forces Personnel Assaulting System, I am not meeting my "expected" range of performance.   Plain and simple, the program is still at the hands of a supervisor, and if you tick said supervisor off, well, you do the math...and as far as Career Goals go, I have been working my hands to the bone for the last five years, and am nowhere but a dusty circle that I managed to carve up.   I am not sure as to the opinion of others in my rank level, but I would assume that they are in the same boat.   And for any supervisors out there, please don't tell you ppl something that you have no plans of doing!
> 
> I dunno, there is my beef!



I find it hard to understand why you are still a Pte after 5 years?  Most Reg F trades that I know of, the soldier/airman/sailer is automatically promoted to Cpl after 48 months.   Why am I asking this?

Well, as a Cpl you start getting a real PER vice an annual PDR.   I think the system we have, although not perfect, is pretty good.  As a Pte you are considered an apprentice and shouldn't expect to be given leadership tasks; however, as a Cpl you are becoming a journeyman and now the choice is yours - perform and demonstrate leadership = promotion or do the minimum = stay as a Cpl.

Pretty simple.

S6


----------



## gallantcj

Oh, I can make it easy to understand how I am a Pte after 5 years, it's called having a supervisor that is too busy looking out for their next promotion.  I have had many an occasion on PDR interviews in which I have stated my wishes to be promoted, and my wishes to take Career Courses that will lead to my promotion, and on top of that, I work in a Local Cadet Unit religiously, every Monday and Friday, I take part in what little leadership is put in my path and do everything in my power to assist in house with training, as well as having completed all of my OPME's and also attempting to finish my BBA through Distance Education.  It isn't that I haven't been trying, no one's been listening.  And for any RMS Clk's out there, you know what this means, I DON'T EVEN HAVE MY 5's YET!!!  I have asked time and time again, and the answer is always the same, "wait it out, its coming".  I have heard that for the past two and a half years, it's getting annoying.  Anyway, to top that off, the last boss I had let me know that she felt I had excellent potential, and that she would make sure I would be a MCpl by 9 years in, well, for starters, i'm not that gullable, but even at that, it would be an awful pinch on time, seeing as how I only have four frieking years left before then.

My boss doesn't use the CFPAS system properly, and I have done my part in and out of house to ensure that I get promoted, but it doesn't seem to be working, I have had many people ask me when I am getting promoted, and also telling me that I shouldn't be this angy and bitter at my rank level, and it's all too true, but what am I supposed to do, I am the lowest man on the totem pole, and not moving any faster.  Perhaps this is the time for release???


----------



## Sapper6

PteG82,

I've been in the Reg F for 19 yrs and your story doesn't add up?  ???  After 48 months you are to be promoted automatically to Cpl.

Are you on a medical category?  If so, that could prevent your promotion to Cpl, but even then there is ways around that through the Career Manager.

Hmmmm.  Trying to help you out....

S6


----------



## gallantcj

Sapper6,

I know the story sound real nice and fun, but that is the farthest thing from the truth, despite your 19 years, my five as an RMS Clk have taught me one important lesson, this so called "automatic" promotion, isn't automatic, it has to be started by your supervisor, and recorded on a CF743A, and forwarded through the chain of command for approval, trust me, it is NOT automatic!

I am not on a medical category, and I have recently (Nov 04) passed my CF Expres, this is not a medical thing, or a fitness issue, it is a fight that I have been fighting for the last well, almost five years, (Enrolled May 1st 00), trust me I wish I could say it was medical, but it isn't so.  Either way, I do believe the tree is finally starting to shake at work, but that isn't the point, it's the principle of it all, why did I have to wait this long before something happened, and why do I not have my QL5's yet, these are the questions I have brought to my supervisors to get no satisfactory answer.

My father has 37 years experience in the military, and he had no problem at all moving up the ranks, he's obviously retired now, but still, he has helped me to better understand my situation, a rather disturbing one at that, and many people have had the time to look at the situation, but as soon as they found out who the supervisor was, they all screwed off in the opposite direction.  I am not about to sit around and get walked on for the rest of my career.

Either way, it won't help me to rant on here, I just wanted to put my 2 cents worth into the forum about CFPAS, I don't find it helpful at all at this point in my career, hopefully that opinion improves.

As far as my CM goes, if I was to be brazen enough to contact my CM, i'd be hung and shot, no questions asked, ppl don't ask questions in my Chain of Command, although this APS may change that.

Thanks

PteG


----------



## Sapper6

PteG,

Well, if you are truthful, then you have been served an injustice.  As an Army officer, I couldn't imagine not having one of my soldier's CF743As staffed up when they were due. 

If you immediate supervisor is the problem then my only suggestion is to ask for an appointment with the Pl Comd.  He/she should know who you are anyway so this shouldn't be a stretch.  Failing that, I would recommend you speak to a Snr Cpl who you trust and could advocate your situation to someone that could make a difference.

In the end, you will get your Cpl rank.  Make sure that you are backdated for pay to your 48 month point.

As for your QL 5s, I know that there was a backlog in Borden for the RMS trade... we had the same problem out West with our clerks.  

Bottom line - hang in there and try not and get bitter.  Easy for me to say I know, but I don't think the CF is populated with guys like your supervisor.  There are really a good bunch of people out there.

Sapper 6


----------



## pbi

I echo Sapper6's advise. If your immediate IC is as bad as you say, then request an audience with the next in the chain. Do you have a Chief Clerk, or a CSM equivalent you could talk to? If, as you say, in your unit people don't ask questions of the chain of command, it sounds to me like it's time that they did.

On the other hand, there may be a good reason why you have not been promoted, one that you have not been counselled on, and which you may not like when it is explained to you. It appears that the CFPAS system is not being applied wherever it is you are working, so I imagine you do not have a clear, factual idea of what the problem is. Be that as it may, you are owed at least a clear explanation of why, and the opportunity to question it.

Sapper6: IMHO (and based on a bit of experience), it is dangerous to say things like:



> In the end, you will get your Cpl rank.



We do not know this, because we do not know for sure what the problem is. IMHO this falls under the heading of the kind of promises that Pte G82 was complaining about in the first place. 

The fact is that in the Army we do not promote ourselves. We do not "ask" for promotion. We work for other people, and either we meet their expectations or we don't go very far. We have a right to expect fair and open treatment, and to have the system explained to us, but that is all. Cpl and Capt are not automatic and both can be withheld by the CO for cause.

Cheers


----------



## CdnArtyWife

> Quote from: mseoptrucker on January 21, 2005, 18:14:02
> The trouble I have is that I had to go and make my career intentions known. It was suggested to me that my bosses thought I was happy where I was and that the fact that I always worked hard and produced results where ever I was put showed that I didn't want to leave the floor if you will. i find this a cop out .I just believe I was, for want of a better word forgoten .
> 
> Directly from the CFPAS Help File:
> Quote
> Member's Responsibilities
> To prepare for the discussion with the supervisor, members are asked to think of their strengths and weaknesses. The member also reviews Section 1 of the PDR Form in preparation for discussing the Critical Tasks and whether he/she has successfully met the Expected Results. In addition, the member completes Section 3 of the PDR Form by writing a list of accomplishments, which includes work-related and extracurricular activities the supervisor may or may not have observed. The member also completes Section 4, Member's Career Goals, by listing any career goals he/she has in terms of jobs, postings, courses, or other aspirations the member is striving for.
> 
> So for what it's worth at this point, you are now responsible for letting your supervisors know what your career goals are, short and long term, and this includes aspirations for promotion in my book, even if it isn't mentioned specifically.   In spite of this, I never fail to be amazed at the number of subordinates who will arrive at a PDR session with Section 3 and Section 4 either not filled out or done so poorly they shouldn't have bothered.   If they can't be bothered to put any effort into preparing for a critical element of their personal and professional development, it tells me a lot.



good post garb811, well said.

Mseo-> There is something to be said about taking the "initiative" and making your superiors aware of your career intents. This initiative is usually one of many qualities that they look for in a leader, and from my understanding the rank of Sgt is usually considered a junior leadership position. Therefore there are certain responsibilities that go hand in hand with promotion, not just the pay incentives. 

It is good to know that you are finally on track, good luck to you.....


----------



## Sapper6

pbi said:
			
		

> Sapper6: IMHO (and based on a bit of experience), it is dangerous to say things like:
> 
> We do not know this, because we do not know for sure what the problem is. IMHO this falls under the heading of the kind of promises that Pte G82 was complaining about in the first place.
> 
> The fact is that in the Army we do not promote ourselves. We do not "ask" for promotion. We work for other people, and either we meet their expectations or we don't go very far. We have a right to expect fair and open treatment, and to have the system explained to us, but that is all. Cpl and Capt are not automatic and both can be withheld by the CO for cause.



PBI,

         Yes, you are correct.   Although I didn't come right out and ask, perhaps there is a discipline or performance issue that he is not been forthcoming with.   If so, the chain of command (ie. CO) does not need to support the promotion to Cpl.   However, that being said it has been my experience that 'in today's Army' we don't hold back Cpl promotion unless there is something very serious going on.   In fact, poor performance noted on PDRs or told verbally to a Pte have not been supported by Formation HQs for holding back Cpl promotion....in my humble experience.   I personally don't agree with this 'unwritten policy' but precedent has been set unfortunately.

S6


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I have just gone through the carreer mangers brief and he mentioned that do to the shortage at Mcpl and Sgt level the powers that be are trying there best to push through the necessary steps to allow exceptional (this is relative in application) pte's to take the leadership course and advance to Mcpl without spending anytime in the Cpl rank.

Is it just me or does anyone else see a problem with this?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

CFL said:
			
		

> I have just gone through the carreer mangers brief and he mentioned that do to the shortage at Mcpl and Sgt level the powers that be are trying there best to push through the necessary steps to allow exceptional (this is relative in application) pte's to take the leadership course and advance to Mcpl without spending anytime in the Cpl rank.
> 
> Is it just me or does anyone else see a problem with this?



"You're being passed over, Staff."

  The RSM, "The Hill"


----------



## sigpig

Isn't this the old DAPS - Delegated Advanced Promotion Scheme (System?) in the combat arms?   I can remember one Christmas parade with the strats where about 8 guys got promoted to MCpl and about 6 or 7 had been Ptes. A very smart and sharp Pte in my tp got daps'd to MCpl and was made my gunner and shortly afterward a crew commander. As I said, he was a great soldier, but had very little experience when he became a crew commander. 

At one time it almost seemed like something was wrong with you if you were a Cpl in the combat arms - you hadn't been daps'd from Pte to MCpl.


----------



## George Wallace

Problems?

1. EGOs off the chart.

2. No Experience in the many aspects involving "Man Management".

3. No Experience in job, and methods of getting job done successfully.   Lack of knowlegde of getting a job done via accepted 'shortcuts'.

4. No Field Experience in Leadership roles.

5. Not enough time to develop "Tactical sense". 

6. Problems with Power.

7. Lack of maturity (should be ruled out in selection process).

8.......


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Exactly what I was thinking GW.


----------



## big_johnson1

I thought a lot of the Army Reserve units did this already? I had a friend who joined the arty reserves in 11th grade, and three years later he was a Master Bombadier. Smart guy, but again, no time in the job, and in the militia it's got to be even worse than reg force, with most parading being done on weekends and in the summer.


----------



## sigpig

The (unofficial) rationale behind the daps I referred to above was to encourage retention in 'less than desireable' trades, ie the combat arms. There was a hemorrhaging of people to other trades or out altogether and it was thought this would encourage good people to stay. 

Is this proposal along the same lines? You've just mentioned inf but is this being looked at for the other cbt arms trades? Once the individual progress to senior sgt and above things would tend to even out but there would definitely be problems with experience and maturity in the MCpl and possibly junior sgt ranks.

A guy could be a pte in a veh crew or section one day and in charge of it the next.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I can't speak for the other trades as it was specifically addressed (ie across the board) I can only speak on behalf of what was addressed to the Infantry and personal shortages.


----------



## X Royal

Its nothing new its been happening at   least since the the late   70's. Lets not forget that Cpl. is not a leadership rank but in the Reg. force denotes 4 years service generally. In the Reserves 2years?   : I've been out for about 9 years so things may have changed. In the late 70's & 80's only the exceptional Pte's(generally) were offered the chance to take the ISCC. They still had to pass the course before having a chance for promotion.


----------



## pbi

X-Royal is correct. I remember DAPS very well. It came on the scene at a time in the late 1970's/early 1980s when the Regular Army was "aging out" just as it is now, and was losing numbers of soldiers to release and OT (then called remuster). It had mixed results. I had some young MCpls under my command who were absolutely sharp soldiers and natural leaders: under the guidance of the CSM and Pl WOs they did very well and went on to be keen young Sgts and WOs, learning as they went. These guys deserved to get going early, and did the unit and the Army proud. On the other hand we got some who had little idea of what they were doing, and could not handle the rank properly. They got into fights in the Ranks, and otherwise failed to behave as leaders. These, IMHO, were in the minority.

An additional result, as has been suggested, was that anybody in the Reg Inf who was a Cpl came to be looked upon as a "dead-ender" because so many MCpls were getting there via DAPS and leaving the older, slower guys behind. Soon, in the PPCLI anyway, we began to run out of these guys. I remember when 3 RCR was briefly part of 1 CMBG: they sent a batch of guys on the ISCC, and the Battle School staff remarked on the high proportion of old Cpls being sent on the course by the RCR. We generally were sending Ptes or young Cpls: we just didn't have a significant population of older Cpls.

As I look back on DAPS, I think that in general the results were good: leading a rifle section or being 2IC is a young, fit keen  guy's game, not a place for most 35 or 40 year olds. The problem was quality control: sometimes it wasn't there. However, IMHO we are facing the same conditions now that we faced then: we are getting to be a very old Army (I notice this very starkly in comparison with US who appear to be 5-10 years younger at equivalent ranks) and we are desperately short of NCOs (both Res and Reg).

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well I hope (but doubt) that the quality control you speak of is there.  I can see it now, a bunch of 18 yr old Jacks with a chip on their shoulder and won't listen to no one.  I guess thats why God invented senior Cpl's who don't a f__k.


----------



## pbi

> I can see it now, a bunch of 18 yr old Jacks with a chip on their shoulder and won't listen to no one.



I don't think we'll get them quite that young-you'd probably want the guy to have completed his first BE which would put him around 21. IMHO, the problem you describe above is a real one, but to me that is the job of the Pl WOs and the CSM: to train the younger NCOs.

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I agree with you to a point and just want to remind you that the WO and CSM plates are really full as it is.  I do acknowledge the point you've made though.


----------



## pbi

CFL said:
			
		

> I agree with you to a point and just want to remind you that the WO and CSM plates are really full as it is.   I do acknowledge the point you've made though.



Yes-you are very right, and their plates have been full at least since I was in bn. This is because we have got CSMs chained to their desks as clerks, and everybody else overloaded with things to do,some of them silly and wasteful.  IMHO the training of young NCOs is one of the most important jobs our WOs should be doing along with the training of junior officers. Unfortunately, like many truly professionally important things, these get lost in the endless shuffle of battalion life. Still, we must not lose sight of this.

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

Any ideas on how to "free" Warrants and Sergeants Major from their desks to dedicate more time to developing the JNCO's?


----------



## ex royal now flyer

I did the ISCC in Sept - Dec 89, after 14 months in the Bn as a private.   Subsequently I was promoted to MCpl in Dec 89.   Say what you want about those of us in this category but in the end I was an effective section commander and I do not regret the accelerated promotion.

That year, the CO was looking to promote 22 pers to MCpl.   The pre-ISCC had 60 guys ranging from older Cpl's, Jr Cpl's, Snr Pte's and 6 Jr Pte's.   After the 9 day pre-ISCC only 22 were sent to the Battle School for the course.   The majority of the older Cpl's quit the pre-course as well a handful of the others.   A few were deemed to have "failed" the pre-ISCC.      All six of us Jr Pte's went on course and four of us passed.   Before the pre-ISCC started, the Jr Pte's were all told we were not the priority and there was no guarantee would go on course even if we passed the pre-course.   In the end, the CO only promoted 11 out of the 60 who started the pre-course. 7 Cpl's and 4 Pte's.   BTW, only one Cpl had more than 5 years in.

Back then, the older Cpl's quit because the $50 a month pay raise was not worth the aggravation.   On the other side of the coin the jr Pte's could see a 100% pay increase that came with the promotion.   At the time, I was making $17,000 per year.   A frist year MCpl made almost $34,000.   However, money was not the only motivation.

After a year in the Bn I felt that I was not learning as much as I should have been.   Though perhaps ass backwards, I learned more as a section commander than I did as a Pte and the end result was myself becoming a better soldier.   I believe that the management skills that I acquired would not have been acquired as a Pte.   At no time during the ISCC was how to deal with personnel problems ever taught.   Thus, I believe if I had done the ISCC three or four years later, I still would not have had the tools to deal with some of the personnel problems I faced.   However, one learns quickly how to deal with such problems when you are forced to deal with them.   Yes, listening to the senior persons was key to getting it right coupled with effective personal leadership skills - skills that cannot be taught but are instinctive.      

Call it being in the right place at the right time or whatever but I do believe that all 60 guys who started the pre-ISCC all had the same opportunity and chances to complete the ISCC.   For whatever reason, it was ulitimately their choice to quit.   So here is the question:

Would a platoon Commander, platoon WO, and Cpl's and Pte's rather have a not-so motivated Sr Cpl or a motivated ready to learn Jr Pte as a section commander?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well I'm glad it worked out for you and it sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders.  As long as that jr Pte knows his place and is willing to listen to people who have more experince then it may work out.  If not there are going to be a bunch of CiviU types running around and it will be problematic.
Oh, I would rather following a Cpl that has put up an Artic tent, done a tour then a new Pte/Jack that has no TI.


----------



## Spooks

Just wondering what the reasoning behind advancing a pte to Mcpl is. If you are short on leadership in the platoon, why not just have the Pte (or Cpl) be the section commander, let them have a lot of on-the-job training from it and bump them back to section member when more leadership arrives? That way they've had leadership experience before going on their PLQ and will do better overall?

I'm just wondering because this topic is very interesting to me.

-Spooks


----------



## ex royal now flyer

CFL,   good point.   It is a consequence of the times.   Back in the late 80's having a tour under our belts was a non-issue.   No one had tours except a few who might have gone to Cyprus years prior.   That being said, yes I agree that having a tour completed is important especially nowadays and prehaps should be a pre-requisite.   



			
				CFL said:
			
		

> As long as that jr Pte knows his place and is willing to listen to people who have more experince then it may work out.


   

The Jr Pte who gets accelerated promoted to MCpl should know his place is in front of his section effectively leading it.   Yes, he/she should be willing to listen to senior soldeirs, however, not to the point where thier control and authority is lost. If section members have a problem with a certain section comd than they should ask the question why they are not section comd.


----------



## Horse_Soldier

There was a time, in the mid to late 80s where the infantry was short of NCOs, both jr & snr.   When I was a platoon leader with 2R22eR, out of my 4 mcpls, 2 had been accelerated after doing ISCC as ptes.   My plt 2i/c was a sgt and I had one, count him - one cpl in a 40 strong plt.   Most of the experienced cpls were either in Germany (where I commanded a plt the following year, and where I had very few ptes but many cpls) or in the support weapons plts or in Adm coy.   Accelerated promotion was a way of filling the gaps.   My two accelerted mcpls were solid guys and under my plt sgt's guidance, what they lacked in experience they learned really fast.   I was happy to have them.


----------



## ex royal now flyer

Spooks,

The issue was a result of lack of senior Cpls willing to do the ISCC.  As I mentioned in a previous post the pre-ISCC that I attented had many Cpls who simply quit.  That year, my CO could not promote the 22 he wanted to and only promoted 11.  Thus, the gap continued into the next couple years.   Pte's do get OJT as section commanders however there comes a time when that position has to be filled.  If the Cpl's do not want to do the course then who else but the Ptes are available to do it.  

Though I am not in the infantry anymore I get the impression from this thread that the gap is once again occuring.  I believe that senior Cpls should get priority to do the training required according to their standing on the merit list.  Once all the list of Cpl's is depleted than the Pte's should get their chance if there is position available on the course, providing they possess the proper qualities.  

If the promotions are available give them to those who are trained and ready for promotion.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"Yes, he/she should be willing to listen to senior soldeirs, however, not to the point where thier control and authority is lost."

Agreed.


----------



## ZipperHead

A little background on my self first (feel free to skip ahead to the 3rd paragraph, but at least you will know the shoes that I have walked in): I was in army cadets for 4 or 5 years, did 4 years in cadet camp, 2 as an instructor. Joined the CF in '88, and saw a little of the Tpr (Pte) to MCpl action happen when I got to Petawawa. In my Sqn, we had 2 crewman Cpl's, and the rest of us were very new, as the Regt had a requirement to fill the ranks out for Cyprus. I saw more than a few jerks fly up the ranks, with no time as a Cpl. I also saw more than a few deserving guys able to move onwards and upwards at an accelerated pace. I then got posted to Gagetown to the tank squadron, did my CLC in 92, because they recognized my true greatness (AKA right place at right time: SHQ). I would argue that one didn't learn a lot of quote leadership unquote on a Combat Leaders Course, none that was really applicable to garrison life, anyway. I guess it was assumed (dangerous word) that it would be taught at the unit. I vaguely remember (on course) having to go through the CFAO's, charge report, write a memo stuff (which hasn't really proven to be useful in the intervening years, as I haven't had the neccesity to have someone recommended for a charge, but I have had to counsel soldiers and write assesments on them, which seemed to be left out of the TP at the time. Then the long freeze: At one point, in our squadron of ~140, we had ONE Pte (who was a tradesman). The majority were Cpl's (and obviously higher) with varying length's of time in rank. I was able to work my way up to Tp Ldr's loader/Tp Cpl, which we referred to as "floor whip",  so I was able to get leadership experience (though I wouldn't be so gracious as to say leadership training). Unless you call getting sh&t on for standing up for one of my troops by the Tp MCpl and Sgt, training. 

I then had the good fortune to have a Tp WO (who was actually a Sgt) who stood up for me at merit board time, and made me his pet project, I guess (though the toes he stepped on to get me promoted have come back to be the foot that kicked me in the ass, but that's military politics for you....). I was posted to Edmonton, and less than a month later (8 1/2 years after joining) I was promoted to MCpl. It was difficult, in my opinion, going from the new boy on the block (at a new unit), to MCpl a month later, as many thought that I was new to the army (overnight success story.....), and didn't like that a newbie got promoted over them. That's natural in any organization, I suppose. Anyway, I went from being the soldier who toed the party line without (many) question(s), to starting to question some of the stupidity that is unacceptable and unneccesary in the CF. So, much like the term CFL (Cpl for life, for those not in the know), I thought I would be a MCFL (not as catchy......). A sign of how pathetic the military had become at this stage (late 90's) I distinctly remember getting an 'Attaboy' for accepting responsibility for something that happened in our troop, as though it was equivalent to saving someone's life (I'm prone to exageration, so bear with.....). I refer to one of the 10 principle's of leadership (seek and accept responsibility) as "shirk and avoid responsibility" because that seems to be the path of least resistance to the top. Don't even get me started on all the "leadership" shown by the powers that be in the wake of the "Somalia scandal", an event that effected a generation of soldiers in that a lot of trust in the powers that be, was lost. Anyway, after 7 years as a MCpl, with 2 tours to Bosnia in that rank, I was promoted to Sgt, and then I asked to be posted to Gagetown to be an instructor ( for personal and professional reasons).

Here's where my opinion on what CFL brought up, starts: The most formative time for a soldier is spent at the Cpl rank level. As a private, you are taught the basics, and then as a Cpl, you have mastered the basics of your trade, and now it's time to start learning to become a leader. My opinion on automatic promotion to Cpl (or Captain, for that matter): stupidity to the nth degree. I feel that it is rewarding incompetence, and creates mediocrity, or a union-like, job for life mentality. All rank levels should be earned, through performance and training. There should be no shame in staying a private (lance-corporal, whatever) for you career, if that's what you want, or what is your "station" in life. Leave Cpl for leadership or (I dread using this word) management positions. It is a reward for the soldier who has done his bit as a private, and then is a stepping stone for promotion, without being lumped in with all those people who are basically civvies in uniform (i.e no drive, 8 to 4 work-ethic, here for the pay, oxygen thieves, etc). At that level, it can be determined if Cpl Bloggins truly has what it takes to be a leader, or should he remain in a position where he can still put his experience and knowledge to work. 

Pushing someone too fast leads to many of the points brought up by George Wallace. I honestly couldn't have imagined being a MCpl at the age of 21 or 22, and being "effective". Sure I could have done it, but it probably wouldn't have been pretty. A lot of people have "faked" it for a long time, and made their way to the top, but that doesn't neccesarily mean that they were effective. I joke that people usually rise to their level of incompetence: the more incompetent, the higher up the totem pole. So, I must only be a middle level incompetent....... With the right guidance and training, people have been able to be put in positions of leadership and authority, with minimal experience and training. Witness the way most militaries train officers: 4 or 5 years of military college, 4 summers of trade related training, and boom, you can lead soldiers into battle. That's the theory, and I guess it has worked to some degree. Personally, I would rather see ALL members of the CF join into the combat arms, do a set period as a "plug", and then once your intelligence, leadership, common sense, tactical ability, etc can be determined, you move on: to be an officer, be a tradesman, an NCO. Too radical, too far off the "normal" way of doing things, I guess. But how does a police force work???? A fire department??? Doesn't everybody start off at the bottom, and then progress. But, what do I know.......

I received a briefing similar to the one that CFL received, and I actually anticipated something like this happening a while back (rapid rank progression), when I realized that the cycle of recruitment from 20 years was coming up. There are a lot of good soldiers who have jumped ship from the combat arms, and the CF, due to the snail's pace of career progression (at NCM level anyway). A lot of good troops have OT'ed because they felt they never had a chance to be a leader in their corps, due to the slow pace and the perceived (and sometimes real) way that bootlickers and "yes" men were rewarded with leadership positions or cushy jobs ("high profile") while soldiers who voiced their opinions about screwed up policies or the like were branded as trouble makers. Some of the attributes that defined a generation of soldiers from not that long ago: hard drinking, fighting, rough around the edges,looking after their buddies, but able to get the job done are put by the wayside while the Ned Flanders style of soldiers are coming to the fore. It was perceived (when I joined) that if you were a Cpl, you were a loser (due to fast promotion rates). And today, I have witnessed a lot of good guys who weren't in the right place at the right time get bypassed by guys who are young and keen. Well, it's easy to be young and keen, when you are young and keen. I know a Cpl (who will remain nameless who was a Cpl when I met him in '90 (I was a no hook Tpr), congratulated me when I got promoted to Cpl, then MCpl, and then Sgt, and although his mouth has held him back, I'm sure he knows more than some of the MCpl's (and Sgt's, WO's, etc) he works for, definitely has more tours than most (Cyprus, UNPROFOR, SFOR, KFOR), but he hasn't given up (completed his PLQ after 16-ish years in), and I look forward to him getting promoted (he is doing the job of a MCpl now). If he doesn't get promoted in favour of someone with more "potential" (read as: more time to rise to the top, and/or still able to be brainwashed into the corporate thinking), I know that the system will have failed. 

I would rather have a somewhat disgruntled (but not overly so) Cpl in charge of troops, than a Johnny Cleanboots, no-hook or one-hook straight to MCpl, just because they feel they need to promote people. I see a lot of PLQ's being run where half the students seem to be acting-lacking Master Jacks. Why???? The rationale I have heard is: we need a MCpl in that position, so lets put an unqualified Cpl in there with a leaf, and then train them after the fact. I heard a story about a Cpl who taught on a PLQ, where his boss from his shop (a MCpl) was a student on the course he was instructing on. How much sense does that make? Why race to promote an unknown quantity??? Something that I have seen happen, that I like, is WSE rank (while so employed) for tours. It gives the person a chance to prove themselves, and if they fall on their face, they lose the rank. Otherwise, it takes an act of Parliament to reduce someone in rank, short of complete meltdown. It's a win/win situation for the unit and the soldier.

I put some soldiers through the SQ course a couple of years ago that I expect will beat me to the rank of WO, and definitely to the rank of MWO (I will be a RSM before them, though: Retired Service Member). The army is definitely a young mans game, but I would hate to see them cast a lot of good guys by the wayside, even if they don't have 18 years of service left, in favour of those that do. When people race to the top too soon, they have to wait a LOOOONNNNGGGG time at the WO or MWO level, and I think it's better that soldiers spend that time as a Cpl, learning their skills, knowing what it's like to push a broom, sit on sentry, kitchen duty, etc than skip all that, and then pretend they know what it's like. And age isn't really a disqualifier: I have seen more than a few older people joining lately, with more drive and a higher level of fitness than some of  the Generation X-box soldiers coming in. I'm not saying push the older guys faster (I hate the "Well, he's not getting any younger, you know??!?!" mentality to push older guys up the chain..... who is getting any younger?), it's just that, even if a guy is a little older, as long as he's fit and good to go, don't throw him on the scrap heap. Oh, and by the way, I did Mountain Man out west last September, and of all the young privates (that went to 3PPCLI) that I trained on that SQ course, I beat them all (and I was 36). Actually, the RSM of 3PPCLI beat all of them (and me). So, don't sell the oldies short: old age and treachery will also beat youth and enthusiasm, and you can't buy experience, though you can buy Viagra (and a plastic hip), and I think I'll need those in a few years, but that's another story......

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and those, and $1.60, will buy you an extra large coffee at Timmie's, and not much else.

Al


----------



## pbi

Allan Luomala:

Great post. I particularly agree with:



> My opinion on automatic promotion to Cpl (or Captain, for that matter): stupidity to the nth degree. I feel that it is rewarding incompetence, and creates mediocrity, or a union-like, job for life mentality. All rank levels should be earned, through performance and training. There should be no shame in staying a private (lance-corporal, whatever) for you career, if that's what you want, or what is your "station" in life. Leave Cpl for leadership or (I dread using this word) management positions. It is a reward for the soldier who has done his bit as a private, and then is a stepping stone for promotion, without being lumped in with all those people who are basically civvies in uniform (i.e no drive, 8 to 4 work-ethic, here for the pay, oxygen thieves, etc). At that level, it can be determined if Cpl Bloggins truly has what it takes to be a leader, or should he remain in a position where he can still put his experience and knowledge to work.



I sat on the Army TASK (Trade Advancement for Skill and Knowledge) board held at FMCHQ in the early 90's, to try to work out a system for the Army in which we could pay soldiers more for trade skills without having to promote them, and also rationalize the ranks from Pte to Sgt (we were heading for Pte/Cpl/Sgt or something like that...). Anyway, it all amounted to nothing largely because the Army was (and still is) trapped inside the "purple" personnel regulations world. But, the point remains, IMHO we should not be giving out rank "automatically". Even though Cpl and Capt are not actually "automatic" (the CO can stop it for cause, and paperwork has to be submitted to get it...) they have that appearance and reputation. I have no problem that a guy with more TI and more skill gets paid more than a guy who doesn't: that isn't an issue for me. I see the value of the "senior soldier" as long as he is fit, does a good job, and makes the team function better. Senior soldiers add a leavening of common sense and experience that we need.
But, to me, rank should be just that: rank, and it should be tied to authority or potential to carry authority. 
Cheers.


----------



## ZipperHead

PBI, thanks for the comments. 

I know I shouldn't have stated "automatic" for promotion to Cpl and Captain, but I have only seen/heard of 2 guys who took longer than 4 years to get to Cpl, and never heard of someone staying at Lt for an inordinate period of time (even those relieved of command, fired, etc.....). 

It's much like incentives: they shouldn't be automatic, and the reg's state as much, but it HAS become automatic. A former RSM of mine info'ed me of this, when we had a RSM/MCpl's discussion at the regiment, and when asked how to punish someone for poor performance, he brought this up, and I researched it. I posted it (the CFAO) at work to put the fear of God (or of someone not afraid to do a little paperwork, anyway.....) into the more complacement soldiers, particularly the 1st incentive Cpl's who feel they can do no wrong, and think they can never get punished. Hit 'em where it hurts: the wallet. 

I don't remember how somebody on their highest incentive could get zapped by this administrative action, but I imagine if they were busted down to private, they have to start at Cpl Basic all over again. Again, admin isn't my strong point, but it's a tool in the belt to get onto people who's performance is wanting. It isn't supposed to be used to "punish" people (that's what the good ol' charge is for), but a way of increasing performance. Personally I think if a person is that much of a 'pump', they should be released, but I think killing the Pope wouldn't even get a person kicked out now....... probably stoppage of leave and a nasty NTF.

Anyway, as this is going a bit OT, I suppose I can salvage it by saying that it is a lesson in admin to any of the young guys who will see their leaf before they sign their 2nd BE.........

Al


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Allan Luomala nice post.


----------



## Jungle

The question is: what other option do we have ??
There is a large number of Cpls out there who have no intention of going on PLQ and progressing in rank. We need JNCOs now. So we train them, early in their career if we have to, and put them in Leadership positions. So ultimately, these young guys are qualified and get promoted, they become Leaders and are responsible for their outfit. No Cpl, no matter how old, will be held responsible if things go wrong; that young Mcpl will. So he makes the decision, and it is wrong; so what ?? The best way to learn is by trial and error, and this is especially true in Leadership.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You make a good point Jungle, I just worry that some (see a lot) of these guys will loose touch and respect of those who although may not be a higher rank still have something to teach.


----------



## Jungle

Of course it's going to happen... most people go through a "power trip" period. For some it is permanent  , for the majority it is a short rite-of-passage at the junior Leader level (Officers included  ). It is certainly hard to swallow for the guy with a couple of years more time-in and a tour, but we all have to live with the consequences of our decisions.


----------



## ZipperHead

I agree with you Jungle, and I also share CFL's concerns. 

I know that we need leader's now, and that a lot of Cpl's (sometimes out of spite or out of the "screw you, you passed me over when I was young and keen, so not now") don't want leadership trg. Their hands should be forced: take the training, and share the knowledge and experience, or pack your bags. Another one of my 5 million pet peeves is someone who complains about shitty leadership or leaders, but refuses to put up by taking a leadership position. There's a saying (which I'll no doubt screw up) about totem poles: you look up from your position on the bottom and all you see is assholes, and you look down when you're up top and everything looks small. I'm sure I've taken some liberties, but I'm sure you get the meaning (I hope).

There are a lot of problems in the CF WRT leadership, and I think a different way of looking at the problem needs to be addressed. It always seems to be someone else's fault (usually higher) that things are FUBAR. "I'm only a Pte/Cpl/MCpl/Lt/Capt/etc, what can I do?!? " is a familiar refrain, and I know I've used it as an excuse. Not a reason, but as an excuse."No single snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche". An example I like to use about one person making a change is my habit of picking up garbage. Most people who have been to Bosnia (post-war, I'm not sure what pre-war was like, but I think that the good Marshall had people picking up garbage.......) comment on how much of a garbage-dump it is. I know I did. Then I got back to Canada, and realized that Canada isn't as clean as we like to imagine it is. So I started picking up garbage in my neighbourhood. Mainly out of pride where I lived, but I didn't want to be a hypocrit for slagging the Bosnians for not picking up their garbage (after all, the McDonald's cup in the ditch in my neighbourhood didn't have the possibility of having and Anti Pers mine under it......). I pick up garbage on the way from my car into the mall. "But there are people whose job it is is to pick up garbage.....". Yes, but I can also do my part. I pick up garbage at the base gym and in the parking lot at my hangar. "There are Tpr's and Cpl's that should be doing that, not a Sgt......". I'm not handicapped, and maybe if they see a Sgt doing it, maybe Cpl's and Tpr's won't grumble when told to do it (I'm kidding myself about that, but at least they can't say Sgt Luomala never picked up a piece of garbage.......).

I had a Capt, whom I knew as a Cpl and then MCpl back in the day(and CFR'ed from WO), who told me when I was signing my course report for my 6A to make sure that I don't use the shitty Sr NCO's from my past as an excuse to be a shitty Sr NCO, but look to the one's that I respected and emulate them. I felt like saying "Well, duh!!!!", but he had a point. How many times have you heard of people using a bad example as an excuse to be half-assed in something, rather than looking to a good example and giving it their all???? I've heard (and told) my fair share of fat Sr NCO jokes, but when I get to the gym, I see a lot of older Sgt's and WO's (and MWO's and RSM's), sweating their asses off, and whether it's out of personal pride (hopefully) or out of being forced into it (hopefully not), they are doing it. Yes, there are old JNCO's in there as well, and good on them, but I have heard more than a few people use a fat Sgt as an excuse not to have do well on a run/ruckmarch/etc. "Why should I do well, if Sgt So-and-so is going to pulling up the rear????", which in itself is in the top 5 of my all time pet-peeves: SrNCO's either being expected to, or expecting to be bringing up the rear. Lead from the front, for Chrissakes!!!! 

Anyway, I went a little bit further on that tangent than I expected to, but I suppose it ties in somewhat with what I would like to see in the new generation of soldiers, who will be leaders sooner than some of us, or even they, want to: be a leader. Don't use the shitty examples from the past as justification to be a shit leader. The sad thing is, I have an easier time thinking of shitty examples of leaders than of good ones, and I hope that's because the shitty ones stand out more...... 

Have a good one,

Al


----------



## pbi

Well, well, Alan:...another guy who likes to pick up trash around his neighbourhood! And here I am thinking I'm the only weird one. I can't stand littering pigs who chuck stuff about: too bad they don't sell hunting tags on them, especially the shytes who open their car door in the mall parking lot and pitch it on the ground! :skull: :rage: :flame:

Another outstanding post! Once again you have described things to a "T". The question I would ask, though, is this. If we go to a system such as you propose, in which we place greater pressure on people to show leadership (and, in view of modern combat, I think that may be a real need...) how do we deal fairly with all the guys who have made it to Cpl and stayed there because that is what they wanted to do, the system allowed and encouraged that for decades, and they are happy doing what they do? Is booting them out fair? This is the system that the German Reichsheer employed in the 1920s and early 30s: soldiers were trained to be leaders, and those who showed no potential were released. What are the consequences to us of a system like that? Would the loss of experience be worth the advantages to be gained?

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think there is a place for people like me.   The beauty of a "CFL" is that they have the advantage of potentially staying in positions (usually Adm positions) where there is a great deal to learn and retain.   Of course anyone could come in but by having that constant with changing leadership around them they serve as an anchor and knowledge base for which their immediate supervisors can rely on.
You just have to be mindful that these CFL's aren't milking a plum job.


----------



## Kat Stevens

All excellent posts on here so far.  I just have to put in my .02 on something.  I was a Cpl for 19 of my 23 years, and saw my fair share of promotions, both deserved and completely baffling.  The assumtion that most of us lifer corporals are more than happy to remain so is erroneous, IMHO.  In my younger (read "less mature")  I made some mistakes, and therefore some enemies in the upper echelons of my beloved Corps.  There are a lot of long memories in a family as small as the Engineers, and subsequently I was unable to change anyones mind.  During my carreer I covered off on almost every job in the Sqn at one time or another, including SSM for 72 crazy hours pre Y2K.  So seeking and accepting were never the issue... and believe me, 23 years of pot walloping and 0200-0400 picquet gets awful old.  Starting to rant and ramble, I now return you to your eloquently written threads

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## eyre

I'll add my two cents to this thread.   We are in a situation now, at least in the PPCLI, where there is an acute shortage of junior leadership.   This situation has happened before (80s) and was dealt with through DAPS.   For the long-term health of the Regiment, we have to develop junior leaders if we want to have senior NCOs and WOs next decade.   

The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to identify those with aptitude and put them into positions where they can gain the necessary experience to develop into a leader.   Throughout much of the training in 3 PPCLI last year, many Ptes filled the role of section 2i/cs (a role alluded to be Spooks).   Many of them, with experience taken into account, performed quite well.   We have pretty much tapped out the willing and able Cpls for leadership training (there are a few individual exceptions â â€œ deployments, etc) and have now turned to our capable Ptes, some of who are now on PLQ in WATC.   

I'm of two minds regarding youth versus experience when it comes to junior leaders.   On one hand, the experienced Cpl who then becomes a MCpl (or not) later on brings a heck of a lot of knowledge, skill, and corporate memory to the table.   On the other hand, if we force our NCOs to go through all the 'stations of the cross' and spend excessive time at each rank level, we will have RSMs very close to compulsory retirement that will never be competitive for the very influential post-unit CWO positions (CFCWO, Army CWO, etc).   Trust me, we need individuals at this level who understand the combat arms and can shape the Army plan.   To that end, we need junior leadership from both streams â â€œ young with great aptitude and potential, and older with more experience.   Balance is the key.

For the Ptes who become MCpl, vital for development is mentorship.   They must be paired with a more experienced Sgt and the Pl WO must take them under his wing.   One of the problems we face currently as compared to the 80s is field time.   Our troops aren't getting enough and thus the tactical experience isn't quite there.   A mitigating factor is now our troops are much more likely to get an op tour earlier on than in the 80s.   This won't make up for all tactical field time, but will for leadership in challenging conditions.

Finally, Allan Luomala referred to RSM 3 PPCLI and the Mountain Man (he beat me too).   This RSM is a product of the DAPS system in the 80s.   He went from Pte to MCpl, to great effect.   The system works when the right people are picked.   I'm looking forward to the career manager's briefing next week on how this new, similar system is going to be implemented.


----------



## George Wallace

eyre said:
			
		

> I'm of two minds regarding youth versus experience when it comes to junior leaders.   On one hand, the experienced Cpl who then becomes a MCpl (or not) later on brings a heck of a lot of knowledge, skill, and corporate memory to the table.   On the other hand, if we force our NCOs to go through all the 'stations of the cross' and spend excessive time at each rank level, we will have RSMs very close to compulsory retirement that will never be competitive for the very influential post-unit CWO positions (CFCWO, Army CWO, etc).   Trust me, we need individuals at this level who understand the combat arms and can shape the Army plan.   To that end, we need junior leadership from both streams â â€œ young with great aptitude and potential, and older with more experience.   Balance is the key.



Herein lies a problem.   We can't be promoting from the bottom up.   In the Cbt Arms the trades should look like pyramids; Ptes at the bottom making the base with CWOs at the top.   If you don't spread out some of the time in rank requirements in our small Force, you will loose more than you gain.   Our Cpls will find other trades or careers to advance in.   A thirty year old CWO will tie up that position for years, unless he CFRs.   That ties up several MWO positions, which in turn ties up dozens of WO positions, tiing up even more Sgt positions, and so on and so on down the line.   All our experience will lie at the top and when the time comes that all our Senior NCOs retire at approximately the same time we will really be up the creek without that proverbial paddle. 

We need the experience at the bottom as well as at the top.   The haste to promote, to keep people in, is a false hope.   It doesn't solve the problem and may even compound it.   I have seen many MCpls get sent off on a 6A and come back to the Unit, only to Remuster or Release on promotion.   They had used it as a step in their CV for a better job.   

Last year, my Sqn had a serious problem.   All our "experience" was at the Top, MCpl and above.   We had no "experienced Cpls" to "ramrod the troops on the Floor" and set an example of what a good Crewman was.   Too many new Cpls and Ptes for the MCpls to give enough "guidance" and individual direction, where that experienced Cpl would fit in and help our as a "peer".   That Sqn is now in Afghanistan with a totally new upper echelon, but many of the same young undeveloped Troopers.

I do place a lot of emphasis on gaining experience.   I agree with all the points so far, and when blended they are very valid.   It must be mentioned that there are always exceptions to the rules.   Some CFLs are a good thing and play a vital role in molding their peers, while some are not and are oxygen thieves.   Some young soldiers are suitable for DAPs due to their maturity and previous experiences, but I would seriously say they are few and far between.

Young CWOs may be a good thing in some cases, but what "experience" do they really have, and how long are they going to tie up the chances of promotion by their subordinants is another question.   To generalize that the Cbt Arms is a "young man's job" is quite often true, but how many of us have seen that 40 or 50 year old soldier "blow the doors off" the 18 to 20 year olds?

I look at our Army and am proud of the knowledge, initiative, pride, and overall basic skills of our soldiers.   Our Privates have more of these than those in many of those of any other Army.   I look at the US Army, where it seems that the working rank is Sgt and shake my head.   I have Troopers who have more knowledge that them.   I question anyone who's ambitions are for Rank or Money in the CF.   I do not agree with "Promotion" as a solution for "Retention".   We should have a bit more pride in ourselves than that.

GW


----------



## c4th

pbi said:
			
		

> how do we deal fairly with all the guys who have made it to Cpl and stayed there because that is what they wanted to do, the system allowed and encouraged that for decades, and they are happy doing what they do? Is booting them out fair?



In the Infantry this may to some extent be a self correcting problem.  With the loss of pioneer pl and mortar pl there are notably less jobs that a cpl will find himself happy in.  Unfortunately the loss of those skilled jobs is not likely to retain the seasoned cpl's who rotate in and out the line companies every few years.  

I don't think booting CFL's out is a solution unless they have no apptitude in their current employment.  

In my Coy I wish I had a few CFL's. The junior pte's could use the mentoring.


----------



## ZipperHead

Boy, I've only been back to the forum for a couple of days, and I have to admit that I'm impressed: no name calling, balanced, thought out answers. What happened to all the know-it-alls from a couple of months back?? Must have moved on to their true calling: lying on another forum.

Some excellent points from CFL, eyre, kat, and c4th. 

I suppose I was hasty to say "boot 'em out" to people who don't want leadership positions, but to be honest, if you make it up a few rungs in the ladder, and don't want to play any more, they force your hand (ie. refuse career course, you pay the price.) So, if a young buck gets the PLQ after 3 years, makes it to jack or Sgt, realizes that he  isn't cracked up to be a leader, and they offer the next leadership course and he doesn't want it, what is to become of him??? Kick him, keep him, demote him, what??? I had a POISON crew commander in Recce Sqn in Petawawa before I got posted to Gagetown. I was his driver for 9 months, and he never bothered to learn my last name. He called me: Lamundy, Lagonda, Labamba, etc..... He was 3 ranks higher than he should have been (he was a Sgt). He got posted to Gagetown the same time I did, he as a Sgt, I as a no hook trooper. 13 years later, low and behold, we are both the same rank. So, in reality, he has held up 2 promotions forever: 1 to Sgt, and 1 to MCpl. I have a sneaky feeling he was a product of the DAPS era. I realize he is an extreme example, but an example, nonetheless.

I realize we live in a grey world, not the black and white one that the system would have us believe it is. Is it fair to boot guys out who are happy where they are, at their station in life? No it isn't, but is it fair for people who are unwilling to advance to criticize those that are? No, but it happens, all too frequently. 

With the policy of late to allow people to stay in to the age of 60 (I don't know all the in's and out's of this policy, and don't care to, as I will be long gone before that bridge is crossed for me), I can only imagine what this will do to our military. I know the idea is to retain "knowledge", especially in skilled trades, but at what expense??? I personally like the British system (if it still is in effect) where you are done at the age of 40, unless you are an RSM. Is it fair?? No, but when did fair really ever come to play in the military? Is it fair that there is multiple standards for dress and drill in the CF (ie Army vs Navy vs Air force drill, when there really is supposed to be one CF standard)? Is it fair that when the Army deploys somewhere, the soldiers are usually sleeping on the ground, be it the woods, a gymnasium, an armouries, a curling rink, and the boys in blue and the navy winge when they get less than 4 star accomodations? No, it's not. The first time in 16 years that I ever stayed in a hotel (other than R&R's and LTA overseas) was last year when I went to Cape Breton to run in a relay race. 

As I stated earlier, the most important time in a soldier's career is spent at the rank of Cpl. Not everyone can advance; it's just not feasible. But, to have people drag their heels when push comes to shove is unacceptable. I would have had many more tour opportunities and cushy job opportunities as a Cpl, but I accepted my fate, and have reached the lofty perch of Sgt. Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many swans, at the rank of Mcpl or Sgt, unless 2 months working with cadets in Whitehorse, or 3 months in Wainwright teaching SQ is a swan, or multiple courses at the Regt, WX, the Armd School are swans. Don't get me wrong, I like to teach, and I want to make a difference. It is hard work sometimes, and you don't make a lot of friends (especially the way I rub some people), but that's what it's about: teaching the young 'uns and hopefully one of them that ends up becoming a piece of the future leadership of the CF, and they aren't like some of the refuse that has streamed through over the last 25 years.

On a slightly different path, but something that ties into something that we've touched on more than a few times: experience. I was a student on the AIT (Advanced Instr Techniques) course when I first got to the School last year. Pretty interesting course, as it goes beyond the "hide behind a podium, and sound like an automaton droning out factoids". Anyway, the instructors were a Crewman MWO, and an Arty WO, so it wasn't as higgy-kissy as I first thought it would be. I suggested to them that they should separate the instructional techniques part of the PLQ, and let any (within reason) Cpl take the course, so that the CF could benefit from that vast pool of knowledge. I remember back a few years, and they made a MCpl, who wasn't qualified Leopard D&M teach a Leo D&M course, under the principle of "he's qualified to teach, so he will teach". I'm sure he muddled through it, but it wasn't fair to him, or to his students. I'm sure there were plenty of Cpl's that, even though they didn't know the lesson plan format, or how to make an overhead transparency (remember, this was before PowerPoint, grandson.......), could have "winged" it, and taught a lot of good info and experience to the students. 

I hate to hear when they say that Cpl isn't a leadership rank, because I probably learned a lot more from Cpl's in my day (including when I outranked them......) than I have from other ranks. One of the most abused ranks/qualifications in the military is the CLC/ISCC/JLC/PLQ qualified Cpl. One day you're shovelling shit, the next day you're supervising guys shovelling shit, and then the day after you're back to shovelling shit. You're good enough to do the job, but not good enough to get the rank, even if there are positions open. From my perspective, the Armour Corps has been good with this one (I can honestly say I have never heard of an "acting-lacking" MCpl in our trade), but I know that in other trades it can be much worse (ie the example I gave in another post of a JLC Cpl instructing on a PLQ where his boss (a A/MCpl was a student)). My wife and I get in arguments over the reasoning behind this (she says that CSS trades don't get as many positions as Cbt Arms trades. I tell her she's wrong. Then I don't get any loving for a while  :'(, but at least I know I right  8) ). The sad fact is that we are playing catch-up after too many years of ignoring the fact that massive numbers of the leadership pool would be getting out in the '05-06 timeframe. Boy, I would hope somebody gets fired over dropping that ball, but odds are they'll get promoted...... I can remember back a few years, when it seemed we would send 2 or 3 MCpl's  from our Regt for a 8 or 12 student 6A (two serials a year). Now we are running serials of 36 to 48 MCpl's twice a year, so that they can crew command a vehicle. I'm sure it's the same for the other Combat Arms. I know money was (and still is) an issue, but even back then, I thought it seemed a little silly to basically only train to need, without looking ahead beyond the next fiscal year.

The idea of mentoring or tutoring the young leadership is a good one, but I rarely, if ever, see that happening. I ended up being the Tp WO on an exercise (as a non 6A MCpl), and I got shit on more than a few times by the SSM for not knowing "my job". Rather than teach me what to do, he shit on me, as though that is an acceptable form of training his subordinates. That went into my mental notebook of what* NOT* to do when in that position (as if I'll ever be there)....... I see some "professional development" styles of training, whereby MCpl's give drill to their soldiers, or Sgt's have to do essay's and the like to prepare for ILQ, and that's all well and good, but it seems that once you get to a certain level, it is assumed that you can handle pretty much anything, and then WHEN you screw up, it's the end of the world, and you are done. There is a serious fear of failure in our military (how many battles (in training) have we ever lost????) and so consequently, people won't take chances. I can't wait until the CMTC gets in full swing, and we realize that the "awesome and spectacular" combat team attacks that we executed in the past, were nothing but folly. I've had so much sunshine blown up my ass at the debriefs after these things that I've learned to apply SPF30 to my ringpiece before the big group hugs......

Anyway, to get back on track, I think that a good balance of youth and experience can save our bacon, but I think that a major mistake would to pass over the soldier's whose best before date has expired (in the eyes of the powers that be, anyways). I've overhead a lot of younger soldiers grumbling that they will never get anywhere in the army, based on the past 10-15 years of slow career progression. I try to convince them that they need to realize these things come and go in cycles, and that their day very well could come, and don't be contaminated by the negativity that a lot of the disgruntled Cpl's (and MCpl's and Sgts, and ......) spout off about. I'm not exactly an optimist by nature (I prefer to think of myself as a realist, not a pessimist) but I can see that things will probably get better, especially when we have an Army CDS, over the short term, and hopefully, once some of the dinosaurs that are RTC finally realize that the Cold War is over, and that them new fangled computer thingies aren't going to go away any time soon, they can retire, and tell war stories at the A&W down in Oromocto (one of the circles of hell, in my opinion....), and let the rest of us move on, and try to right the wrongs of the last 25 years or so.

Anyway, this has been a very invigorating topic, and since nobody has come in to rain on our parade so far, maybe we can present some solutions that may actually work. Not that anybody would implement them, but at least we're thinking of solutions, rather than just bitching about it.

Have a good one, 

Al


----------



## Andyboy

Wow. This is possibly the best discussion I've seen on here. It is really nice to see so many Regs posting here now, for way too long all we got here was a Res perspective which often isn't particularly realistic. I'm a reservist by the way. We (in my experience in three different reserve units) have a similar situation but with a twist. WE have a lot of competent senior corporals who are willing and able to proceed up the career path yet are unable to because they cannot commit the time to take career courses due to their civilian work. This put units into a difficult position because we have to send _someone_ and more often than not the people available to go on career courses aren't the best candidates. So you end up with a pool of really good corporals being led by not so good NCOs which inevitably leads to the Cpls getting out and the NCOs progressing and leaving poorly trained troops in their wake who then go on to become poor ncos with the spiral continuing downwards. What to do? We've been trying to figure it out, we aren't getting much help from the Army with their never ending butchering of the career courses. 

No answers here, but one idea that was thrown around was for WSE promotions for some of the CPLs who were reluctant to take the course to give them a taste of the position. It got poo pooed though so I can't say if it would work.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Easy fix ... Do away with the M/Cpl rank, errr, "appointment", and make Cpl a working supervisory rank.  Add 2 more pay incentives for Cpl, the last 3 dependent upon successful completion of leadership trg.  This will give merit listing a fighting chance, as leadership qual pers are not listed in the same cat as unqualified soldiers with friends up higher.  Yes this will lead to more Cpls in the system, but the ones who seek and accept leadership trg will get a financial reward if nothing else.  It will also prevent young troops looking at Cpls as " just a Pte with a few cool courses", ie of no more authority than a Pte.  I heard it all the time when placed in a command pos and tried to jack up a pte.  "Who the f**k are you yelling at, you're just a Cpl".  The upper reaches did very little to back Cpls in this position, and the rot sets in.  Starting to rant again,  

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The problem there is that by looking you can't tell one qualified Cpl from the next but by having a Mcpl rank you know they have (normally) done the necessary training to lead.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Then make the leaf automatic on completion of JLC/CLC/ISCC/JNCO/WhateverIt'sCalledThisWeek training.

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## muskrat89

> This put units into a difficult position because we have to send someone and more often than not the people available to go on career courses aren't the best candidates. So you end up with a pool of really good corporals being led by not so good NCOs which inevitably leads to the Cpls getting out and the NCOs progressing and leaving poorly trained troops in their wake who then go on to become poor ncos with the spiral continuing downwards.



Andyboy - You have summed up my exact thoughts on the matter, which I have been expressing since Day One. That also explains why our Brothers and Sisters in the Regs often have such a distorted view of us - we are rarely able to send our best and brightest. Be it a callout, a Roto, or a Course - we could only send who was available - not who deserved it. Chances are that people are "available" for a reason.. (I know there are exceptions)

I stalled out at Sergeant - aspired to be BSM; the Unit and my BSM, TC, and BC wanted me to be the next BSM; and I was often an acting BSM - but alas - my civvie profession wouldn't allow me enough time to get onto my 6B... and therein lies the rub


----------



## PPCLI Guy

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> ...we are rarely able to send our best and brightest. Be it a callout, a Roto, or a Course - we could only send who was available - not who deserved it. Chances are that people are "available" for a reason.. (I know there are exceptions)



 Somewhat deliberately provocatively, I would opine that perhaps the definition of "the best" is in fact those that *are* available...and they are prepared by the those that are not available.  When I go to my toolbox, I want a tool that is in the box - not the absolute "best" tool - that may be at Home Depot or in a small workshop in Regina.

Dave


----------



## muskrat89

Sir - I agree with the point you are trying to make, but if I may expand on your own analogy....

I am a Millwright by trade, and, amongst other things - a Maintenance Supervisor at a factory. In my toolbox at work, I have a couple of thousands of dollars' worth of tools, and many are very specific for certain tasks. At home, I have old stuff, odds and ends, etc. in a "bare bones" tool pouch.

Now, I may be working on a project at home (usually my wife's van) that requires an 11mm socket, which I have. The problem is - the socket is more often needed at work, so that's where it is. Thus, for my home project, I make do with a pair of vise-grips.

Do they work? Barely....   Are they the best tool for the job? Nope.   Are they better than nothing? Of course.....



Regards


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The problem with DAPS,.....well here we go[sigh].

Looking back the DAPS is what probably slowly killed my interest in being in the military back then. I joined at 17 and at 21 was a Bombardier.  
A couple months after that,all the Gunners/Bombardiers were being given drill  practise by a "dapsed" who had at least a year less than I did. He was older than I but at that age all I could see was someone who did not have the TI that I did and decided that I was going to pull pole.
I wrote out my release letter and submitted it, but to my utter astonishment, on the very parade we were practising for, I got my Master's also.[coincedence?] I was , in fact, so shocked that I really was not paying attention to the name that was called out and the BSM had to nudge me,[monkhouse always right marker] and tell me to go.

Anyway, I really don't believe that, at that age, I was mentally ready for that rank and responsibility and it showed in some of my decisions that later affected my career which then I terminated after 10 years.  The moral of this whole story[finally] is that sometimes by "dapsing" a Pte. to M/Cpl, there are going to be misgivings among those, for whatever reasons, are at the Cpl. rank


----------



## PPCLI Guy

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Thus, for my home project, I make do with a pair of vise-grips.
> 
> Do they work? Barely....   Are they the best tool for the job? Nope.   Are they better than nothing? Of course.....



So to contiue the analogy, we should ensure that we a) always have vice grips - sometimes they are the best tool, and b) make sure that they are good vice grips, and not ones bought at the dollar store.

Dave
One of the Tools in Someone Else's Box


----------



## Kat Stevens

I have seen quite a few useless tools in my time......

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## NCRCrow

Does anybody remember RNTP,(Reserve NCO Trg Plan/Program) where a guy fresh off the street went to MCPL in 60 days. This was run in the late eighties at the RCR Battle school.

70 people showed up...........5 passed. 

3 of them are on the DIN email as of today, all senior ranks as officers (Maj Above x 2) or SNR NCO's....(1 x Wo above)(all reg) {2 x MIA}

maybe the best will raise if we challenge them.

No regrets!


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I have seen quite a few useless tools in my time......
> 
> CHIMO,   Kat



I knew that was coming...


----------



## muskrat89

> So to contiue the analogy, we should ensure that we a) always have vice grips - sometimes they are the best tool, and b) make sure that they are good vice grips, and not ones bought at the dollar store.



Well, we could settle for vice grips, or figure out a way to use the socket in both places... 

Cheers, Sir


----------



## Maclimius

I have to say, this is probably one of the most heated discussions I have seen in a while.

I definately have to agree on the tool terminology as this does seem to be the current mindset of the powers that be. If the tool isn't available, you can't do anything, but if you get whatever tool is available to do the job, the job will eventually get done. Although, the job may not end up getting done as well as one would like or to the same quality, it still gets done. That is something that is killing us. 

I happen to be a reservist, a "senior" corporal, if you can call it that. At just under six years in, by reg force standards, I would still be a junior corporal, but the reallity in the reserves is that at 2 years, if you have the courses, you're a corporal. Two years after that, if you have the courses, your a master corporal. Two to four years after that, you're a Sargeant. It doesn't leave much time to learn in a position, especially when your position changes from week to week. I look around me at all these new corporals that have just been promoted and I have to think, why? They get the courses and are promoted to corporal, what ever happened to the Trooper/Bombadier/Gunner/Sapper/Craftsman/Private (T) positions. I know I fell in to that category, although I had over two years in before I got my QL4 qualification. I never even saw my first hook. From zero to two. I'm going on PLQ courses with people that have been corporals that have been in the rank for a few weeks, if not months, that have no idea how to operate the basic soldier tools. Why should a soldier be thrust in to a leadership role when he doesn't even know how to properly operate the vehicle of his trade or maintain his personal weapon. When asked to detail strip an MG, I've seen some of these corporals give me the blank stare implying they have no idea what to do. How does that translate in to a leadership role? I see people that I staffed their basic courses eligible for promotion to master corporal that couldn't do an emergency repair on a vehicle even if their lives depended on it. Of course, this is the reserve armoured perspective, but I'm sure that there are people in other trades that are seeing much of the same things, especially in the reserves. 

It's a fact that if you can't get the time to take the courses, you're not going to get promoted. In the reserve world, who has the time to take those courses? The people that don't have other commitments. I'll be lucky if I end up finishing my PLQ this year, even though the powers that be are pushing me to take the courses. It all comes down to timing. This isn't as much of an issue in the reg force because you don't get the excuse that you can't go on a course because your Civie job conflicts. If legislation was put in place that people wouldn't be at risk to lose their jobs for taking a training course for the military, this might not be as much of an isssue. The fact remains that if you're available to take the courses, inevitably, you get promoted faster over others that would more likely do a better job.

Currently, my unit is in the midst of converting to recce. As it is right now, we have some of our few MCpls acting as Tp WOs or Tp Sgts and our Sgts acting as even higher. This leaves the Cpls in the positions that would normally be filled by MCpls. We're training to be Patrol commanders at the same time that we're training to become recce crewman. It just doesn't fit, but we don't have much of a choice because of the situation the unit is in. The whole acting/lacking system has worked better in the reserve world in the past because of exactly this reason. If you don't have the time to get away to take the courses, generallly you won't progress far past Cpl. I realize that they are trying to change this with the PLQ system of mods, but I do recall that in the early 90s they tried a home study JLC course similar to this that failed miserably and ended up with people in leadership roles that definately should not be in them.

When it comes to the Commisioning from the ranks, I'm all for it, if the person fits the bill. However, I've seen it time and time again where NCMs that would make great officers were denied due to the fact that they were needed in SNCO positions. It takes a minimum of 6 years to become a Sgt, depending on whether you get advance promoted or not, whereas anybody can come off the street applying to be an officer, and become a Lt within years depending on course availability. They simply don't want NCMs or NCOs commisioning in the reserves because it would take too long to replace them. I know it still happens occasionally, but it seems fewer and farther between. I know that the marines down south have a great system wheras you have to achieve the rank of Sgt before you even get a chance to become an officer. Imagine that, an officer that actually knows how to operate and maintain the equipment that he is leading others with. Too radical though, don't you think? This in no way implies that there are not officers that are quite competent in their roles, but the old system where if you have education, you can be an officer, just doesn't work anymore. I know plenty of NCMs and NCOs that have masters degrees or even doctorates that have no aspirations of becoming an officer because of the politics involved, but they can't continue in their current roles due to work conflicts. 

I should probably stop ranting and raving before I say something that would offend someone though.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I'd just like to know when exactly did Red Green become CDS?  "Any tool can be the right tool" is as good a description of the current system as anything else, I suppose...

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## ZipperHead

Maclimius, I would say that this is one of the LEAST heated discussions I have seen on this board. So far, everybody has been civil, and discussed things sensibly.  A lot of perspective has entered the discussion, from guys stuck in the Cpl rank forever, guys who saw the rocketing up the ranks back in the "bad old" days, and young reservists, such as yourself, who are able to understand the whys and wherefores, and bring that take on things.

I was doing some more thinking on this issue today (uh oh!!!!!......) and I think, no matter how much we discuss it, it will happen regardless (just like every other issue in the CF). So, now we have to deal with it and live with it. I think "Attitude and Approach" will be my catchphrase for this. Attitude, because everybody involved will have to modify their attitude about it (ie. they want it to go away, they want it to be like it has been for the last 10 years, etc) and Approach, because we have to find a way for all sides to approach the problems that may arise (lack of experience, maturity issues, assisting the young leaders, etc).

One of the problems that I have seen crop up in the past are personality conflicts more than anything else. Pretty much anybody can pass (almost) any course in the CF (remember the good old "multiple guess" questions, the "review" before the written test that looked remarkably similar to the test, that attitude that there are no bad students, only bad teachers, etc,etc). If one has the drive and determination, pretty much any course is "do-able". Having said that, just because you've past a course, doesn't mean that you've mastered all that there is to know, and leadership courses are no exception. If a person feels that they know everything about everything, they are pretty soon going to run afoul of, well, everybody (young officers, I'm  talking in your general direction......). One of the instances of this that I (and I'm sure anybody else that has been around the block) is the new Troop Leader/Platoon Commander/etc, coming in, wanting to change everything because it's not how they want to do things, based on their vast experience, natch. Usually (hopefully) the Tp WO or Pl 2i/c set the young 'un on the straight and narrow. Not really any different for a young MCpl. Hopefully people (read: Cpl's who have been passed over, refuse trg, whatever) can help out the newly promoted Jack, by giving advice or assistance, where required. Of course, this requires a certain amount of diplomacy and tact, and the willingness of the MCpl to listen. The reason I say Cpl and not a higher rank, is that the Cpl is going to be around the MCpl a lot more than a Sgt or WO, and odds are that those people have bigger fish to fry (Happy Hour...  :blotto . Seriously, the Cpl will be able to assist just as well, or better, especially on technical matters (change a tire, remove track and bolt, etc). Hopefully the Sr NCO's will assist on other issues, such as admin, discipline, and the like, and give that assistance out of the view of the troops on the ground. 

A lot of the more base human emotions get in the way of this type of thinking: jealousy, resentment, feelings of superiority......, but we have to put those aside if we want to carry on with the mission at hand. Teaching at the Armour School has given me a new perspective on some issues that I (and others) have mentioned. I have seen (in the past, and not too distant past) an attitude of some instructors that we (as instructors) are superior to the students (be they Tpr's, Cpl's, MCpl's, officers) because we are instructors. Great logic. I wouldn't want to disappoint anybody with the truth behind why some people are in the positions that they are, but suffice it to say, the right man isn't always doing the right job........ I have run into extremely smart Pte's and Cpl's, who are superior to their superiors (I had a young Tpr who had 3 years of a 4 year degree completed, but had to pack it in due to financial issues), and I have also run into people with a commision, that I would have liked to send to the UMS, to see if they could find a pulse and/or brainwave pattern. The biggest thing that has to happen, regardless of intelligence, experience or previous experience, is teaching and learning have to occur. And it can be a two way street. I am relatively new to the Coyote Recce way, having been on tracks for the better part of my career. I have had MCpl's on the (new) 6A show me many new (new to me) ways to do my business. If I was a stun-ass, I would dismiss this knowledge, but I would like to think I'm better than that. Of course, I steal their ideas, and pass them off as my own (j/k). 

Just because somebody has a limited time in the military doesn't mean that they can't learn and accomplish a lot. I know that I am basically arguing against some of my previous arguments, but ain't that life....... I think that most people wouldn't pass up an opportunity to go up the food chain faster than their peers, or those that came before them, but it does happen. One of my buddies passed up the chance to go on his CLC when he had 18 months in, as he felt he wasn't ready for it, and that somebody else with more time in should get the opportunity. He lived with that decision for a long time, and he made out OK.  I think that if a guy with the time-in and experience (read as: a Cpl) won't help somebody who zorches past him (ie Pte to MCpl), he/she should think about a change in careers, as they are part of the problem, not the solution. I know that I'm a fine one to talk, as I have resented many that have surpassed me, but that's part of life: accepting things that you can't change. 

Anyway, history repeats itself, and much like bellbottoms and big collars, the 20 year old MCpl is going to be making a comeback, and all that we can do is try to help these guys (and gals) make the most of what is given to them, and hopefully they will turn out OK. Because, Lord knows, the only thing worse than a shitty 20 year old MCpl is a 38 year old Cpl, who refused leadership trg, bitching about the 20 year old, and not offering to help......

Al


----------



## Maclimius

Maybe my choice of words with heated were a little off. I think what I was trying to come off with was more informative and insightfull. Bad on my part. Thanks for the extra insight from your end Al, it at least gives the hope that those that are in certain positions, especially in the reserves due to outside conflicts, still realize that even though someone shoots ahead of them in the ranks due to whatever reason, if they are still willing to learn from those below them that have the experience, they will do just fine.

I can't say much when it comes to the idea of a 20 year old MCpl. In fact, given that if I had received the courses then, I probably would have been 21 at promotion to MCpl. I knew that I wasn't ready at the time, and I still don't know if I'm ready. However, given the current situation, I don't feel as though I have much of a choice. If you don't have a valid reason for taking a course or a promotion, you tend to get blacklisted for quite some time. There goes your career progression for a while. This seems to be especially noticable in the reserves due to the small sizes of the units and the innevitable clashes between personalities. If you have the time off from work while a course is running, you are pretty much expected to be there. If not, good luck getting it the next year. Maybe the year after, but it doesn't look good. Yet they still send the people that couldn't tie their bootlaces unless they had someone jacking them up the whole time. How does this help when they are put in a leadership role where they have to jack someone else up for tying their bootlaces? 

Now, as for stealing ideas, it has been my experience that without the senior Cpls and MCpls that know their jobs, nothing tends to get done. When a Sgt or WO that is normally in an administrative role has to fill in due to lack of availability, things don't tend to work as well as they should. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they're clueless, I'm just saying that when put in to a position that you haven't done in quite a long time (for some of these people, 10 - 15 years), of course you're not going to do well, and the impression that the new soldiers get is that the Sgt or WO or whatever is an idiot. This may sometimes be true, but for the most part it isn't.


----------



## ZipperHead

Maclimius, you may have hit the nail on the head (IMO) for why some people get places in the Reserves: it's whomever that is available for courses that gets them, not neccesarily who SHOULD get them. That also applies within the Regs. It's kind of hard to go on a course if you are overseas, so more than a few times the people who are fit and deployable lose out, while those that aren't sometimes get something they may not deserve. In my experience dealing with the Reserves (for tours, and whatnot) the people who are available are the ones who can put their lives on hold for 9 months or more. We had about 30 Reservists attached to my Sqn in '96 to train for Bosnia. Some of them gave up a year of schooling, or better employment opportunities, to go on tour. Long story short, they canned the majority of those positions, and we ended up taking about 5. I can imagine that those who were cut were pretty torqued, and didn't put themselves in that position again. And rightfully so.......

You are correct on Cpls and MCpl's being the one's who get the work done. There is sometimes the feeling "up top" that once you get to a certain level, you don't have to do any more training or learning, as it has all been learned. This is wrong, especially now (in the Armour Corps, anyway) as we have done a huge shift from Leopard to Coyote. It used to be you could go for years, and nothing has changed with regards to how things were done. Now, with the new technology, things change very frequently, and the "skill fade" is very rapid, so if you don't get a lot of hands on, you are pretty much screwed. As well, a lot of the dinosaurs are afraid of the new equipment, and quite frankly, don't want to learn. They want to cling to the knowledge they have of the Leopard, Cougar, Lynx, whatever, and not move on. Those types may as work at the museum, because that's the only place they're going to see those pieces of kit. I'm sure that if the Commandant and RSM of the Armour School can take the time to learn about the Coyote, anyone can.

As well, I have heard, more than a few times, that there is no requirement to learn about the ancillary equipment on a Coyote, as that is why we have a driver, a gunner, and a surveillance operator. Suuuuuuuure...... That pretty much plays into the looking clueless thing that was mentioned. I'm sure the same thing is playing out everywhere across the CF, wherever new equipment comes online, and people in "leadership" positions feel that they don't have to learn about the next new thing, as there is always a "somebody" who will know that job, so they don't have to. Forced retirement should be the solution to that........

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to rain on our little parade, with half-baked ideas, a lack of the concepts of basic grammar and English skills, and the .50 cal finger ready to play poke-chest with anybody with doesn't agree with something they say....... It's gotta happen sooner or later.....

Al


----------



## Kat Stevens

Hey, Al... just a brief sidetrip... doubt you remember, but I was the only guy driving a leopard in Camp Maple Leaf in '97 with 2VP.  Say hi to your misses, she was only with us a short time, but was one of the better Med A's we ever had in the Regt....

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Andyboy

Allan you said:"Having said that, just because you've past a course, doesn't mean that you've mastered all that there is to know, and leadership courses are no exception."

Agreed wholeheartedly and I think most honest people would agree, why isn't it codified then? I mean in industry it is generally required that you undergo some sort of probationary period when you are taken on or promoted, why not in the army? I mean shouldn't there be an OJT portion to leadership trg? AS an example I would make it mandatory that once you have a given course you would then have to jump through a series of hoops (exercises in command posns, teaching a certain number of periods of instruction, etc) before you can be considered for promotion. I remember guys getting their leaf directly after our ISCC grad parade. Awfully presumptuous I thought, espescially considering the percentage of people that passed, I had been in the army for a year and placed in the top ten making me either a super soldier or the course a joke. I think a probationary period could serve a dual purpose, assess/test the individual, and provide some sort of feedback to the school for the product they produce so they could adapt/improve their methods. In fact I don't see any reaon why units don't do this on their own other than maybe the standards crew getting their panties in a knot about it.

Just a thought.


----------



## George Wallace

Andyboy

Everyday on the job, you are on probation.  It is recognition of your job performance that is written up in your PDR and then the sum of your PDRs are compiled to make your Annual PER.  Hopefully everything that you have mentioned, has been taken into account and used to justify your selection for a course.  Your standing on courses and job performance will be used in recommendations for Leadership Courses.  Again you are being evaluated and under the microscope.  On graduation from a Leadership Course, you should have what is required to be promoted.  However, don't think that there are no checks and balances.  You can be demoted as well as promoted.  It is rare, but does happen.  You are constantly being evaluated in your job.

GW


----------



## pbi

Here is an additional wrinkle to this very interesting and important debate. If we accept that the leadership at battalion level and below in the Canadian Army in WWII was generally good to excellent, then how do we balance that against the fact that most of the tactical leaders were considerably younger than we are today? Was it training that made the difference? Then why couldn't training make the difference today? Don't forget that most of the troops who went into Sicily in 43 or NWE in 44 had only about three-four years in, or less. Was it the the intensity of the training that made the difference?

Or, was it combat experience that made the difference? If we follow that line of argument, we should ask ourselves how much combat experience that majority of Canadian tactical leaders had in Sicily in 1943 or at D-Day in 1944? If I am not mistaken, the majority of Canadian soldiers (less Dieppe vets and CANLOAN officers) had been in training since 1939 (or whenever they enlisted after that...) and not in actual combat.

My question is this: are we in danger of arguing from "what is" (a very experienced Army that is actually aging out considerably beyond its Allies...) to "what should be"; ie: that because we look this way, this is the right way to look? Isn't it actually possible for an Army with younger tactical leaders than we have today, to do well?

Just a question.

Cheers


----------



## Andyboy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Andyboy
> 
> Everyday on the job, you are on probation.   It is recognition of your job performance that is written up in your PDR and then the sum of your PDRs are compiled to make your Annual PER.   Hopefully everything that you have mentioned, has been taken into account and used to justify your selection for a course.   Your standing on courses and job performance will be used in recommendations for Leadership Courses.   Again you are being evaluated and under the microscope.   On graduation from a Leadership Course, you should have what is required to be promoted.   However, don't think that there are no checks and balances.   You can be demoted as well as promoted.   It is rare, but does happen.   You are constantly being evaluated in your job.
> 
> GW




George,

That may be how it is supposed to work, and I'm sure that in some cases may work that way. However while I can't speak for the regs in my experience in the reserves it just doesn't happen, for a variety of reasons. 

I think that in order to be promoted there should be a series of practical "tests" that have to be completed before being eligable for promotion. Last I heard it was required for a member to spend a certain amount of time in the field that training year to be eligable for promotion, however there was no stipulation as to what capacity or the member had to serve in. Other than that I don't know of any checks or balances, could you explain what you mean? 


PBI,

I don't neccessarily know that what you say is true, althought I have only read one book that contrdicts you, but assuming it is true I would say it is field time that makes the difference. I don't know of any other way to really test/develop as a soldier tha is as effective in a similar time period. I think you are absolutely correct that training can make the difference however I ask whether we have become so constraiend by budget, safety, operations, etc that training (in my experience at any rate) has become more of a drain than anything.

By the way the book I read that questions the competancy of Canadian leadership at the tactical level was "Because We Are Canadians". Maybe he was just bitter, I don't know. It is worth a read though.


----------



## George Wallace

Andyboy

You are being constantly evaluated, and you are constantly evaluating, in every aspect of your daily life.  You have subordinates that you work with and know how they work; what their work ethics are, what knowledge they have, what kind of task you can assign them and how you expect they will fulfill that task.  In your mind you know who they are.  Your superiors are doing the same.  If a person proves themselves to be worthy of advancement, you select them to attend the proper courses to do so.  

When you first meet a person you evaluate them immediately when you get your "First Impression" of them.  It is the way we are.  

If you or anyone you know throws all the information that is garnered by these personal evaluations out the window and promote those not deserving, well that is your problem, not the system.  It is the managers/supervisors job to identify and promote on merit.  Formal tests are not necessarily needed if you know your people.  As a Supervisor, you should know when your people reach the point that they should be send on courses to advance further in their professions.

GW


----------



## ZipperHead

I tend to agree more with Andyboy than George on this one. While in principle George is right, reality has a sneaky way of creeping into the equation and negating any value of the PDR/PER/assesment system. Personally, I think the whole thing is a joke (remember the PER points cap thing (only so many pers per unit could have Outstanding)..... boy that made sense). There needs to be a way of assessing and monitoring people's performance, but it has come down to being an assesment of the persons performance the week you write the PDR/PER (ie. "Don't piss me off this week troops, I'm writing PER's....."). I went many months without any PDR's (iffy supervisors) to having 3 in a 3 month period (much better supervisors). One thing I would like somebody to learn me is the whole "Ethics and Values" portion of the CFPAS system. If I cheat on my wife is that a bad thing? If I do 55km/h in a 50 zone, am I at risk of demotion? If I'm in favour for gay marriage, and my boss isn't, can he say that my ethics and/or values are wrong?

I think the probationary period would be a good thing, as it would give people a chance to feel out their job, and for the powers that be to determine if promoting Cpl Bloggins (or Lt Snrub) would be such a great idea. IF demotions were actually used for incompetency, rather than judicial transgressions, I would be more inclined to say let them promote a person once they pass their course, but I can honestly say that I have never heard of anybody demoted for poor job performance. Fired from a position, yes, but not demoted. Usually they get promoted soon after, don't they  >

Anyway, in a perfect world, only the cream would rise to the top, but every unit has a fair-haired boy who can do no wrong, and invariably gets promoted over more deserving people, proving that it truly isn't a just world.

Al


----------



## Kat Stevens

All good arguments in here so far, very level headed for a change.  The inherent problem with any evaluation system in the army is an unavoidable one:  My fate rests ultimately in the hands of one man, my immediate supervisor.  If he doesn't like ANYTHING at all about me, from haircuts to opinions, he may not write a fair evaluation.  He also will may put his best effort forth at Tp/Sqn/Regt merit boards.

And, yes, the cream rise.  Quite often, unfortunately, crap floats too...

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## strat0

As someone who was DAPsed, I understand the fears that some have, however when I was in that position there was 1 year probation before being made substantive. This alleviated the problem of pers who didn't make the grade based on PER. If the superiors are honest and continue to develop these individuals there shouldn't be a problem with promoting from Pte to MCpl. I was 23 when this happened with six years prior experience in the reserves (prior rank MCpl, qualified Sgt) (Yes I went to Cornwallis, did TQ3, Track Driver Recce and CLC). If pers are identified as having leadership skills/traits then I see no problem instituting this system once again. Sounds like sour grapes to me if your being passed over, there was back in 86 as well but they got over it.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I'm quite confident this will get shouted down, but here goes.  How disastrous would it be if supervisors were actually evaluated by their subordinates once a year?  Not ranking potential, linguistics and all that rot, sort of like a report card based on the princials of leadership.  It stands to reason that if the troop-loops find a MCpl or Sgt to be an effective leader, at the WO or SSM/RSM level, he is more likely to be respected and admired by his troops.  There would obviously need to be some monitoring, as currying favour from the boys may occur to get ranked higher, but hey, guys suck up all the time, what's wrong with a little sucking down, as it were?

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Kat Stevens

strat0 said:
			
		

> As someone who was DAPsed, I understand the fears that some have, however when I was in that position there was 1 year probation before being made substantive. This alleviated the problem of pers who didn't make the grade based on PER. If the superiors are honest and continue to develop these individuals there shouldn't be a problem with promoting from Pte to MCpl. I was 23 when this happened with six years prior experience in the reserves (prior rank MCpl, qualified Sgt) (Yes I went to Cornwallis, did TQ3, Track Driver Recce and CLC). If pers are identified as having leadership skills/traits then I see no problem instituting this system once again. Sounds like sour grapes to me if your being passed over, there was back in 86 as well but they got over it.



Is it sour grapes to feel that a 3 year MCpl or a 4 year Sgt don't have the experience or maturity to lead older and, in some cases, wiser, troops?  If so, put me down for a bushell of them.  I clearly remember being 32 years old with 3 kids, and my new TC calling me "son".  I believe he was 22.....


CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## ZipperHead

For what it's worth Kat, I kind of like your idea about assessing your superiors. I could see the bedlam that would ensue, but it would be somewhat interesting. When I was on my CLC, the DS had us do a "character assessment" (or character assassination as they referred to it after the fact....) on our peers at the end of the course: who did we feel should be the top dog, rather than who got the best book marks and managed to shine in front of the DS. From talking to my coursemates, it worked out to be pretty close to the "official" course rankings, but of course, there were people at both ends of the spectrum who looked good or bad on paper and in the DS' eyes, but it was the opposite in their peers view.

I don't think that it's a leaders job to be buddies with his subordinates, but neither do you have to be a Nazi to your troops. I think the classic "Fair, firm and friendly" works pretty good. 

To give an example of where I think this wouldn't work is where peoples expectations and goals are different from their leaders. At the Armour School, there have been a lot of changes, which in my mind, have been for the better. There are many people who are not on the same "net" as the Commandant and RSM, and don't like them, or their policies. Without wanting to pull a Waylon Smithers here, I think that what is going on at the School is good: better learning environment for students, letting instructors instruct and use their discretion on whether a student has "got it" rather than relying on scores and checklists, and putting PT back on the menu (rather than the requisite cup of gravy as a beverage) for the Corps. The old ways were for checklist commando's who assessed rather than taught, and you didn't need a whole lot of get up and go to get anywhere. So, I think if someone were to grade the present leadership up top at the School from below, it wouldn't look too rosy, because there are too many people still comfortable with the old ways, and are RTC and resent those that want ot shake them out of their complacent ways......

I would like to think that the people that don't like me, or my style of leadership, are the people I don't want working for me, nor would I want to go to battle with them. I rub a lot of people the wrong way, but life isn't a popularity contest (that's the job for politicians......). 

Al


----------



## Andyboy

George,

I don't disagree with you on how things should work, unfortunatley the 10% rule is in full effect. You and I might do things that way but the other 90% of us don't. The other 90% don't seem to base the decision on anything other than "showed up, had hat" type of assessemnt system. There is a certain mentality out there that feels pressure (from somewhere) to promote people regardless of their competancy and yet never seem able to explain why they promoted them. "Well he had the course, why wouldnt' I?"

By making it mandatory for new leaders to undergo a bare minimum of a range of exercises, parades, administrative tasks etc (these are the tests), then you at least have a justification for promotion and you force the other 90% to think about the promotion AND you force the new leader to prove himself. What is wrong with that? I see it as assuming the worst is going to happen rather than the best. Plan for rain etc.

Besides, Allan said I was right and you were wrong so there. ;D


----------



## Infanteer

Very good thread, I moved it to the "Army" forum to give it the attention it deserves.

A few points after glossing over the posts:

1)   The mention of requiring soldiers to move up leadership positions or face the door sounds like the US Army "Up or Out" Policy.   From what I've read, this isn't the best policy in terms of morale and many of the discussions of reform seem to target this.   As well, the British system of mandatory retirement in a very rigid career structure was brought up.   Although I am not a fan of a rigid structure, the notion of mandatory retirement periods for different ranks could be worth exploring (ie: X for Pte/Cpl, Y for MCpl Sergeant, Z for WO and E for MWO/CWO).

2)   I see the idea of a "360" evaluation system has come up again.   I think this is a topic that can be discussed more deeply - such a system would have to be carefully designed to avoid being a farcical popularity contest; if designed well, I think there is potential in eliminating leaders who can put on a good show to their superiors but would probably get fragged out in the field.   Here is a paper by Major Darwin Gould that takes a look at proposing such a system:

http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc27/gould.doc

(This paper is from the collection of Staff College work found here: http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc27/index.html)


----------



## pbi

I see we are drifting back towards some of the human weaknesses inherent in our current evaluation system: IIRC we thrashed the PER system to death on another thread, but no worries: it seems to me that the system by which we evaluate and select those who will be leaders is at least as important as the leaders themselves.

I still detect a strong thread of skepticism about young NCOs, and I guess I go back to my wartime example. If a young Cpl/LCpl had the personal experience and maturity to do the job in '39-'45, why couldn't that be the case now? If he joins at 18 (and alot of our people join later than that...), he's 21 at the end of his first BE. An adult in all provinces in Canada, and old enough to walk the streets with a gun and a badge in any civil police force. (Not directly transferable experience, I know, but a counterpoint to the assertion that a 21 year old is automatically an "immature kid".)

 By this time the soldier has spent three years learning his trade, watching leaders lead, and if circumstances permit, getting a chance to learn to lead "one up" in an emergency. Now, we send him on a course to prepare him to be the second in command of a group of 8-10 soldiers, and then promote him based on merit. He is not yet a Sgt: he will have to wait the required amount of time and complete other trg such as SAIC, thus gaining more experience, more skills, and more maturity. Let's say that he now has six-seven years in. If you cannot master leading a section (with the sub-skill sets that represents such as instruction, section admin, etc) in that time then IMHO you should be back out on the street.

I am strengthened in my belief that, like the frog slowly boiling to death in the gradually heating skillet, we have come to accept our circumstances as "normal" and are, as I suggested, arguing from "what is" to "what should be". I suggest that our NCOs and WOs could be considerably younger than they are now and still be highly effective.   At the risk of appearing to insult our NCOs and WOs (I don't intend to...) I also suggest that much of the "TI" that an older NCO or WO has accumulated may consist of doing a number of mundane, routine garrison or admin tasks over and over, particularly in our current environment of constrained training budgets. I believe that with more intense and focused training, and a heavier emphasis on developing leaders all the time rather just in the formal schoolhouse setting, we could produce effective NCOs in less time.

Somewhere, there is a reasonable saw-off point that does not embrace either the 40 year old section commander nor the 19 year old MCpl: I just don't know where it is. Any ideas?

Cheers


----------



## PPCLI Guy

While I was a company commander with the Brits, I had 5 CSMs over a two and a half year period - perhaps the RSM was trying to mitigate the polluting influence of a bloody colonial  - and their average age was 32.  Most of them were competent and professional, and yet none of them could hold a candle to the CSMs that I had as a Coy Comd in 3 VP.  Was that a function of their age/experience, or of the overall military culture?  I don't know.  I do know that we have a very effective system that produces world class NCOs, and we should carefully consider any wholesale changes.

Having said that, I do not believe that DAPS revisited is in fact a wholesale change.  The vast majority of Sr NCOs would still come up through the "old system", and so we would have the benefit of both youth and experience - which sounds like a good balance to me.  Recall that until recently, we had different types of entry programs, including OCTP, ROTP, DEO, and CFR.  The systems all produced different types of officers in the beginning, but with experience and socialisation, it all balanced out - sadly we got rid of just about all but ROTP and CFR.

As long as we maintain a balance, I believe that there is significant merit in having multiple streams for advancement.

Dave


----------



## pbi

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> As long as we maintain a balance, I believe that there is significant merit in having multiple streams for advancement.
> 
> Dave



Yes: I think this is the key: balance, but with a capacity for adjustment to meet changing needs. Right now we need an injection of fresh young blood to reverse the "aging out" process.  I would suggest, however, that we do not turn DAPS "on and off" (thus creating those notorious "bubbles" in the pipeline a few years down...) but keep it always available to be used to advance those who clearly show the ability and suitabiity.

Dave: I know you commented before on this, but can you tell us what you thought about the results of the "20 and out" for soldiers in the British Army? (Vice our recent decision to let people stay to 60......) I have heard mixed opinions. Also, what is your assessment of the squaddie versus our soldier?

Cheers


----------



## PPCLI Guy

pbi said:
			
		

> Yes: I think this is the key: balance, but with a capacity for adjustment to meet changing needs. Right now we need an injection of fresh young blood to reverse the "aging out" process.   I would suggest, however, that we do not turn DAPS "on and off" (thus creating those notorious "bubbles" in the pipeline a few years down...) but keep it always available to be used to advance those who clearly show the ability and suitabiity.



Agreed.  Given the lack of alternative employment in the Inf Bns (with the loss of sp pls) perhaps this would be a means of keeping the bright and promising in past the second BE?

Another way to look at this is to do a better job of recognizing the "experiential pillar".  I know that this was discussed in great detail during the trg systems review that Gen Hiller imposed as CLS, but IM not so HO, we didn't go as far as we could have.  If a soldier is doing the job of Sect 2ic in a Bn, on ex and ops, why do we have to send him on a sect 2ic crse?  Why not empower the chain of command to assess the soldiers ability, and grant the qualification?



> Dave: I know you commented before on this, but can you tell us what you thought about the results of the "20 and out" for soldiers in the British Army? (Vice our recent decision to let people stay to 60......) I have heard mixed opinions. Also, what is your assessment of the squaddie versus our soldier?



Acknowledging that the Brit system has probably changed since I was there (Dec 95 to Jul 98), I can only offer an opinion of what I saw at the time (bigbadjohn may be able to set me straight...):

Up and Out.  Cpls without their Sgts qual received a letter in year 7 saying "see ya" at 9 yrs.  Sgts without a qual to CSgt received a letter at year 13 saying see ya at 15.  AS OC Cbt Sp, I had to break the news to quite a few solid, dependable Cpls that they needed to look elsewhwere, and I didn't like it one bit.  I ( and the Army) lost some good soldiers to that system.  Having said that, the average age at all ranks was a lot lower than in our Army, so if one sees that as a good thing (and I don't necessarily) then it achieved the desired effect.  One would think that it would really hurt at the Sr NCO level, but out at 40 actually produces a good spin off.  The only way for a soldier to serve longer than 40 is to CFR - and the easiest way (if not the only way) to do that is as an RSM.  Those CFR RSMs (LEs as they were called) then stayed in the Regt.  In my Bn, the Families Officer, Tpt Officer, QM Tech (Sup O), QM Maint (Maint O), and OC HQ (OC Adm) were all ex RSMs.  This ensured that the experience stayed in the Regt, and provided a good balance to the Officer Corps - but must have made it difficult for the RSM to have the last 4 RSMs watching him in action...

So, in terms of our serve to 60 policy, what conclusions have I drawn?  I think that the up or out system has too many drawbacks.  Experience counts, particularly in an Army that doesn't go into harm's way as often as the Brits do.  The kicker is to enforce the Universality of Service clause on all ranks, in all trades, at all ages, to ensure that we don't end up with a seriously geriatric Army.  I also think that we need to do a better job of harnessing the talents and experience of our more senior NCOs.  Perhaps we need to expand the SCP?  Tie some posns to SCP pers?

Squaddie vs our troops:  That one is a little more straightforward.  As much as I loved the troops I had in my Coy (and they were a right bunch of thieves and shite disturbers, who *always* got the job done), I would chose a Cdn soldier every time.  Why?  Hard to put my finger on it.  Much of it no doubt has to do with culture and familiarity.  Our trg isn't that much different or better (although ours is generally longer and more thorough - we have the luxury of time - see above).  On a whole they are proably marginally fitter (the fitness standard is more straigth forward). But there is an intangible "but" there.  

Canadian soldiers have a tendency to be more adaptable.  The generalist approach that we take to training stands us in good stead.  Our soldiers are substantially better educated, and appear more aware of the greater world.  They are also treated *much * better than their squaddie counterparts (and rightly so) - the "quality of life" virus had not yet infected the Brits while I was there.

A bit of a rambling answer - and I am not sure that I added anything relevant to the discussion, or even answered your question...

DAve


----------



## pbi

Thanks Dave. That all makes sense to me.

Cheers


----------



## LCISTech227

I never really understood the reasoning behind the DAPS system.  There are some great posts abve that have clarified it for me, though.  But, I'm still left with the question...why?  A person does not need to be a Master Corporal to hold a Mcpl position all they need is their superiors authority to do the job.  For example 3 corporals are assigned to a task, and one is said to be in charge... that corporal has all the authority they require to do the job.  That being said, I see no point in punishing a fast-burner because they lack TI.  I would only ask that the person who is being shoved through the ranks have the credentials and ability to do the job.  I've seen it to many times, where the old boy club "thinks" they have a shining star, and all they got was crap.

Though it kind of sucks, I do believe that the TI requirements are a good thing, it gives the people time to develope in their current level, and then work on the next one.  Also, it give the upper level time to mentor them.  I disagree with the idea of just promoting someone to fill a spot regardless of their experience level, just because they are thought to be super-keen.

This is by no means a flame to the ppl who have gone through this system, in many ways I'm kind of in awe that you did it and did so well.  Before I was in the regs, I used to be a MCpl in the reserves and I know what it takes, and what the job entails... and to me it would kind of suck to have that thrown at me, when I was still trying to find my feet and get in the groove as to how evewrything worked in real life and not course life.

Anyways just my thoughts.


----------



## ex royal now flyer

As I stated before I am product of DAP.   I believe that it has served me well and I have served it well.   
I disagree with the idea of just promoting someone to fill a spot regardless of their experience level
Good point, and I would like to say that I totally disagree with the acting/lacking concept.   One is either qualified or one is not.   If they are competent then get them course loaded and promote them afterwards.

As for those who are promoted by DAP, they should not be critisized too harshly as it is not their fault.   They are simply products of the system.   When I was a private I never knew another private to turn down the opportunity to attend ISCC.   Some passed, some failed.   I have only ever known one newly promoted MCpl from Pte relinquish his appointment because he felt he was not ready or capable.   He was still ISCC qualified and promoted the following year after spending the year in Coy Tpt.   Wonder how much he learned there?


----------



## Andyboy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Another way to look at this is to do a better job of recognizing the "experiential pillar".   I know that this was discussed in great detail during the trg systems review that Gen Hiller imposed as CLS, but IM not so HO, we didn't go as far as we could have.   If a soldier is doing the job of Sect 2ic in a Bn, on ex and ops, why do we have to send him on a sect 2ic crse?   Why not empower the chain of command to assess the soldiers ability, and grant the qualification?



I think this might go a long way to solving a lot of problems that I've seen in the Militia world. Maybe to appease the standards gods it would be necessary to send the soldier in question on some sort of assessement administered by the local standards cell.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Andyboy said:
			
		

> I think this might go a long way to solving a lot of problems that I've seen in the Militia world. Maybe to appease the standards gods it would be necessary to send the soldier in question on some sort of assessement administered by the local standards cell.



Or we can trust the chain of command...naaah, that will never work!

DAve


----------



## enfield

Very interesting discussion. A couple things that have sprung to mind as I was reading this past pages...

Do we even need the MCpl rank? Why not make Cpl's 2i/c, and streamline the chain of command? The MCpl rank was an almost artifical creation, and radically altered the NCO chain. Sergeants were raised to the senior NCO mess, and the entire chain wa lengthened and required much more time in to climb. I guess a better way to put would be, do we need two levels of private? they're essentially doing the same job, but for diferent pay. 

Why not smooth out the chain, make Pte a rank with multiple pay grades, or even a "Senior" and "Junior" ranking, to recognize experience and time in, but make Cpl a MCpl-type position. 

Now, back on topic; there is, justifiably, a lot of concern over experience and job knowledge in rapidly-promoted NCO's. I can see the importance of experience, but I think Canada has taken it too far to sustain an effective combat arms NCO structure. While it gives us a huge amount of quality in our NCO core, it also leads to relatively old NCOs, discouragement in junior ranks regarding the time required to be promoted, and difficulties in filling necessary NCO positions. I believe that we have, to a degree, strangled ourselves and that many of the experience/time in requirements we have for NCO's produces many personnel who are likely too old for their position (in what other army are section commanders in their thirties?), an unintentional encouragement of "corporals-for-life", and a smothering of keen, motivated young troops trapped under an almost petrified promotional structure.

The Canadian army fought all of its major conflicts with a very young NCO cadre. The US military is famous for its extremely fast promotion and young NCO's. The British Army forces soldiers out at an age where Canada would have them just making Warrant. 
I fully believe that front-line soldiering is a young man's job - age and decades of experience should be valued and utilized, but not at the section level. In a worst-case scenario, in  combat it would not be unexpected for a platoon to lose a century of military experience in a single engagement, a waste of such knowledge.

I guess, in the end, I see our promotional structure as being the product of a peace time Army that could afford to take over a decade to make a Sgt, but, arguably, we are not a completely 'peacetime' army any more, and we have to compensate for this.


----------



## big bad john

Canada has Mcpl and Cpls.  In the UK we have Lcpl and Cpls.  Samething, different name.  The Cpl rank lets people feel that they are progressing, which they are.   It also gives them some "pull" when they mentor Ptes.


----------



## George Wallace

I know that the fact that our NCOs, Snr NCOs and officers were all younger in war may seem like a valid point, but is it?  We are a Peacetime Army, as earlier stated, and as such our soldiers are not committed to combat 24 and 7.  It therefore takes us longer to give them the knowledge and training they require to survive on the battlefield.  Not to do so means that we will loose the knowledge.  

Some of us were lucky to be trained by WW II and Korea Vets.  I am sure that they were only able to pass on a fraction of their knowledge and skills, or more likely, we were only able to absorb a fraction of what they knew.  We, in turn, instructed and passed on as much as we could to younger soldiers, but again, only a fraction of our knowledge is being passed on.  Eventually, without war, many lessons are being forgotten.


GW


----------



## Andyboy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or we can trust the chain of command...naaah, that will never work!
> 
> DAve



Why start now? :


----------



## X Royal

ex royal now flyer said:
			
		

> I have only ever known one newly promoted MCpl from Pte relinquish his appointment because he felt he was not ready or capable.   He was still ISCC qualified and promoted the following year after spending the year in Coy Tpt.   Wonder how much he learned there?



How about administration & logistics? This may have made him a more well rounded NCO when he was latter promoted. These may not be the first skills you think of in the infantry but they are very important especially at the senior NCO & Officer level.


----------



## ZipperHead

Military history isn't one of my strong points, but if I remember correctly, Canada's miltary was quite small in 1939. (I've just done some digging online. Source is www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com



> Over 600 000 men served in the Canadian army during World War I. About 60 000 were killed. The majority of these men came straight from civilian life, and had never put a uniform on before they joined up. This was the largest army so far in Canadian history, and it could have been the nucleus of a large peacetime army. But when the war was over, the government chose again to maintain only a small army of about 4000 regulars backed by part-time militiamen. It also bought very little equipment. When a major war started again in September 1939, neither the regulars nor volunteers were really prepared for battle.



So, it would stand to reason that those that were in uniform at the beginning of the war flew up the rank, thereby creating a lot of young leaders in a short period of time. To me it seems neccesity was the reason, rather than anything else. I'm sure (positive actually) that a lot of these "screamers" did very well, but I'm also positive that some of these guys, who would have remained at the bottom of the totem pole if WW II hadn't happened, probably got a lot of good young soldiers killed, due to lack of experience, ability, smarts, etc. 

Far from wanting to be an "Monday-morning quarterback", what happened, happened. Now, with the huge (well, not by US standards, but our biggest in 20 years) budget that we've received, and all of the new pers we are supposed to get in the next few years (I vaguely remember ~900 for the Armour Corps from a recent briefing... correct me if I'm wrong), we will see the requirement to push people up the chain again, not unlike in the mid '80's. It's deja vu all over again!!!! If we had looked further ahead (which I mentioned a bunch of posts back), we would have foreseen some of this happening, and looked at leadership training for more of the lower ranks, rather than the dribs and drabs that happened. This would have averted some of the crises that have occured, with many disheartened pers jumping ship, and kept people interested in getting ahead, or at least interested  :

I like what LCISTech said about the feeling that you have to promote someone to MCpl to fill a MCpl position. Why bother, if the person isn't qualified. A Cpl can easily do that job, and it can serve two roles: show the soldier (and the powers that be) that the soldier can do it, and avert the problem of pushing someone too far, too fast, and then not being able to reverse the mistake. Most of the times that they won't demote the person has more to do with people not wanting to admit that they were wrong to promote someone, and damn the consequences. I don't feel that they should keep someone in a position like that for too long (and there are regulations that prevent that) as a cost-cutting measure, or reason not to train someone to fill the position. I think that more often than not, most people in the CF are able to fill the next rank level handily (in fact, it's expected), at least temporarily, but that doesn't justify promoting somebody just because they "kept the bunk warm" for someone else, so to speak. 

Again, whether we like it or not, particularly in the Combat Arms, we are going to see a lot more promotions, a lot earlier in peoples careers, and with the work load that we have, the training time isn't going to increase any time soon (do more with less.........), so we are going to have to make do. Hopefully we can all get it sorted out, and realize that it will be a lot of work for all concerned, and not drag our heels, hoping it will return to the "good old days" (they are always referred to as the good old days, but what made them so great? I think it's human nature to assume that everything in the past was always better than it is now, like: polio, small pox, huge infant mortality rates, no internet porn, etc........ anyway, that's a whole other thread right there).

As for trusting the chain of command, remember that trust is a two way street. Remember that when blanket policies are put into place: no drinking in the field because some jerk-off did something stupid; having to work 8 to 4 everyday, regardless of time spent in the field or deployed; treating soldiers like children because some aren't able to accept responsibilities for their actions. The list goes on. When those are reversed, I will start having more trust in the chain of command.

Al


----------



## Maclimius

To add to this, as I stated earlier, with the current crises of lack of NCOs, it seems to me that the chain of command is more likely to pull someone off the street to be an officer than accept a CFR. Why deny someone that obviously wants to take a position of leadership the opportunity just because you want him to fill a position at a junior leadership level. To give a real example, a MCpl in my unit wanted to take his CFR. He was denied on the basis of, and I quote 





> We want you as a Sargeant. We know you're well qualified, but it's easier to train an officer off the street.


 It's because of decisions like these that people get disheartened and end up leaving the CF. From talking to this member, in his eyes, the only way he'll make an officer in our unit is to top out in the NCO levels as the RSM and then go to Captain. We all know how long that takes. By the time he makes it there, he'll be getting towards retirement so what's the point, other than the pay incentive :threat:.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Not everyone flies up in rank in wartime as rapidly as they are appointed to successively higher positions.  Turnover is more rapid in wartime due to both casualties and the increased demands - some people are simply found wanting under the pressure, whether in combat or behind it.  However, the jobs are also more focussed.  Much of the peacetime administrivia for which experience (time-in) is a necessary foundation simply is of little or no account in war.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> As for trusting the chain of command, remember that trust is a two way street. Remember that when blanket policies are put into place: no drinking in the field because some jerk-off did something stupid; having to work 8 to 4 everyday, regardless of time spent in the field or deployed; treating soldiers like children because some aren't able to accept responsibilities for their actions. The list goes on. When those are reversed, I will start having more trust in the chain of command.



Al,

You *are * the chain of command...

Dave


----------



## ZipperHead

Dave, I'm all too aware that I am in the chain of command. However, due to the "veto" power that the all-encompassing commision carries, a 2Lt with less time in the army than I have in pivot (a tanker term...) can nix any swell thought that I have. If push comes to shove, the 2Lt can veto an RSM (though I would love to see it.....). 

I don't like sweeping generalizations (like saying that the chain of command can be trusted to do the right thing....) but I don't think it was the rank and file soldiers who implemented some of the GRRREEEEEAAAAATTTT policies I brought up (among many other winners). It was "politicians in uniform" who are more concerned with getting somewhere, and that somewhere is usually away from the soldiers that they SHOULD be concerned about, and is closer to the "halls of power" where they can make things better for themselves (and their buddies, cronies, lapdogs, etc, etc).

I'm not pointing fingers or elbows at anyone here, but this is my perception of what the chain of command (and I'm not only saying it's people with the Queen's Commision, if you follow my drift......) has wrought on the CF. To say I'm bitter is only partially true. To say I'm disillusioned is probably closer to the mark. My own personal "Waterloo" (though I was only indirectly effected personally) was the Somalia Scandal. I don't think I need to say anymore..........

Al


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> My own personal "Waterloo" (though I was only indirectly effected personally) was the Somalia Scandal. I don't think I need to say anymore..........Al



Seen.


----------



## pipesnake

When I was in 2 RCR, 88 to 91, almost everyone that I knew going to ISCC was a private with less than 4 years in. I was offered after about a year and half in and didn't go as I had already decided to leave. Did this change at some point?

As it turns out I both regret that decision and am thankful for it at the same time. Life is good now but I miss the excitement.


----------



## Heathan

I have been curious for a while about the views that people have on the difference between todays infancy and the old school infantry. I find that there is no respect from the new towards the old and the old being bitter about it. I also see way to much micro-management within a Pl. I feel, and this may offend a few, that the old ways were better. I would like some feed back about this because this seems to me to be far more important than debating the difference between units.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Define "old infantry".  Cold War?  Pre Croatia?  Post Somalia?

Dave


----------



## pbi

PPCLI Guy beat me to the punch. What, by your lights, were the "old days"?

Cheers.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ahh the "old" days...when centurion was a rank not a tank...when we used to go to the armouries in a snowstorm up hill barefoot because we had to hand the combat boots at the end of parade night back to the crusty CQ...

tess


----------



## 48Highlander

Well you're deffinitely right about the too much micro-management bit.  Seems like everyoe above the rank of Sgt feels that the only way to justify their existence is to constantly harass and "correct" anyone they outrank.


----------



## the 48th regulator

come on 48th,

You know we have had the micro managing out of the wazoo since Jesus was issued his kilt.  Shirley has been around a long time and he was a big Manager de Le Micro!!  And he was not the first senior guy that did that either.

Those types have been around for a while.

tess


----------



## Britney Spears

> Well you're deffinitely right about the too much micro-management bit.  Seems like everyoe above the rank of Sgt feels that the only way to justify their existence is to constantly harass and "correct" anyone they outrank.



Is it one of THOSe parade nights for ya eh?  ;D


----------



## 48Highlander

Yeah I know tess, it just seems to have gotten worse over the last few years.  Or then again, maybe I'm just noticing it more than I did when I was a Cpl/Pte.


----------



## MdB

Not that I can give you any advice about this subject (I'm really not in right now...), but I'm currently reading a very, very interesting document titled In the Breach (edited by Lt.-Col. Bernd Horn) coming from the Directorate of Land Strategic Concepts (http://armyapp.dnd.ca/dlsc-dcsot/main.asp).

The points of view come as much from NCOs as from officers, give you insight on leadership. The document is meant to share these leadership experiences among the defence community.

I thought giving it because there's some papers from MWO, CWO, CSM, that talk about how it was before and how it is today in the infantry (or their respective unit) and where are weaknesses. One thing I remember (I'll go search and quote it later) is that an CSM said there was a great lack of physical fitness among subordinates and some were in fact "calling sick" when too hard PT or exercices were held. Which greatly surprised me, since the basics of infanteering is about PT first and foremost.

One other thing is that some paper was on lack of live-fire/WES training, about a couple of times a year and the confidence subordinates lack in their weapon (or weapon handling) resulting from this lack of training.

Cheers,


----------



## big bad john

The announcement below is a new US Army policy.

A shortage of sergeants in some specialties has prompted a new Army policy in which corporals and specialists could be automatically promoted without a board. Under the Army's semi-centralized promotion policy approved Feb. 23, all eligible specialists and corporals (with 48 months in service and a year in grade) will be placed on a promotion list. Then, if a military occupational specialty falls beneath 100-percent strength at the E-5 level, some Soldiers on the list will be automatically promoted. The new policy could potentially affect about 19,000 corporals and specialists currently in the active component, according to G1 personnel officials. Commanders will have the ability to remove a Soldier from the Sergeant Recommended List if a Soldier is not trained, or otherwise unqualified. There will be a 15-day window after the automatic promotion list is generated for commanders to remove names. Even under the new policy, most promotions to sergeant will still go to those who appear before a promotion board. To read a related article, click here.


----------



## pbi

I am usually one to resist the knee-jerk slagging of today's Army by "the old gang", and I know all too well that the supposed "good old days" were not absolutely "good". But, having said that, I have to confess that deep down inside I am getting worried about what our soldiers think is expected of them. Have we, through decades of   PSO, raised a generation of soldiers who think that going on ops means living in a nice Weatherhaven or an ISO container, eating three well-prepared meals a day, having internet and phone cards, and coming home after six months and not a day longer?

What would happen if we took soldiers out on an exercise for a week with only what they can carry in their ruck, cut the rations and water off periodically, and trained regardless of day/night, temperature or precipitation? What if we subjected them to training so physically and mentally demanding that some of them would begin to wonder if they really wanted to stay in? I am not talking about"SF" training: just good hard Inf work.

I am the very farthest thing from a commando or a snake eater: I never served a day in the CAR. In fact, in the words of one of our more illustrious posters here, I am an "old soft leg". But, all that aside, I really wonder what our younger troops today are capable of. Does our training demand enough of them? Can they boast about how tough it was? Could we hunt down and defeat a hard-living, hard-fighting guerilla-type enemy in rough terrain?

These are NOT rhetorical questions: they are not intended as veiled insults. What do you folks think?

Cheers.


----------



## big bad john

I have never understood why Canada does not run its own Commando courses.  Friends of mine here on assignment have broached the subject of offering RM help insetting one up.  They were politely and emphatically told NO!

When I was at BATUS, I offered to arrange some slots on the All Arms Course at CTCRM.  The unit I offered it to was delighted, Command unfortunately was horrified that they had even discussed it.

Another attitude I found distressing was a Colonel who told me that if Canadian Troops were fired on during Peacekeeping missions, they might have to return fire.  that upset him.  I then spoiled his day by informing him that UK Forces wouldn't just return fire, we would eliminate the threat permanently.  

Different strokes...


----------



## George Wallace

pbi

I am on the fence for that question.   I know some who would have no problems, and others that wouldn't last two hours.   It seems to be a crap shoot what you get today.   It also depends on the Unit or Sub-unit and their Esprit de Corps.

Gw


----------



## Infanteer

big bad john said:
			
		

> I have never understood why Canada does not run its own Commando courses.   Friends of mine here on assignment have broached the subject of offering RM help insetting one up.   They were politely and emphatically told NO!



I'm a big believer in the "Commando" approach to basic training - although I can't find it now, I've proposed that we move to a variation of an all-arms, combat oriented Basic Training program that transforms civilians into fighting soldiers (as opposed to our current system which is "teaches military skills at the lowest-common dedenominator


----------



## Heathan

WOW...I did not expect such a response. What i meant about old school is the difference between the SQ/BIQ and the "Old School" TQ3 "Battle school". I have read, as I am sure many have, the problems, short falls, or down-right problems there are with the SQ/BIQ training done for an infantry soldier. Why would a CPL, who would have never gone through the SQ/BIQ, have to be on an IPSWQ? Why wouldn't the previuos training and experience eliminate the need to put that person on a course desiged to bring up to speed today's new rifleman. When field training commences, ???, wouldn't it be nice to train instead of confirm that everyone knows how to orientate a map.


----------



## Britney Spears

> Why would a CPL, who would have never gone through the SQ/BIQ, have to be on an IPSWQ?



Well, if you're as old as you say you are, then all the weapons that you learned on the MG course (C2, C5, .50 Cal) have been taken out of service, so you're really not qualified to shoot ANYTHING (except 9mm maybe)........... ;D

Maybe they should put you though the recruit course again, since we now have different uniforms and you need to know how to dress yourself?



> What would happen if we took soldiers out on an exercise for a week with only what they can carry in their ruck, cut the rations and water off periodically, and trained regardless of day/night, temperature or precipitation? What if we subjected them to training so physically and mentally demanding that some of them would begin to wonder if they really wanted to stay in



Any young infanteer who deserves his hook should jump at the chance of excercises like this. If he/she doesn't then he/she didn't join for the right reasons (see my other comments on PT standards)

Come on boys and girls, its training, most people don't actually DIE during training, so if you're not having fun, just get a desk job and stay home.

Now back to the "marching barefoot through a blizzard to the messhall everyday like we use to do in the old army" thread.

I spoke to a crusty old WO once about the "old army". Guess what he said? "Meh, it was pretty much the same old, except the kit and pay wasn't as good"

I think later the RSM took him aside and had a word with him, because he never gave THAT response to any of the new troops again. Or maybe he was drunk......


----------



## MdB

Ok, here's my update. Concerning new days vs. old days, I was refering mostly to Chapter 5: A Regimental Sergeant-Major's perspective, by CWO Steve Anderson in In the Breach (http://armyapp.dnd.ca/dlsc-dcsot/main.asp), pp. 65-72. I will not comment here since I'm really on the receiving side than on the giving. I'll let you read this, it's worth it.

My other point was concerning weapon handling and marksmanship training. In Chapter 7: Have we lost the esprit de corps in the infantry battalion? (pp. 77-82), MWO Mark Baisley comments: 
"I believe the infantry standards of our soldiers have degraded over the past decade.   The two critical standards that all soldiers put a lot of faith in are their shooting skills and their physical fitness.   Shooting is the infantrymen's trademark.   But over the past decade, this skill has been neglected.   In the past, a rifle company would spend approximately three weeks at shooting camps firing both personal weapons and section weapons to the point where no soldier was content until he/she acquired a marksman score.   At that time, they were all capable and competent in making their own sight adjustments as well as being extremely proficient in their handling drills.   These are things that can be corrected with little difficulty provided that we are given the time and ammunition.

Today our ranges consist of just enough ammunition for a few warming shots, twenty rounds for grouping and zeroing and then only enough ammunition for the personal weapons test (PWT).   The result of this is a lower number of marksmen in the companyâ â€surprising considering that we are firing a very forgiving weapon.   Money is an issue, but for the soldiers it's very difficult for them to understand how this can be when they know that they require more time on the ranges to perfect the very skills that their lives may depend on.   This is evident when we conduct live fire exercises and the troops give a realistic assessment of their performance and request to re-do the event to improve their performance."

It's only an excerpt and, again, it's really worth it reading the entire chapter as it gives you the entire MWO Baisley's perspective.


----------



## Grunt_031

> Why would a CPL, who would have never gone through the SQ/BIQ, have to be on an IPSWQ?[



Rank has nothing to do with it, we had Mcpl's that were on the course because C6 SF is preq to DP2B and the Small Arms Coach portion is preq to DP3A. If you were a CPL with old MG, Small Arms Coach, Basic Mortarman, and PWT 2 9mm Pistol you would not have to do it over or otherwise you would have a reason to bitch. 

Some of the past IPSWQ we have run, if you had the old course code you would be attending and not assessed on that particular portion of the course. I used a number of these guys as demsortators. It is up to the unit to decide if you complete the entire course or portions of it. And just because you have these previous qualification doesn't mean jack. I had a few qualified MG guys that failed the TKT and then failed the C6 SF handling test. And that is with their MG course and doing the classes over again.


----------



## Grunt_031

The SQ/BIQ have failed to meet the demands of the Infantry. Although at first was a good concept, like most plans it did not survive first contact. The SQ was to meet the needs of the Army in giving the Army Support/Supporting arms with the basic field skills. Unfortunately it has drag down the standard of the infantry with it. 

SQ was section level tactics in all phases of war, all wpn up to platoon support in light role , basic TCCS, Basic Dvr wheel. 

BIQ was to use the building blocks of SQ, with the understanding that the troops had mastered section level ops, and build up to platoon level including the remaider of the platoon light wpns.

Some problems of the SQ/BIQ that I have experienced.

1. The SQ could be taught by ANY army pers of any MOC and long as they had JLC. This created a problem with school manning with all army pers now having to take SQ before proceeding on with their trades training. E.g. There was a Sgt Army Trucker that was JLC Qualified but never served in a field unit except the one he was tasked from, which he was posted to 2 weeks earlier. Cooks and Clerks. Not high standards for Section level. This is being alleviated somewhat by assigning all 031 only candidates to the same SQ/BIQ with all 031 instructors.

2. The SQ had Comms and Dvr Whl cut due to budjet and equipment restraints. probably the only good thing that had came with the course at the time.

3. The staff of training centres are not all/mostly infantry such as the old battle schools. Although there are alot of good non 031 instructors at the training centres, their bread and butter is not infantry.

4. BIQ the only hard assessed Pass/Fail is the PWT 3. Even then you can shoot 3 or 4 times, usually on weekends until you passed, this is up to the CO at the PRB.

5. Most of the subjects on the BIQ are scored/rated/assessed as familiarization or participated in. 

6. What was explained to me by the leadership of the TC, when a soldier leaves the TC, the troops are still Private (Basic) and not consider trained until year 3 or end of 1st BE. They are not considered suitable for deployment until they achieve trained status. It is up to the units to provide additional training.

7. The field exercise is 5 days with a minimum quota on the amount of sleep they must get. 

We still have gotten some good troops, but we have gotten alot of garbage that would have been weeded out under the "old system".


----------



## Heathan

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> The SQ/BIQ have failed to meet the demands of the Infantry.......... We still have gotten some good troops, but we have gotten alot of garbage that would have been weeded out under the "old system".



This is more along what I am feeling as a reference to "old school"


----------



## PPCLI Guy

pbi said:
			
		

> What would happen if we took soldiers out on an exercise for a week with only what they can carry in their ruck, cut the rations and water off periodically, and trained regardless of day/night, temperature or precipitation? What if we subjected them to training so physically and mentally demanding that some of them would begin to wonder if they really wanted to stay in? I am not talking about"SF" training: just good hard Inf work.



I know the answer - you would have 3 VP in 2000.

Dave
3VP 98-00


----------



## Baloo

I have to admit, that while the army probably has decreased it's reputation as a meat grinder, at least in the infantry, I have to disagree that it is "Pink, Fuzzy". At least from what I have seen. In my own experiences, my section / platoon instructors were always from my own unit (BMQ through to DP2A). This had several effects: it made the course staff drive us harder than troops they would probably never see again, and motivated us to always give 110% (yes, I know the physically impossible nature of this...), whether it be in the parade square, or in the field. Were there bags? Yes, and there always will be. But I found that, especially on the field ex's, and those with the unit, we were driven hard, and to excel. BIQ was full of patrolling, defensive manuevers, recce, and VERY little sleep. All infantry stuff. Yes, I will be the first to acknowledge that this might be shunned by some as "only the militia", but I have the opinion that it can be just as hard, if not harder at points for reserve training because there is a smaller time frame for training, so on ex's, classroom, and whatever, it is always go, go, go. I doubt that in the summer I ever got to bed earlier than 23:00. During Stalwart, our first operation was an assault on a fortifed enemy position. I distinctly remember the 30 hours were spent with 1 IMP, 1 canteen and a whole lotta marching. Am I complaining? Never. I loved it. This weelend, for DRU, my platoon pretty much shouldered the burden for every other group there (yes, I am looking at you 32 Brigade!), and it was cold, long and very tiring pursuing an enemy force up and down snow covered terrain. It was awesome, and certainly not "Fuzzy". I am sure that many an elder commented on the 'Fuzzy" nature of the army when corporal punishment was taken out of daily routine. 

Granted, I will always be the first to admit, that I am not Reg Force, and have limited experience (little over a year now). But I feel that I have the ability to thoughfully contribute, and I am calling it as I see it. You cannot deny that there will always be good and bad troops. However, the combat arms, trade training and the units can all contribute to making this experience more physically and mentally challenging. No matter how some of you may feel about it, the infantry will always be a select group, that regardless of what might be said, is of a mentally and physically exhausting standard. From what I can tell, it is not the CF as a whole, but the units and training centres that will provide the tough, straining experiences that make us all better soldiers. 

Well, that is my thought for the day.


----------



## Bartok5

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I know the answer - you would have 3 VP in 2000.



And I am happy to confirm that nothing changed when you left 3VP Dave.  If anything, we picked up the pace!   

PBI's hypothetical exercise certainly sounds very much like a typical 3 PPCLI training deployment.  Come to think of it, that exercise also sounds and awful lot like Op HARPOON - just add the mountains, heavier loads and a lack of oxygen to really max out the gut-check.....

I am sure that the "Third Herd" are just as lean and mean as ever under the current CO.  And I have no doubt that the officers, NCOs and soldiers of 3 RCR and 3 R22eR are cut from the same cloth.  Clearly, there are still places to pursue "old school" hard-core infantry soldiering within the Canadian Army.  

Mark
3VP 99-02


----------



## KevinB

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> If you were a CPL with old MG, Small Arms Coach, Basic Mortarman, and PWT 2 9mm Pistol you would not have to do it over or otherwise you would have a reason to bitch.



WE ALL had to do it - in the first PSQW 1VP ran about half where in my boat - just checking the box for the sake of checking a box - we already had the qual's - talk about good value for your dollar  :


----------



## pbi

Dave and Mark C:

OK-fair enough on the Light Battalions: recall that I was asking an honest question, not attempting to cast aspersions, so I am happy to hear that assesment from you guys (who are far more current than I...). I had kind of thought things would be good in the LIBs, and I did have Afghanistan (OEF) in mind.

But, what about the average bayonet in a mech battalion? I'd be interested to hear (particularly from WOs/NCOs) what people think about the soldiering qualities of the average troop today. Again, this is not a dirt-hunt: I am genuinely interested.

As for the Army Reserve, I agree wholheartedly that there is some excellent Inf training done in some Bdes and units: I have seen some of it, and I did some of it when I was a Res soldier myself. However (and please do not take this the wrong way...) my primary concern in asking this question is the status of our higher-readiness troops, who we can reasonably expect should be at a much higher level of training than our Res friends.

Comments from anybody serving in mech bns right now, or at one of the TCs?

Cheers


----------



## Baloo

pbi said:
			
		

> As for the Army Reserve, I agree wholheartedly that there is some excellent Inf training done in some Bdes and units: I have seen some of it, and I did some of it when I was a Res soldier myself. However (and please do not take this the wrong way...) my primary concern in asking this question is the status of our higher-readiness troops, who we can reasonably expect should be at a much higher level of training than our Res friends.



No problem. Just thought I'd add my $0.02. No disrespect taken.


----------



## Greywolf

How long does it take for a private to get the first hook?  I've heard 1 1/2 years and 2 years...


----------



## infamous_p

depends on if you are regular or reserve


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

I have taken my BMQ, SQ , DP1 and was on my DP2 until last week when I shattered my hand. I would have had my hook this spring, other Regiments had theirs on my DP1 grad. I've been in for a year


----------



## Greywolf

I'm in the Reg Force.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

longer than me  ;D


----------



## infamous_p

you should be close then... Greywolf... it takes about 2 years (im not in the regs.. so dont quote me.. but thats the information ive gathered)


----------



## PPCLI MCpl

In my unit, 2PPCLI, you require 30 months service and a QL4.


----------



## Acorn

What PPCLI MCpl said is the CF reg-force standard. 

Acorn


----------



## D-n-A

In the reserve(atleast in my unit an most others in 39CBG) to be a hooked Pte, you only need BMQ, SQ and QL3.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

MikeL said:
			
		

> In the reserve(atleast in my unit an most others in 39CBG) to be a hooked Pte, you only need BMQ, SQ and QL3.



Same in the Sigs world.


----------



## Greywolf

36 months to get the first hook?  But it only takes four years to get your corporal rank?


----------



## Acorn

That's the way it is. 

Acorn


----------



## George Wallace

Four years is the norm for Cpl.  It doesn't mean that it won't take longer.  Remember, you have to achieve the qualifications required for promotion; if you don't, then you are not promoted.


----------



## who980

Actually, the standard in the Reg Force for your first hook is 30 months (2.5 years) IAW CFAO 49-4 Annex A, Index 1

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/049-04_e.asp

Ryan


----------



## 48Highlander

Baloo said:
			
		

> Were there bags? Yes, and there always will be. But I found that, especially on the field ex's, and those with the unit, we were driven hard, and to excel. BIQ was full of patrolling, defensive manuevers, recce, and VERY little sleep. All infantry stuff.



I know that the training you went through must have been difficult for you, and that you're justifiably proud of having succesfuly accomplished it.  However, as a member with a year in the forces and only the 3 basic courses under your belt, you really have no basis for making a comparison to the way basic training courses have been run in the past.  Just to use a few examples, staff are now not allowed to "make" soldiers do more than 25 pushups at a time, candidates must receive at least 4 hours of sleep per night, and the 13k BFT has been scrapped.  When I went through the system, we were up to 60 pushups at one point, our field ex included a 72 hour period with no sleep at all, and after our 13k BFT we went for a 7k walk to the granade range.  There's absolutely no question that standards have slipped, and anyone who's been in for more than 4 or 5 years is well aware of it.  The only question is how this has affected or will affect the forces in the long run.


----------



## Baloo

Now, are those rules mandatory for teaching purposes, or suggestive? They must have been the latter, for nothing I experienced would lead me to believe that there was only a certain amount of pushups one could do, or that there was a sleeping policy (at least in the field, for sure). Maybe this is because my platoon and it's instructors didn't seem to care about these rules. Our warrant came out one night, took us out onto the parade square at around 21:00 and threatened us with going for a run for conduct. Word got to the higher ups and this was dismissed. So, I can definitely see where you are coming from, the more I think about it. And yes, I recall having a conversation with a section commander regarding the 13 km march, and a lot of disappointed (I won't lie, there were a lot of happy faces too) faces when it was determined to be cancelled. In some ways I guess it has changed, in others, it hasn't. But as noted, I only have a year under my belt, so will stop making assumptions based on my platoon world.


----------



## QORvanweert

Whoa, am I hearing this right? the 13km ruck march has been scrapped? I am still on my BMQ at Denison and no word of this has reached our ears. Frankly I would rather do it so that I can say that I did it, the time allotted for it will (knowing our luck) be used for push-ups and drill, two items I am sure everyone would prefer to change.


----------



## 48Highlander

Baloo, they ARE rules, however depending on your staff they may be looked at more as "guidelines".  Unfortiunately, doing that leaves the staff open to disciplinary action if one of the recruits decides to complain.  While I may be willing to stick my neck on the line to ensure that candidates are trained to a high standard, I shouldn't have to do it.  The training should be made rigorous enough that there's no temptation for staff to bend the rules.

QORvanweert, you may end up doing the 13k if your staff are keen on doing it and if they manage to find enoough extra time in the course schedule.  It is not however part of the courses, and even when it's done it can't be used as a test.


----------



## dutchie

Not to bring this too far off topic (I too am looking forward to response to pbi's question from a Reg), but ...what is the standard for the ruckmarch now?


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

Caesar said:
			
		

> Not to bring this too far off topic (I too am looking forward to response to pbi's question from a Reg), but ...what is the standard for the ruckmarch now?



I believe it's still 13 km in 2 hrs 26 minutes, or at least that's what it was on my basic in 2003.


----------



## ArmyRick

The BFT is still very much alive. Attention all, please get the facts straight before posting. It is not done on Reserve BMQ, SQ or DP 1 infantry because those courses are too short and other training has higher priority.
The BFT is not all that difficult anyways.
It does require that students complete 8 work up marches leading to the actual BFT. Hence the reason it is not performed on reserve courses. Actually you could do it but you would not be able to fail a student for not completing the BFT.

On RegF SQ, here at M-ford they complete the BFT at the end of week three.

However It is not the BFT that is making the infantry "less desirable" troops.

The SQ course is great for all trades except infantry.

The old QL3 Infantry was 16 weeks and worked up in a very progressive manner. The candidates spent more time on patrolling, section battle drills and other field craft. In this new course development, the troops do BMQ then SQ then DP1 Infantry.   The SQ is good for Log, EME, MP, etc because it gives them a basic intro to infantry section tactics but note I said BASIC INTRO.

The future infantry troop does not get enough field craft training to the desired standard prior to doing BIQ.


----------



## X Royal

who980 said:
			
		

> Actually, the standard in the Reg Force for your first hook is 30 months (2.5 years)
> Ryan



That is the same standard as in the late 70's early 80's. I had to be ordered to put my first hook up.


----------



## dutchie

Thanks, ArmyRick.

Now back to the topic at hand.......


----------



## ArmyRick

Oh yeah, I also agree, we should have a Kick #ss course that challenges people. Pathfinder and sniper are pretty good but that is for the best of the best.

I think we should have a Forces wide Reconnaissance Patrolman course (we run them at battalion level so the standard is usually good but changes from course to course). 

The new Recce Patrolman would be done at say Gagetown in both languages and they could make it like 50 day consectuctive course with emphasis on reconnaissance patrols, fighting patrols, escape and evasion, advanced field craft, airmobile and amphibious operations and in this new age, even some urban ops in a Recce role. They could slap a dose of sleep deprivation and hunger in it with a pinch of cold weather to make it challenging. and other unique ideas.

Also I would make it availible for any trade but emphasis being on Infantry and armour.

This would give the combat arms something to strive to acheive beside the pathfinder course and sniper course.

Cheerio....


----------



## pbi

I agree in principle with ArmyRick, although I'm not sure whether we need a separate course, or whether we should "harden" the courses we are running now.

Cheers


----------



## tyr

I'm not in yet but from what i see here I'm thinking that the level of discipline and fitness i expect from my cadets is almost as high as what the infantry requires to pass thier BIQ. So if I don't accell at it when i get to do it I'll be surprised. but I agree with PBI we need to harden the courses we currently have, in the case of the infantry at least. Because when I talked to CWO Warriner of the RMRang he was telling me that my cadets were performing at almost the same level some of the new recruits he's seen are. To me this is extremely sad as my standards are fairly lax compared to the standard expected of me when i joined cadets so I'm hoping that all of you Infantrymen are exagerating and that things aren't as bad as this thread makes them sound because otherwise I might seek a new career path.

                Cadet Warrant Officer Brookes a.

Ducimus


----------



## QORvanweert

WO Brookes said:
			
		

> I'm not in yet but from what i see here I'm thinking that the level of discipline and fitness i expect from my cadets is almost as high as what the infantry requires to pass thier BIQ. So if I don't accell at it when i get to do it I'll be surprised. but I agree with PBI we need to harden the courses we currently have, in the case of the infantry at least. Because when I talked to CWO Warriner of the RMRang he was telling me that my cadets were performing at almost the same level some of the new recruits he's seen are. To me this is extremely sad as my standards are fairly lax compared to the standard expected of me when i joined cadets so I'm hoping that all of you Infantrymen are exagerating and that things aren't as bad as this thread makes them sound because otherwise I might seek a new career path.
> 
> Cadet Warrant Officer Brookes a.
> 
> Ducimus


There is NO WAY that your cadets are in the same shape as reg. force infanteers.  or even reservists. like, I might be wrong here but I find that a highly dubious proclamation.


----------



## Meridian

Well, I dont find the comment as dubious for reservists, to be honest.

Given that the reserves do not have a daily fitness regime more or less enforced by the forces as the RegF does I would be inclined to believe the reservists would have as much (or as little) training as the average cadet... given that the time put into both are roughly equal (are they not, on the whole?) and that physical training is OTW the member's responsibility boht in cadets and in the reserves...  

Also.. is the BFT still done on BOTP? (or whatever it is called now?)


----------



## Baloo

Perhaps do more research into this before comparing Reservist Infantry training to cadets, eh?


----------



## Meridian

Baloo - Im not talking about your weekend ex training.   If we are talking about PT, I dont need to do research to tell you that one-two weekends a month is not gonna make much of a difference physical fitness wise.. its what you do every day.

Many cadets have PhysEd Classes, etc in high school and extra curricular sports... as do many reservists Im sure...  This is the comparison im drawing.

Actual military training is not what I am debating.


----------



## QORvanweert

1. As far as I know the majority of the lower NCM ranks in the reserves is comprised of college/university/gr.12 students. These members all have access to training facilities and gyms at their respective schools and are usually disciplined enough to use them. I disagree totally if you are saying that the cadet PT level is harder then that of the Reserves (QOR specifically). There is no way that a pre-pubescent teen is in better shape, stronger then, harder then a qualified reservist. granted, I am sure there are some cadets who are in excellent shape, as is always the case, but in general we are definitely the victor. 
2. Brookes mentioned that he was comparing his troops to those who had just left BIQ. Which means that they had been at CF pt levels for at least one month. More probably because they would have done SQ or another course right before it. 
3. The conditions that he compared them under were most likely different. The stress and intensity of a military exercise can not be duplicated on a bunch of civilians. CWO Marriner(?) of the RMrang(?) should contribute why (s)he felt that these cadets were on the same level.
4. If (s)he actually said that, then I think it is in very bad taste to publicise the comment. An allusion would have been sufficient, no posting's or ranks are needed.


----------



## ArmyRick

As for the cadets remarks.

I remember all of the reserve and regular QL3 infantry, SQ and DP 1 infantry course I have instructed on.

Here is what I see as a typical cadet who decides to join the army.

More often than not, they are usually the physically weakest creatures on the course, they usually seemed to be smokers (like that helps?) and even worse, they have a baby and pampered idea about what the military is really about.

Some of the toughest (mentally and physically) and most fit recruits I have trained tend to be high school athletes who competed hard in sports like hockey, football, rugby, wrestling, etc...

Now keep in my mind, this is MY OBSERVATION of what I have seen over 9 courses I have instructed on.

Go ahead and challenge me on what I said.


----------



## tyr

I was not meaning on their physical fitness but on their drill, and even then I believe that it is only true in the most inexperienced soldiers that my cadets are even close. I would never think my cadets were anywhere near a Infanteer's level of fitness. That was a misunderstanding resulting from me having failed to be specific and I sincerely appoligize for it. It was a stupid idea for me to post on this forum anyways as I'm not in yet and I aploigive once again for my comment, and I hope that nobody is to upset over it, it was a stupid mistake and I have learned from it.


----------



## tyr

QORvanweert said:
			
		

> 1. As far as I know the majority of the lower NCM ranks in the reserves is comprised of college/university/gr.12 students. These members all have access to training facilities and gyms at their respective schools and are usually disciplined enough to use them. I disagree totally if you are saying that the cadet PT level is harder then that of the Reserves (QOR specifically). There is no way that a pre-pubescent teen is in better shape, stronger then, harder then a qualified reservist. granted, I am sure there are some cadets who are in excellent shape, as is always the case, but in general we are definitely the victor.
> 2. Brookes mentioned that he was comparing his troops to those who had just left BIQ. Which means that they had been at CF pt levels for at least one month. More probably because they would have done SQ or another course right before it.
> 3. The conditions that he compared them under were most likely different. The stress and intensity of a military exercise can not be duplicated on a bunch of civilians. CWO Marriner(?) of the RMrang(?) should contribute why (s)he felt that these cadets were on the same level.
> 4. If (s)he actually said that, then I think it is in very bad taste to publicise the comment. An allusion would have been sufficient, no posting's or ranks are needed.




I'm sorry about that like I said in my other post I was talking about drill not physical fitness, and actually he was talking about their drill too. And most of the Ranger's new recruits are the type who join and do most of their training throughout the year. Now that I've thought about this it's probably only the one's who haven't gone for their BIQ yet so I'm obligated to accept responsibility for my words and apoligize sincerely again to all whom I may have Offended. And another lesson learnt aswell about number four from now on I'm only going to post when I'm awake enough to think things through completely clearly.


                 One million Apoligies Cadet Warrant Officer Brookes

Ps. I hope you have not assumed I am one of  the cadets who thinks tha army will be just like cadet's. I expect it to be a challenge just like I originally expected cadets to be but it was a big disappointment. but I have every hope and a firm belief that the army will be a great and worthy challenge


----------



## ArmyRick

Lets get one thing straight.

Drill has its place in military training and ceremony.

It is NOT at the top of the list of soldiering skills, cadet.

Physical fitness (battle fit is what I call it which means hauling a ruck, moving quickly under fire, etc), marksmanship, weapons handling, time in the field and mentally robust are very important attributes.


----------



## Chags

That being said, and I'm sure ArmyRick can attest to this..  many of the cadets who show up for SQ/BIQ (whatever) think they know drill, and actually show up with bad habits.. (ever hear a cadet call drill.. its more like singing).

It is easier to teach a brand new soldier who has no experience when you don't have to un-teach him first.

and anyways, being a drill-god doesnt make you a good soldier.


----------



## dutchie

Chags said:
			
		

> That being said, and I'm sure ArmyRick can attest to this..   many of the cadets who show up for SQ/BIQ (whatever) think they know drill, and actually show up with bad habits.. (ever hear a cadet call drill.. its more like singing).
> 
> It is easier to teach a brand new soldier who has no experience when you don't have to un-teach him first.



This is why any smart cadet who joins the P Res (or Regs I imagine) will forget they were ever in cadets. They should forget everything they know, be it drill, fieldcraft, or whatever. They should also not admit to being an ex-cadet....just as they should forget they have a motorcycle licence or that they like pizza.


----------



## Heathan

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Lets get one thing straight.
> 
> Drill has its place in military training and ceremony.
> 
> It is NOT at the top of the list of soldiering skills, cadet.
> 
> Physical fitness (battle fit is what I call it which means hauling a ruck, moving quickly under fire, etc), marksmanship, weapons handling, time in the field and mentally robust are very important attributes.



This is a great statement ArmyRick.....Drill....Drillllll.....Drilllllllll....thats great...I look nice, someone passes out, we all get drunk after. This is not why I signed on the dotted line. I joined 031 to be a 031 not a garra-trooper. I see more good 031's in trouble and bad PDR's/PER's for stuff in Garrison but take them to the field and they shine. Which brings me back to the "Pink Fuzzy" vs. "Old School".

Finally I thank everyone for the great posts and replies, I didn't expect such a response.


----------



## marshall sl

This is why any smart cadet who joins the P Res (or Regs I imagine) will forget they were ever in cadets. They should forget everything they know, be it drill, fieldcraft, or whatever. They should also not admit to being an ex-cadet....just as they should forget they have a motorcycle licence or that they like pizza. 

Hmmm. things sure have changed with the Seaforths since I left! Forget it all eh? Thats BS
My first Jr NCO course was in 74 .I was16 and still in Cadets.Several of us were put on this course run by the Reserve Battalion because of a shortage of candidates. This was before the MCPL appointment was in use. This course was run by The RSM and one of the CSMs. They were CWO R Plant(WW2Vet) and MWO Parsons(Korea-Kapyong Vet)If you don't know them ask the Senior Sgt there.
Long story short I topped the course.when I joined the Batt.I'm 76 ,I instructed on my own GMT and Inf.TQ1.At the end of the course I was promoted to CPL. I was 18 then.I was promoted to SGT   when I was 22.   
Several other former members did the same as me.Including one of the best RSM's I've seen .PM me and I'll tell you who.
So don't tar them all with the same brush, some great members have come from that cadet corp.

The way some people bash the cadet movement reminds me of how the Reg force treated us reserves in Egypt


----------



## ArmyRick

Don't start with the 70s era reserves. I know the standards from that time period and what they are now. GIVE ME A BREAK !!! You instructed on your own GMT and TQ1? Yeah, I have seen some of the handy work of my fellow reservist from that era. 

The training now is much longer and more in depth than back then. 

Forget what you learn in cadets? Very good rule to live by. Its not BS, marshall.


----------



## marshall sl

Well you are entitled to your opinion. How ever my contribution was just as valid as yours. We did the best we could with what the CF and the Govt gave us.Our biggest beef was that we couldn't get the same training as the Regs. I have several friends that went reg force and are still serving.Some in some rather interesting places.I won't say where in an open forum.

Our reasons for joining were no less than yours I bet. If you are basing your opinion on the present cadet program I can't speak to that. The program in the 70s was far differant than today. The lessons I learned there have stood me well in my career in Corrections. The Leadership training,Self Discipline has enabled me to face some scary situations as a line officer and a supervisor.

But i guess each generation thinks the one before it was cluless. But we can't be all bad we trained the guys that trained you.     Ask Danjanou he'tell you.

Cheers


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

In that case, the Cadets should simply sit quiet rather than comment on hear-say be it true or false. If they're Cadets, why are they here argueing over something they've never experienced, if they are as clueless as you say? (I wouldnt argue it) I believe its been said COUNTLESS times on Army.ca, "Stay within your lanes." Far too often people are jumping the gun to chew out a Cadet for their ignorance...they're kids. Simply set them straight and be on with it, rather than argue relentlessly with them.

BUT, this has gone off track. The topics on Infantry, not the Cadets or their never-ending knowledge of it.


----------



## the 48th regulator

enough with the cadet bashing already!

What a bucnh of super soldiers we have.  What were you doing at their age??  Learning to plug in yer nintendo or coleco vision no doubt!

One guy makes a flub and we got the legion of super heroes on his ass.  

tess


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

Was this directed at me?


----------



## the 48th regulator

no, at everyone doing the bashing,

why?

tess

(Note I modified)


----------



## dirky

I dont know if any of you guys know this but in the cadets there is a new special forces section i believe.  I had a fellow tell me that the real turned on cadets can be selected to do special duties overseas.  Anyone heard of this?


----------



## the 48th regulator

go away dirky, it's getting tired.

tess


----------



## dutchie

I never said the cadets sucked, were usless, yada, yada, yada....I said that on GMT/QL2/BMQ/SQ/BIQ one should not advertise that they were a cadet (unless they like cack), and that one should forget what they learned, as it will make learning the proper army way easier. 

carry on.


----------



## ArmyRick

48th Regulator, I am not bashing cadets.  My point is they shouldn't comment on how modern day infantry training is conducted until they complete said training themselves.

I agree with cadets but I think the program needs an overhaul IMO ( I was an army cadet for three years,86-89, but I left because all we ever did was drill, drill and more drill)

Marshall, no your generation did not train me, I was a patricia and that was where I learned my soldiering skills.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Ceaser,

The proper way....oh sorry I missed that on my " Proper way training course" roger that...didn't mean to offend..

ArmyRick,

Then my Post really doesn't affect you, does it now. What cadet unit do you go an volunteer to help with the overhaul?  I commend that.  With all of the experience we have to offer, it only benefits future generations of troops entering the reg force or reserve ranks.

tess


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

I admit, I was in when they started applying the human rights rules to soldiers.  I opposed it, as did most of us who trained under what is now called the "old school".  That is a bit of a laugh in itself, my father was part of the old "soldier apprentice" program in the fifties, and waxes quite eloquent about how hard they had it, and how the army went to s***t before he left.  I guess every generation bitches that "the new army is too soft", its been going on for a few centuries or so, and will keep going on after they bury all of us.  I know that we had to train harder, and under harsher conditions than are imposed now.  I don't think that the best of our troops will ever shy away from using any field training to sharpen themselves into the best soldiers they can.  Whatever drives you to the combat arms, compels the best of you to push yourself to the limit, and beyond.  Infantry training has been designed to show you how to function at a high level, well beyond what you think your limits are.  It is all well and good to take the 72hr grinder out of training, and the ruck marches, but lets face it, infanteers are going to find themselves facing situations requiring that level of endurance for real in the field, and the accidental deaths, or combat losses that occur because they didn't have the experience with exhaustion drills that have preserved soldiers for generations before.  Its better to find your limits in training, with NCO's that can teach you how to milk that last ounce of effort and focus, than on deployment, or exercise where a miscue could result in your or other losses.  I just don't think softening the training is doing the troops any service.


----------



## Lim0

Is hook another word for a chevron?


----------



## infamous_p

yes it is


----------



## COBRA-6

big bad john said:
			
		

> I have never understood why Canada does not run its own Commando courses.   Friends of mine here on assignment have broached the subject of offering RM help insetting one up.   They were politely and emphatically told NO!



I think this mindset goes right to the national level, not merely the infantry. Our recruiting efforts and courses are not designed to attract "warriors" or even "soldiers", how often do you even see weapons in recruiting advertising? If you look at other forces out there (USMC, Royal Marines) they challenge people to join, if they think they're up to it, and tell them up front how hard and demanding the training will be if they do... where as we seem to accept anyone and then try to bring them up to standard... I just don't think the higher-ups want our recruiting and training systems to be an elimination process... it's easy to see how this has a trickle-down effect on the whole forces (with exceptions of course), from the amount of live-fire training we do, to fitness standards being enforced... I hope our new CDS and his vision of a expeditionary force will swing the pendulum back the other way....


----------



## Heathan

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> I admit, I was in when they started applying the human rights rules to soldiers.   I opposed it, as did most of us who trained under what is now called the "old school".   That is a bit of a laugh in itself, my father was part of the old "soldier apprentice" program in the fifties, and waxes quite eloquent about how hard they had it, and how the army went to s***t before he left.   I guess every generation bitches that "the new army is too soft", its been going on for a few centuries or so, and will keep going on after they bury all of us.   I know that we had to train harder, and under harsher conditions than are imposed now.   I don't think that the best of our troops will ever shy away from using any field training to sharpen themselves into the best soldiers they can.   Whatever drives you to the combat arms, compels the best of you to push yourself to the limit, and beyond.   Infantry training has been designed to show you how to function at a high level, well beyond what you think your limits are.   It is all well and good to take the 72hr grinder out of training, and the ruck marches, but lets face it, infanteers are going to find themselves facing situations requiring that level of endurance for real in the field, and the accidental deaths, or combat losses that occur because they didn't have the experience with exhaustion drills that have preserved soldiers for generations before.   Its better to find your limits in training, with NCO's that can teach you how to milk that last ounce of effort and focus, than on deployment, or exercise where a miscue could result in your or other losses.   I just don't think softening the training is doing the troops any service.


     This Sums it up in the view of Pink Fuzzy Vs. Old School.


----------



## CH1

For my 2 cents, being old school (class of 68) & having been trained by WWII & Korean vets, I after 30+ years am learning from the "younger generations".  There is both good & bad points on both sides.  I for one DO NOT miss cleaning the parade square with tooth brush & eraser, or doing 4 kazillion laps around said square with full pack & C1 over head.

From my perspective, the newer generations have as much expertise to offer us as we to them.  These newer generations have had to do way more with a lot less than we did (funny how perspectives change over time).  So I salute them.

The day I quit learning, is the day I have died.  As I prepare to trail arms to the rear, I applaude these people, as they carry the torch forward.

I do not agree with the political masters version of what an army is nor how some of the Trg is structured (or not).  But as we did before, the new does today.  

"Ours is to do or die, not to question why" & "There's no life like it", apply the same today as in my father's time (39 - 75), or my time (68 - ?).

Nuff said.......cheers


----------



## pipesnake

Actually I am curious to find out what has changed since I got out. I did RCR battleschool in Pet in 1988/89 over the winter. They had no problem force marching us many miles, giving us little sleep (5 hours in 5 days on whatever the defensive ex was called), or doing things to cause us physical discomfort or pain. One time they made us do those pushups, in a line with the next guys legs on your shoulders and using your fists on pavement, and one guy broke his hand. My section commander used to smash his pace stick into your tows if you weren't standing at attention properly. They made us dig trenches in the frozen sand. That stuff was like cement. It took me two days to dig it and I couldn't sleep until I finished. I got frost bite. Anyway it was all pretty fun. Good regular solidier stuff I thought. After I went to the NECIC team and we amped the training much further doing 10 mile ruck marches (actually running not marching) every Monday and Friday.   In between we just ran in civvy kit, shot, trained etc. for 8 to 10 hours a day. Don't they do this stuff anymore? That was the good stuff man. I hope my tax money is not being used towards the wussification of the military.


----------



## Baloo

Well, not like a whole lot of your tax money is going there anyways, now is it?


----------



## pipesnake

Too true. I'd be willing to give more too, as long as I knew it wasn't going toward some nancy-pink-skirt-wearin' mutation of soldierin' ;-)


----------



## Heathan

I really feel that the new soldiers do not posess the maturity that the 031 trade should have. This trade serves the purpose of fighting battles yes but we are also the face of Canada for the most part when we are abroad. I dont think that the new young soldiers posess the life experience or maturity to be placed in this role. When I see the word "integrity" being spoken on one breath and " dont admit a thing" or "deny, deny, deny" spoken on another I wonder what message is being sent to the new soldiers, further more when you see different dicipline standards being applied due to rank I wonder what message that sends as well. I should also state that I have seen 18-20 year old soldiers with more maturity and skill than soldiers twice thier age, but unfortunatly they are not as many of these individuals as I would like to see. One possible way of, and I mean no offence to those who apply, eliminating some of these faults could be by having one standard for enrollment, when I say this I mean you need to be smart enough for a nice tech trade, strong enough to be a combat soldier, and responsible/mature enough to be that face of the military the media portrays. By doing this you would get a better soldier. I think this way because if you adhere to the one standard and get a person who picks 031 you will get a good 031, not a person who wanted to be a medic but didn't have the education required for that trade. You accept a person and tell them what holes need to be filled and then based on their choice they can pick the career path they choose. Whats worse, having someone taking whats left or getting what they want? I know its a bit off the topic but technology, in my opinion, has lowerd the intelligence in areas of todays youth. By having the internet you have removed the need to do hard research, with spell check and grammer check in most word processors you eliminate the real need to understand the english language and apply it, with the software out there who needs math skills or art skills? These points seem way off topic but in a way the generations that grow up with this are the same ones coming in to service now. I never ever thought about an internet cafe within Bn lines.


----------



## DELTADOG13

Todays infanteers( not infantryman ) are not as physically toughened or prepared for the rigours of a soldiers life in the frontlines. Be it on Op Apollo's mountains or Op Athena's festering back alleys. Todays troops need to get back to the basics.........................................Marksmanship, Physical fitness and Battlecraft. In my opinion these basics have been lost on our leadership for more high speed, low drag training such as OBUA(Ops in Built up Areas), Amphibious and the like. In my short career up the NCO ladder I've seen the physical fitness standards lowered, shooting being a burden to training and field training at the Platoon and Section level being paid only lip service. This army needs to wake up and smell the rotting decay of the Infantry Corps before it is gone. I've watched the best and brightess leave because they are not challenged anymore. My first years were filled with excellent training exercises and activities that challenged and excited the soldiers and leaders to accomplish. Now I don't know. We need to get back to the basics at our units and really put stock in our low level training. " Hard trained sections are the building blocks of an army, without a well trained section an army is just a group of civilians in uniform " 
Also we need to start cleaning out the TC's of the old generation of NCO's and bring in the newer generation of experienced NCO's with vision and keeness to tackle this scenario. Just another NCO's opinion on this state of affairs we call our army. Pro Patria


----------



## PJ D-Dog

Maclimius said:
			
		

> To add to this, as I stated earlier, with the current crises of lack of NCOs, it seems to me that the chain of command is more likely to pull someone off the street to be an officer than accept a CFR.



I can relate to this entirely.  As a militia MCpl, I applied for the CFR program and was denied on the basis that "I did not have enough experience at the gun(105 mm) level to become an effective officer".  I had spent most of my time in the regiment in the command post.  Instead, the individual who was selected, was female, less than a year in the artillery and only a private but was attending university.  I protested the decision and warned everyone that she would not be in the unit for more than another year.  She worked for me directly and I knew what her intentions were.  Needless to say, she quit after a year and never completed the phase 3 arty.  I, on the other hand, was still with the unit.  My battery commander told me point blank that I was not selected due to being a man.  It was more politically correct to send the females off.  I bit the bullet but never again applied to become "one of them".

There is a general sense in the officer world in the CF that, if an officer cadet has been in the ranks for too long prior to commissioning, then there is a confusion in his loyalty.  While enlisted, he needs to be loyal to the enlisted side of the house.  Once commissioned, he needs to be loyal to other officers.  That is why, in my opinion, they would rather take a civilian off the street and turn him into an officer with zero prior military experience.

The best officers I met in the CF had been corporals before going to the dark side.  They had an understanding of what it was like to be enlisted and what needs to happen to get the job done on the ground.  In the Marine Corps, we believe in a philosophy of "growing our own".  We like to take prior enlisted and turn them into officers.  We call them Mustangs.  They make the best officers because they know what it is like to be a PFC or a Lance Corporal.

There is a definit need for the MCpl rank.  That is the link between the Sr NCOs and the rest of the enlisted.  As for the DAPs program.  I was a product of DAP but I spent a year as a Cpl before getting promoted.  The last MCpl to be promoted before me had been a Cpl for roughly two months.  He was a qualified disaster.  He was extremely technically knowledgeable but had not leadership ability.  Everyone hated him and demanded that we respect him because he was a MCpl.  Our unit was suffering from the lack of Jr NCO void and selected him because he had his head up the Troop Commander's ass.  Years later, after we both became Sgts, he was forced out because we made life hard on him.  I had a personal hand in making sure his rear end got chewed by the RSM.

Many of the other DAPed MCPls that I knew at other units suffered from the same things:  lack of maturity and lack of leadership but all technically proficient.

Instead of the DAPs program, the CF should just have merritorious promotions to all junior enlisted ranks.  They should be made to compete after meeting basic elegibility criteria.  The competitions could be held based on knowledge, leadership etc.  There could even be a period of observation where the competing members are placed in similar leadership positions and evaluated one against the other.  Food for thought.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## ZipperHead

Good post PJ D-Dog. I agree with you on your opinion on the issue of commisioning from the ranks:


> There is a general sense in the officer world in the CF that, if an officer cadet has been in the ranks for too long prior to commissioning, then *there is a confusion in his loyalty*.  While enlisted, he needs to be loyal to the enlisted side of the house.  Once commissioned, he needs to be loyal to other officers.  That is why, in my opinion, they would rather take a civilian off the street and turn him into an officer with zero prior military experience.



The problem, of course, is that it is misguided loyalty: the only loyalty should be to the CF, and the people of Canada, our employers. Officers and NCO's have a duty to serve the CF and the people of Canada, and to ensure that the needs of our soldiers are looked after. Unfortunately, at all rank levels, the needs of the individual usually win out over the people they command. Careerism is too rampant. Rocking the boat is frowned upon, and it is beaten into people at the beginning of their career. This is where I can see that "they" would prefer to start with a blank canvas: a young impressionable OCdt (or Pte or Cpl to be molded into a MCpl) and mold them into what they want: someone who will do what they are told, without the worry of their "protege" questioning whether what they are told to do is right: just do it. While that is somewhat what the military is about (following orders), I think the ability to know when to disobey an order, and complete the mission in the interest of our employer (the CF and the people of Canada) is more important. There is nothing worse than the prospect of people blindly following orders (Nazi Germany ring any bells? "Why did you assist with the Final Solution?" "Ve vere just following orders!!!"). While I have faith that the CF would never undertake anything near as repulsive as that, the thought of people having more interest in their own careers, or just to look after themselves and their cronies is equally repugnant.

I have seen a few soldiers go forward and do UTPNCM or CFR. Some turned out to be decent enough officers, some very good. Some however....... Let's just say that the lower the rank (or rather the less amount of real experience in the ranks) didn't translate into making a superior quality officer. Some probably wouldn't have ever made it past Cpl.... or Pte for that matter. 

Having said that, I would rather see an officer class that has come up from the ranks, so that there is a greater appreciation for what it means to be a "soldier": the shit jobs, the long boring routines, the frustration of watching people who are clearly out of their element be in charge of them (and possibly endanger their lives in battle). Face it: the amount of time that officers spend doing field time, the "grunt work", etc on Phase trg is next to nothing compared to what a Pte would do in their 3 years in a unit, let alone a Cpl or MCpl (or higher). During the first few years of a soldiers career, they learn a lot about the basics, and start to pick up from their superiors, for better or worse, different styles of leadership and dealing with problems. This is where they should look to form the offier corps: a soldier who can perform well, deal with stress, has the ability to perform basic problem solving, using initiative, following orders, etc. I think the current method of plucking people from high school (based on academics), pushing them through BOTC, giving them 4 (or more) years of free education, CAP( the old Ph 2), DP1 (what was Ph3 and 4) and then hoping for the best is a poor use of resources. If they were to spend more time "cultivating" their prospects (watching within the Regiments for soldiers with all the abilities required, and then giving them the "goodies": free education and officer trg) they would end up with a better product, and the CF and Canada would be better for it. We would lose a lot of good soldiers who would "defect" to the officer world, but that is a wrong way of looking at it, as the CF would be the winner over all. A lot of people wouldn't want to be officers anyway (myself included), so they could go on to become the NCO corps. 

None of what I suggest is new: I believe the Roman army did this, and police forces, fire fighters, etc do something similar. I'm not sure where our current method originated, but I think it may have outlived it's usefulness. We can't rely on blind luck (ie take a kid out of high school, give him the absolute basics (BOTC, CAP, Phase trg) and hope that they will be an effective leader). I know that there have been quite a few good officers come of it, but how about the piss poor ones? As I suggested, I know of soldiers who CFR'ed or went through UTPNCM and were poison officers, but that is probably more indicative of who they want to be officers (blind obedience, lack of initiative) and then allow to go through those programs, than that of soldiers who SHOULD be pushed to become an officer. Unless I am totally "out of 'er", there is a "glass ceiling" for any officer who comes up from the ranks: the rank of major (and usually only captain). The "ring knockers" and old boy network are more concerned with protecting their cronies from their alma mater than letting one of the "unwashed masses" come into command roles. The days of thinking that officers are "better" are over, people. It's not like the days of nobility and peasants. Yes, officers (generally) have a better education than the soldiers who they are in command of, but it's not like they are a higher life form (sorry to burst anyones bubble here). There are a lot of highly intelligent soldiers out there, many of whom would make excellent officers, but there are too many factors that stop them: the prospect of becoming "one of them" (the us vs them mentality which is bred in both corps (NCO and officer), the aforementioned glass ceiling, being seen as a "mustang" from above (having too strong of a will, opinionated, too much experience and dealings with the "lower class"). I'm probably just rhyming off the reasons why I wouldn't want to become an officer, but there it is.

I don't think there should be a big division between any of the "classes": jr ranks, Snr NCO's, and officers. Due to the way we have been modeled on an antiquated system, that's the case now, where some officers feel that they are an officer by birthright, and some Sr NCO's feel that they have no obligation to serve anybody but themselves and their buddies (usually above). I'm not saying that we shouldn't respect officers or Sr NCO's, who have earned the right to be there, but to make sure that respect flows downwards to the soldiers who we are in charge of, and remember what it was to be one of them (which, again many MCpl's and Sr NCOs seem to forget, probably because their time as a Jr rank was too fleeting) and also because the majority of officers have no concept of this, because they never were in the soldiers position.

Al


----------



## George Wallace

Loyalty

Loyalty is a "Two Way Street".  A good leader is loyal to his subordinants as much as he is loyal to his superiors.  He must nurture and defend his subordinants as much as he carries out his duties to his superiors.  "Brown-nosing Snives" do not fit that bill.


----------



## oneill

A interesting topic, one that dogs all army's.
The British Army has a system that every year there are two reports written on every soldier.
A six monthly assessment and annual confidential report.
Thees detail every thing the soldier has achieved thus far, 
Good and bad and ugly.
The six monthly is a performance assessment which lets the recipient know where he needs to improve.
The yearly report goes to the Co if you are due promotion.
at any stage you can question the report but the initiators decision is final.
The soldier then signs the report to say that he has seen it.
end of discussion.

There are usually some grievances but not many.


And don't forget it is a soldiers wright to bitch and moan .

Hope this is of some use.


----------



## pbi

So what's the real difference between the UK system and our PDR/PER system? I don't see any.

Cheers.


----------



## CH1

It sounds like the Brits are using what we used to call the PER/POR system. Have to check it out with a Brit WO buddy. It doen't matter what system is used, it has to be designed to cover the statistical majority (?). Hence the flaws. Never did get a reasonable answer to advancement criteria.

One of the items that is usually missed, when the grapes are running, is personal initiative. We all, at some time pass the buck, for what ever the reason. In my own case, I still look over my shoulder, for what I wanted. The illustrious coat of arms on the sleeve. I still can not figure out how I was really good in trade as a SGT, not good enough for what I wanted, but forced to take a commision.

I also know that I saw potential in some of the people that I did PER's on. I tried my best to encourage them to stretch themselves to attain their goals. Some times they won, some lost, & some made their promotions without rhyme or reason.

Back on point, one controls their destiny, within parameters. When one is passed over, was there a lack of disipline, knowledge, tech skills, attitude, etc? Did they try to determine why they were passed over & take corrective actions instead of IA's like temper(my achilles heel)/attitude. There is also a possibility of overt or subvert personality clash with subordinates/superiors. Most of these are in the candidate's sphere of control. Nepotism is an item that one can not control.

I may stand corrected as most of my time has been spent out of the mainstream, in specialized areas.


----------



## parapara

As a serving member who has experienced the old way things were done and the way the army is being run today , i feel we have finally learned to respect our younger soldiers and look after there welfare far better today than was ever done in the past, and to make a comment on the discipline of the younger soldiers today , the discipline is there its just getting the nco,s to enforce the policies and respect the soldiers at the same time , there are hardly ever any bad soldiers but there are definitely poor nco's.


----------



## GO!!!

DeltaDog13

How interesting that you mention "getting back to basics" and your "quick climb  up the NCO ladder" in the same breath. The two would imply that you are unaware or unable to reproduce the basics in the first place. 

But I digress.

1) High speed low drag trg such as FIBUA/MOUT are the war of the future. Such militaries as the USMC have adjusted their training to concentrate 80% on urban and 20% on "green" skills. It is not a sidebar, addendum or other distraction. IT IS the battle of the future. You are one of the dinosaurs you purport to want replaced if you believe that section and platoon attacks accross Wx or Meaford are supplying your troops with anything other than the will to kill figure 11s. We are not trying to delay the Soviet advance through the Fulda gap any longer. By 2010, 70% of the world's population will live in cities. We will fight there.

2) The misconception that FIBUA is not the area of concentration for collective and low level trg is the fault of the NCOs and officers. Just because you cannot find a way to make FIBUA "challenging and exciting" does'nt mean that it can't be done. Units from 3VP have continuously fielded exceptionally well trained sections and platoons precisely because they were not afraid to do only one Coy defensive in Wx and instead concentrate on the skills that they were most likely to use, such as MOE, Urban patrolling, tank/inf co - operation and instinctive shooting. 

3) Physically toughened enough for ops? Once again, this is not ultimately the responsibility of the CO. It is your responsibility as a section commander to develop your troops. (remember the leadership principles?) If they are not prepared - you did'nt prepare them, period.

4) As for Op Apollo's mountains - we did mostly what you would derisively describe as "high speed, low drag" and we hardly practiced at all, because our NCO's were so fixated on the things that they knew - that they could'nt expand into things they did'nt. As a result - we all went in cold.

5) In conclusion, you speak in broad terms (we, this army, I've seen..) but offer no concrete fixes. In addition, you yourself perpetuate the same training patterns that have bored and softened you and your unit in the first place. Since NCOs are the backbone of the army, perhaps you should take a more proactive approach. It is not so much NCO's that need to be "cleaned out" as you so eloquently put it, but the attitudes and resistance to change that they go hand in hand with.


----------



## bossi

Heathan said:
			
		

> I really feel that the new soldiers do not posess the maturity that the 031 trade should have. ...



Bang on, Heathan!   I'm only a youngster, but there were still Korean War vets in The Regiment when I joined (and the young pups didn't beak off to them ...)

However, as noted in the Regimental History, there is a parallel phenomenon to "skill fade" - I'd like to coin the phrase "respect fade" (i.e. similar to adolescents and their lack of repect for their parents, some young soldiers think they know it all - they reject "out of hand" anything said by their seniors and label them "dinosaurs", reminding me of the debating technique of accusing somebody of Nazism ... but, I digress ...)

I use hockey as an analogy quite often (since, after all, it's "War On Ice").
Young players usually want to scrimmage or play a game, rather than practice and do drills (and, similar to Le Gros Bill, I do recognise Horrock's concept of "knowing what it's like to run, in order to better learn how to walk ...").

It's worrisome to see how eagerly young troops latch on to "sexy" stuff ... before they've literally and figuratively "earned their stripes" - as an example, in another thread there was an excellent post detailing experience from Iraq (basically, they relearned a lesson the hard way:   "Don't bunch up.")
However, the lure/siren call of Hollywood tactics has hoodwinked many into thinking that it's okay to concentrate troops so closely that a burst or grenade can kill them all ...

It's nice to want to emulate the "Big League" ... but ... they're called "special" for a reason ...

Finally:   DevilDog13 - good job of keeping your eye on the puck.   BZ.

I'll close with Stirling's four tenets:
- A sense of humility
- The relentless pursuit of excellence
- A classless society
- A sense of humour

P.S. (along the lines of Heathan's comments, I've just been reminded there's infinitely more to life than sexy, high-speed, low-drag stuff ... in the BIG picture, which some brash youngsters seem to overlook ...)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25380.from0.html#new


----------



## ArmyRick

I think GO!!! is correct. Hillier wants to shift the default setting from fighting "the Bear" to the "the Snake"

Kabul is a good example of OBUA and alot of what we are going/already have been doing. Look at all the years we operated in the former Yugoslavia. Each tour I did over there we did the same workup training (combat team on russian type defences live fire with Leos and carriers). Its good training, but sure as well was not relevant to our current ops or even the terrain or anything in Yugo.

Last august B COY, 1RCR set a great OBUA battle scenario for the reserve troops in one of the FIBUA villages. They used miles, SIMUNITION, M69 practice grenades, engineers with real door charges. It was a real wake up call. The scenario reminded me some of the stuff going down in Iraq (only the enemy's will to fight in the exercise was excellent). Not one of the companies could clear the village. This is where we should be heading. There is all kinds of trg that you can do with simunition.
Get the kits out and get trg, emphasis on CQB!!!


----------



## Heathan

For 2 VP we have an example of old vs. new. We have been ram rodding the IBTS training to complete the BN in 2weeks for everything from first aid and environmental safety briefs to ranges for all platforms at our disposal. 9mm, C7, C9, C6, 84mm, 60mm, M72, M203, Grenade, Lav's 25mm, and Eryx. We pumped 2 recce courses through and more LAV course's CC/Drvr than you want to consider, starting our pre-sniper, 3 PLQ's, 2-3 IPSWQ's, and many more, on different ex's now until pretty much November. Our RSM is heading to Kandahar for his recce. To me and most of the, "Old School", for lack of a better term, this is great training, experience, fun. To the pink fuzzy 3 nights in the field is bad cause it takes away from their fun, all the training sucks, especially all these ranges, and just a lazy attitude to the work involved in our tempo right now. And worst of all is passing those who fail PWT's for C-9 and C-7. That means they can go live fire with me. Ouch, if they cant hit a 4 ft screen with a C-9 then is it fine to allow them to fire me in live? The new don't know what field time is, the spend 2 ex's in the field on BIQ, both are 2 nights only, so they moan when they miss dinner or lunch and get a box lunch instead. When packing up in our lines for a 4 day ex I actually heard, " Hey do you think I should pack my rain gear for the field next week?"
Or being out on a day nav ex and being one of 2 in our det that brought water/jacket/something else besides my box lunch to eat. That shows a bit about old vs new.


----------



## ArmyRick

What i see as "new" is no easier than old school. Simply different.
Recce patrols, OPs and other ISTAR missions are still going to be just as important as always (In fact you are more likely to conduct Recce patrols and OPs in theater than a platoon quick attack flanking in the open field).
Emphasis fighting in urban areas (include everything such as casualty evacuation, pushing ammo forward, etc) is more exhausting than doing the live fire combat team on the open prairie.

My point? new does not mean easier....


----------



## bossi

Heathan said:
			
		

> ... Or being out on a day nav ex and being one of 2 in our det that brought water/jacket/something else besides my box lunch to eat. That shows a bit about old vs new.



Thanks for the chuckle - I remember seeing that "deer in the headlights" look in the eyes of some Newbies when they noticed I always had spare (dry) socks and foot powder ... but, hey - I guess maybe the new curriculum doesn't have time to explain that infantry are also referred to as ... "foot soldiers" ...


----------



## Art Johnson

Mark you are so right, I wonder did you turn your socks inside out also. BTW how is your mother? believe me I can commensurate with you on the hospital care or more so the lack of it.

Aye Dileas

Art J.


----------



## c4th

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Any ideas on how to "free" Warrants and Sergeants Major from their desks to dedicate more time to developing the JNCO's?



Pl Warrants, it may be hard.  Deligate as much as practical to Pl Signaler and pl reps if possible, particularly if it involves allot of running around. Pl Comd should be able to take on some of the staffing work.  Might as well get used to it, they'll be Coy 2ICs eventually. 

CSM's:  Again delegate to Coy clerk and share with Coy 2IC.  Personally I think blowing the desk 'in place' is probably not a bad idea.


----------



## Danjanou

c4th said:
			
		

> Personally I think blowing the desk 'in place' is probably not a bad idea.



Geez I wish I'd though of that when I was a CSM.  ;D


----------



## TheHead

> 6. What was explained to me by the leadership of the TC, when a soldier leaves the TC, the troops are still Private (Basic) and not consider trained until year 3 or end of 1st BE. They are not considered suitable for deployment until they achieve trained status. It is up to the units to provide additional training.



   Just a note sarge, My TOS is up in Feb (I re-signed though) and I will be getting my trained status on Sept 9, also alot of my friends I went through SQ and BIQ with were sent to B Coy 1PPCLI and sent to Afghanistan 8 months later.


----------



## CH1

We have changed our society, going from a primarily rural population to an urban population since the 2nd Big Scheme.  This has affected many areas of the military.  Also do not forget policy is not set by the grunt on the end  of the rifle.  It is set by politicians with little regard to reality or the real world needs of our military.  We have an extremely competent military inspite of the decades of rust & neglect.

Although I personally do not like sim trg, it does serve a purpose.  I being old school still think the Blood & Guts trg still better prepares a soldier for the "real thing".  Trg has to reflect the changes in the types of theaters we are entering.

Unfortunely, the 1 disadvantage of Blood & Guts, is that ppl will get hurt &/or killed.  This was an unacceptable risk for politicians.  Hence what we have today.

If any body thinks our military is soft, pls rethink that.  I have had the honour of working with military from around the world & even our neihbours to the south.  I would rather have a platoon fresh out of Gagetown than some other "trained" bodies.

In short it is the system that is broken, not the mechanism.  The mechanism can only respond to the system policy.

Cheers


----------



## CH1

Oh Crap!! Don't tell me there going to rubber stamp more M/Cpl's again. They did that in the early 70's.
From my position at that time it was a train wreck with most of these "new M/Cpl's" thinking they were gods.

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think it would be better served to offer incentives upon successful completion then to open up to some young gun who may think is the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## X Royal

Earlier in the thread I seen talk of the 13km ruck march being canceled on some courses. Heck why is there no talk about the canceling of the 25 mile (40 km) ruck march.
 On my TQ 3 inf. course in the winter of 78/79 in London with 1 RCR it was a one shot deal. Pass the march or fail the course (one try only). 60 of us started together in Cornwallis destine for 1 RCR. By the end of TQ 3 there was less than 30 of us left (with a few add at the start of TQ 3).
 Failure rates in this range are not cost effective so standards suffer. After over 6 months of training and less than 50 % moved on to the Regiment.

Best Wishes


----------



## 2 Cdo

X Royal I concur. In 1982(am I one of the dinosaurs?) our course started with just over 40 people at the PPCLI battleschool. After the required 4 months of belt fed c*ck and running and humping and no sleep and more belt fed c*ck our course graduated 22 people. The training was challenging and STRESSFUL and I found that at the end what the battalion got was troops that could immediately work within the battalion as a rifleman or C2 gunner. The point that I think some people are missing is that training should be hard, it should be stressful. If you are deploying overseas and your first exposure to stress is when you start taking incoming rounds, you will not know how to deal with the situation.
I don't blame todays troops for the decline in standards or the lack of meaningful training, I blame the upper eschelon for not making things challenging! Most troops if they are joining the infantry join to be challenged, to be pushed hard, and to find their own personal limitations! it hasn't happened yet, BUT, when someone gets killed because of a troops inability to cope with a situation, or a troop making a fatal mistake, maybe then we will take a look and start bringing back the type of training that troops really want!
PS Out of the 22 people that finished my battleschool course 14 of us ended up in the airborne regiment and if I remember correctly 4 or 5 passed their pathfinder course!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I was the Trg O at one of our Training Centres three years ago (1999 to 2002) and our pass rate for QL3 Infantry was around 70% when you accounted for recourses (some guys took two or three tries to pass).  For one year it was as low as 60% and on some serials it was at 50%.  I only throw this out there to give some perspective.  I don't know what the SQ/BIQ is like, but the recent QL3 Infantry course was a demanding course that put the candidates through their paces.  I'm not saying thall we can't make training more interesting and challenging.  As an Armoured guy I'll bow out of this thread now.

Cheers,

2B

p.s. Making our training focus soley on cities is a sure-fire way to ensure that our next conflict will be in the mountains, the jungle or the desert.


----------



## Bartok5

2Bravo said:
			
		

> p.s. Making our training focus soley on cities is a sure-fire way to ensure that our next conflict will be in the mountains, the jungle or the desert.



Bingo!   The lessons of the last conflict are merely a remotely assoiciated launch-pad for the next.  A wise man has spoken, and we would all do well to heed what he says.  

Yes, some trends are more prevalent than others (eg. the likelihood of urban ops).  But at the end of the day, in late 2001 who thought that within the next year Canadian Army infantry would be fighting at 10,000' (plus) elevation and relying upon Basic Mountain Ops skills?  Warfare in the Contemporary Operating Environment (COE) has a particularly nasty way of rising up and biting you in the arse.  Which only leads me to believe that the suitable soldier is one who has been trained on and/or exposed to the broadest possible range of operating environments.  Yes, I am predisposed based on my personal experience.  But, that experience continues to strike me as being relevant - particularly for an Army as small as ours.  We need to train and prepare for the widest possible range of operating environments - something that we are not doing particularly well at this point.

But of course, that's just my personal view.  

As always, just my $.02


----------



## ZipperHead

Very good points raised here, especially regarding "fighting the last war" and failure/pass rates.

I was employed at WATC a few years back teaching on an SQ crse (augmentee), and the feeling I (and others) got was that quantity of soldiers "produced" was more important than quality, and I'm sure that more than a few (crap) soldiers got through the system under that mentality than should have. I remember the "good old" days policy of course staff arbitrarily picking a number of people to fail (say, 8 out of a course of 24) and would go out of their way to make their prediction come true if less than their "quota" were going to fail on their own merits. Both modes of thinking are dead wrong. 

Some people just aren't cut out to be a soldier (or sailor, or airman, etc), and it isn't every Canadians birthright to serve in the defence of their country. Only those good enough, dedicated enough, and highly trained enough should have that honour, but the social scientists, politicians, and other eggheads don't always get that, and the "politicians in uniform" are too afraid to tell their civilian masters that they are wrong. 

I sense a "sea change" taking place within the CF with the current CDS (who happens to be Armour Corps.....) putting an emphasis on being a soldier first (sounds like he might be poking his nose into this forum from time to time and listening to what the disgruntled peeps here are saying.......). A lot of the problems of the past years have been the CF becoming a corporation, not a fighting force, with boys in blue and squids (and ineffectual land types) being in positions at the top based on the time-honoured, but weak, tradition of  green, black, blue rotation at the top dogs spot. I'm hoping that real changes will be made, but I'm jaded and cynical enough to realize that any great (or piss-poor) idea/policy/doctrine only lasts roughly two years (ie somebodies time in position), and then somebody else tries to make their mark, only to have the cycle repeated. I hope that his successor(s) are like-minded an carry on what I see to be mostly positive changes.

As to fighting the last war, at the Armour School, there has been an emphasis on trg students in the full spectrum of battle (or whatever the catch phrase is this week...), and while I agree in principle (as it gets us away from fighting WWIII in the Fulda Gap, and the peacekeeper mode of thinking), too many people have been brainwashed by one example from any given conflict (i.e. it has to be done exactly like Op Apollo, or Op Athena, or Kosovo, or Medak Pocket, or Cyprus, or.......) rather than trying to use a little bit of everything to make it work (or to use the tired phrase: thinking outside of the box). The biggest fight (myself included) is to get away from our comfort zone, and to try different things, not the same old-same old that have been drilled into us "just because". If something works; great. But that doesn't mean there isn't a slightly different/better way to do it. On the other hand, change for the sake of change (or getting ones name into the Infantry/Armour/Artillery/Engineer Journal....) doesn't help matters either, causing great confusion and frustration when things are always changing, and you need to be glued to the DIN to keep up with the lastest change to any given doctrine, tactic, drill, TTP (SOP), etc.

Personally, I had to get "old school" on some of the troops in my Sqn during a rucksack march this morning. I blew a gasket when some of the disgruntled CFL's (even though most of the them don't have enough TI to even know what the "missing Somalia documents" reference means....) wouldn't move quick enough when given the "ruck up", doddled when told to close up, and whinged when told to STFU because they felt the pace was too fast, their ruck was too heavy, they had sand in their uterus, etc. And to top it all off, some of these Nancy-boys went running straight to our SSM after I made a comment about some of them probably being trained by an Air Force cook named Sally (our RMS clerk is air element, and they felt she was offended) and how, that after I tuned them in and felt better about it (got it off my chest), I wouldn't have to go home and beat my wife and kids (i.e. I wouldn't take out my work issues on my family...). Rather than sucking it up and "being a soldier", some of the more recent generations of soldiers feel that they can jump 10 chains of command and try to bring down anybody that so much as throws a sideways glance at them by crying "harrassment" and hoping that will scare NCO's (and officers) into backing off, or saying "you can't talk to me like that!! I know my rights!!". How about knowing one's responsibilities...... I am responsible to train soldiers to fight, and to be ready to fight anytime, anywhere. And I am responsible to my bosses (the Cdn taxpayer) to be ready myself for the same. Too bad that doesn't get taught in St Jean (gets in the way of the sensitivity trg).....

Anyway, sorry to crash the green (and maroon) beanie party with my black hat, but a perspective from the "mounted" side probably doesn't hurt from time to time......

Al


----------



## ArmyRick

Its amazing. I am seeing how a 5 KM march is a big deal. Good sweet monkey, in 2 VP we would knock off 5 KM in a morning of PT in like 50 minutes and most troops were barely sweating unless it was egg frying hot outside.

We need about 60% of the old school brought back (The good and productive stuff).


----------



## pbi

> Rather than sucking it up and "being a soldier", some of the more recent generations of soldiers feel that they can jump 10 chains of command and try to bring down anybody that so much as throws a sideways glance at them by crying "harrassment" and hoping that will scare NCO's (and officers) into backing off, or saying "you can't talk to me like that!! I know my rights!!". How about knowing one's responsibilities......




This is, I'm afraid, very true. In my opinion, we have generated a great number of people (at all ranks, not just CFLs...) who believe that throwing in a grievance, or a harrassment complaint is a good way to "get back" at the system or the superiors they don't like, to avoid the consequences of their own actions (I have been directly involved in one of these...sickening) or to otherwise advance their own personal agendas (I've dealt with a couple of these recently, too). The hours, days and weeks of time that are sucked up by these investigations, tying up leaders with spurious or ill-motivated complaints , is just criminal. We have reinforced the " blame/entitlement" mentality in a bunch of our people, instead of reinforcing behaviour that accepts responsibility, focuses on mission and duty, and encourages mental toughness. I agree that we certainly went through a period of abuse during which people may have been afraid to speak out, but in the time-honoured fashion of the military we have swung too far out the other way and gone overboard. Good leaders need to be confident to lead without the fear of a knife in the back from some disgruntled whiner who probably should have got out years ago. We all need the focus and mental resiliency to deal with the real ops situations the world will throw at us, as well as the stresses and strains that are part of training a fit, capable Army not a welfare service.

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

Just wondering what steps you think are required to eliminate this attitude, pbi.


----------



## pbi

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Just wondering what steps you think are required to eliminate this attitude, pbi.



First, referesh and re-instill in leaders that in our Army and under the law of Canada they have the power to give orders, to demand a standard, and to enforce that standard. Subordinates are required to follow these orders (as long as they are legal and comprehensible) or be prepared to face the consequences. Leaders must not be afraid to lead, nor feel that they cannot deal with troublesome, unproductive and destructive individuals because the system is loaded against them. If these things are not happening there is no useful military anyway;

Second, work as hard as we can on instilling leadership by example, amongst officers and WOs/NCOs. That includes making right, honest and justifiable decisions, then being prepared to stick by them. I always tell anybody who will listen that if a leader makes logical and right decisions, based on what he knows to be correct and fair, and can look himself in the mirror about his decision, he probably has little to fear from any grievance and even less from any harrassment complaint. It is when leaders make stupid, corrupt or indefensible decisions that they lay themselves open to attack and are likely to find their decisions overruled;

Third-train everybody for war. Everybody.; and

Take every opportunty that we can to emphasize and reward soldierly virtues: courage, teamwork, dedication, sacrifice, mission before self, etc. In fact I think we are getting much, much better at this than when I joined in 1974: then it required an act of God to get anybody recognized for anything.

How's that for a start?

Cheers.


----------



## ArmyRick

PBI, well said... I find the instructors that do as you say are the most successfull...


----------



## ZipperHead

Again, some very good points coming out in a productive manner. Someone will come in and rain on the parade....

I didn't want to pick on the CFL's (neccesarily), but what has really gotten my goat lately is the fact that we have a lot of young impressionable soldiers in our unit as of late, and the mutterings from the rabble have been too much for me to handle, so I felt the need to straighten some of the "corporal-colonels" out (you know the type: they complain about everything; think they could do any given job 10 times better than their superiors; show zero loyalty to anyone, up or down the chain; and when put in charge of something, ultimately act exactly like the people they say they despise: they micro-manage, exhibit no initiative, have no "balls" and then delegate and disappear.) 

I think the part that sickens me more than anything else is that a lot of the good guys (at every rank level) are the ones getting out, as they are tired of the crap (over worked, not recognized for achievements, BS political-huggykissy-jamtart mentality within many levels of CF, etc) and move onto something bette. And then the CF finds it neccesary to reward mediocrity by creating a near union-like culture, with jobs for life for all, with little threat of any but the biggest shit-pump to be booted or reduced in rank, and too many dregs of society stay in because there are very few jobs paying close to $50000 (or more....) per year for the level of education the average soldier/sailor/airman has. I have watched more than a few good soldiers OT (or release) because they realize that their leaders are incompetent and/or unethical and/or unprofessional, and wouldn't work 2 minutes past 1600hrs to further the soldier's career, because, hey!!! Happy Hour is waiting, and so can that PER/memo/leave pass that needs to get actioned today........

It's sad for me to admit that one of the biggest problems with the CF (my corner of it, anyway) is that the NCO corps has dropped the ball, and allowed things to slide too close to the brink. The malaise is incredible.... Too many people look the other way, rather than sorting things out (and use the excuse of harrasment, or apathy, to cover their laziness....). People's work ethic doesn't seem to be what it once was either, and whether that is society becoming lazier, or people not caring anymore, I'm not sure.....

Touching on what 2332Piper mentioned, there certainly seems to be the attitude of: the Army has to change to suit my particular whim/desire/cultural belief/etc. I like to say: You joined the Army, not the other way around. If you can't conform to the "machine", you have no part to play in it. I have seen (and heard of) far too many cases of people not having a clue of what being a soldier is about (smoking during PT, wearing piercings in uniform, insubordination) not to lay some of the blame on the training system: somebody isn't doing their job, and more than likely they are filling these young guys (and girls) heads full of the crap that we're seeing: "do what you want, when you want. Then if anybody says anything, cry harrassment!!!" I have seen some of the people in the trg system (I am part of it......) and "they" aren't always putting the right man in the right job (probably the biggest understatement I have ever made). It seems that too often they purge the units of their deadwood, and where does said deadwood end up: in a school or trg center. They should offer some incentive to make it so that only the brightest and best are employed in those jobs, for only a short stint (3 or 4 years at most) so that it's not "garbage in-garbage out".

One issue that really does need to be addressed (IMO) is the basic leadership principle of Lead by Example. I one can't follow that basic tenent, one shouldn't be in a leadership position. Unfortunately, it seems that as soon as some people reach a position like that, they use it as an excuse to flout the rules, as though they are too good to do what they expect their subordinates to do. Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury...... And like many vicious circles, the disgruntled grasp onto the first poor example they see from a superior, and use that as an excuse to do the same. They rarely look to the good example (the fit, keen, punctual MCpl or Sgt or Capt). They look at the bone idle, fat, tardy MCpl, Sgt, Capt, etc and use them as justification to be the same. And on some levels, I can't really blame them, as that is held up as the standard that they are expected to achieve (see my comment above ref jobs for life......). The 60%, minimal standard has become the accepted norm......

Anyway, I'm all worked up now thinking about all the shit-pumps out there, so I have to sign off, or I'll not get anything accomplished......

Al


----------



## CH1

Hey guys & Gals

Lots of good ideas, but how do you get them up the mast?  I have stuck my dotted line on the block so many times it feels like the 401 @ rush hour. Might partly explain why I probably hold the longest time in a single Commisioned off rank.  Even though I am on the skids now, I would still like to the system repaired every way possible back to a reasonable semblence.  

A few of the other OT's probably remember this stat; 140 Generals & 135 tanks.  The system has been skewed by a lot of dead weight bodies & regulations. If some how these ideas can be run up the flag pole, & the politicos made to understand the why & importance of the issues, & spurred to action, then you will have a fighting chance.

At this point I feel like I stand a better chance of blowing a fortified bunker with a firecracker, than trying to get the system to change.

It is interesting watching some of the Senate hearings into defense policy.  Most bodies  appearing before the Senate commitee say the system is rusted, decayed & broken.  What they do not say is how to fix it.  Tommy Banks has asked why it takes 10 years of study before a minor change occurs.
Funny it seems; lots of stuttering & red faces.

Due to inflation I'm down to about 1 1/2 cents

Cheers


----------



## muskrat89

> I didn't want to pick on the CFL's (neccesarily), but what has really gotten my goat lately is the fact that we have a lot of young impressionable soldiers in our unit as of late, and the mutterings from the rabble have been too much for me to handle, so I felt the need to straighten some of the "corporal-colonels" out (you know the type: they complain about everything; think they could do any given job 10 times better than their superiors; show zero loyalty to anyone, up or down the chain; and when put in charge of something, ultimately act exactly like the people they say they despise: they micro-manage, exhibit no initiative, have no "balls" and then delegate and disappear.)
> 
> I think the part that sickens me more than anything else is that a lot of the good guys (at every rank level) are the ones getting out, as they are tired of the crap (over worked, not recognized for achievements, BS political-huggykissy-jamtart mentality within many levels of CF, etc) and move onto something bette. And then the CF finds it neccesary to reward mediocrity by creating a near union-like culture, with jobs for life for all, with little threat of any but the biggest shit-pump to be booted or reduced in rank, and too many dregs of society stay in because there are very few jobs paying close to $50000 (or more....) per year for the level of education the average soldier/sailor/airman has. I have watched more than a few good soldiers OT (or release) because they realize that their leaders are incompetent and/or unethical and/or unprofessional, and wouldn't work 2 minutes past 1600hrs to further the soldier's career, because, hey!!! Happy Hour is waiting, and so can that PER/memo/leave pass that needs to get actioned today........
> 
> It's sad for me to admit that one of the biggest problems with the CF (my corner of it, anyway) is that the NCO corps has dropped the ball, and allowed things to slide too close to the brink. The malaise is incredible.... Too many people look the other way, rather than sorting things out (and use the excuse of harrasment, or apathy, to cover their laziness....). People's work ethic doesn't seem to be what it once was either, and whether that is society becoming lazier, or people not caring anymore, I'm not sure.....



For what its worth - this problem is not unique to the Military. In effect, you just described, to a "T", my Company. As much as I hate the mantra "It's society" - I believe the symptoms you describe are societal....


----------



## CH1

A point I would like to address is the comments about Sr NCO's dropping the ball & looking the other way.  This also extends to the Officers Cadre as well.  

Having "been there done that", part of it is the carreer killing effect.  If you are close to your pension, do you want to jepordise it?  Or do you want to stagnate in a rank for the duration, while every one that comes close, thinks you are a leper?  There is probably more reasons than bullets to this question.

As a Sr NCO, I was forgiven for my indiscretions.  My career died 2 years after Commision, for taking the high moral ground.  If you enjoy the backwaters, & some really crappy assignments, buck the system, try to get some meaningful changes made.

Moral of the story: watch were you walk, the pile you just stepped in is gonna stink.

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> For what its worth - this problem is not unique to the Military. In effect, you just described, to a "T", my Company. As much as I hate the mantra "It's society" - I believe the symptoms you describe are societal....



Well, some organizational theories I've read into call this the "bureaucratic model" of social organization - big flaws include little accountability (it is X's job!), unresponsiveness (I'll have to pass this up, I can't sign off on it), and the left hand and the right hand pulling in opposite directions.   The DND (and, by extention, NDHQ) seem to be perfect examples of a "bureaucratic system".   Wartime helps to cut away alot of it, but the root of the system is still there - read about the fiasco that was Communications Zone (COMZ) for the Americans for the 1944/1945 march on Germany (hint, its a obscure topic, so look at 369 here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-7.html)

This is why I am so intrigued by military authors who look to "post-bureaucratic models" - a paradigm shift in this manner would have spin offs that would affect the military in profound ways in so many different areas.   We've started some progress, which may provide a fruitful stepping stone to further transformation (mission command and "networks" - the antithesis of the bureaucratic pyramid).

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## ZipperHead

Having "been there done that", part of it is the *carreer killing effect*.  If you are close to your pension, *do you want to jepordise it*?  Or do you want to stagnate in a rank for the duration, while every one that comes close, thinks you are a leper?  There is probably more reasons than bullets to this question.

Far from wanting to criticize an old soldier, this is the crux of the problem: the system wants people to be in fear of their career and in particular their pension. The Communists use(d) fear to great effect: having people think that everyone is spying on them, always watching your back. It reminds me of when I went through Basic and TQ3 ('88): they drummed into us to watch out for the dreaded SIU. "Anyone on this course could be SIU: trust no one!!!!" So, like typical mindless drones, we watched our back, and once, while in a cab here in glorious Gagetown, the cabbie was asking us typical questions like "what trade are you? What unit, etc...." Odds are, he was a military guy moonlighting to pay child support, or whatever. My buddy did  the "shhhhh!!!!!!" And "spelled out" SIU with his fingers. Kinda comical now, but he really believed this guy was SIU, just because.....

I suppose, once upon a time, I had high hopes for my career, but those dreams, like my youthful idealism, are long gone. *IF* I retire as a WO, I will be happy, but in many ways I'd rather top out at Sgt, so I don't have to feel like I have to become a "company man" once I hit the dizzying heights of WO. In fact, 20 years (instead of the 25-ish that I have been toying with as of late) is beginning to look better and better every day now (I'm pushing 18yrs). And to think, I thought I'd be a "lifer" when I joined....... Therein lies the irony: the system, which should be encouraging those that want to stay in and soldier on, usually frustrates these people by aiding and abetting the idle, and encouraging career climbers, who will never think about looking after the welfare of their soldiers - only their own goals. I've had a few too many of both (idle and careerists) in the not so distant past to make me realize that things may get better, but not soon enough for the damage to already be inflicted on my generation. Hopefully when I talk to soldiers in 10-15 years from now, the Sitrep will be better, but I have never been know to be an optismist (wish into one hand, and shit into the other.... see which one fills up faster...).....

Al


----------



## Old Ranger

We would always make sure they were in front.....so we could see the enemy's fire. ;D
Are there still private discussions out back for the ones that missed the "Pecking Order 101" class ? :-X


----------



## MdB

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Therein lies the irony: the system, which should be encouraging those that want to stay in and soldier on, usually frustrates these people by aiding and abetting the idle, and encouraging career climbers, who will never think about looking after the welfare of their soldiers - only their own goals.



What would it take to change the welfare of their soldiers under a prime goal to climb up? Being an officer (and wanting to go up) and soldiering on by making sure the soldiers' welfare under him is ok shouldn't oppose after all.


----------



## ZipperHead

> What would it take to change the welfare of their soldiers under a prime goal to climb up? Being an officer (and wanting to go up) and soldiering on by making sure the soldiers' welfare under him is ok shouldn't oppose after all.



In a black and white world, I would agree with you. However, we live in a grey world. When some people are confronted with the option of a) take a stand on behalf of a soldier at the expense of their career or b) only do as much as neccesary without "rocking the boat" to minimise damage to themselves, the answer is invariably "b". If you can prove me wrong, do so, but I have seen option "b" played out far more than option "a" over my career. It's not right, it just is.......

Al


----------



## MdB

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> take a stand on behalf of a soldier at the expense of their career



Could a superior recognize the officer/NCM did that for the welfare of those under him and say to him, you did the right thing? Like if you talk the talk, walk the walk. Leading by example? A beginning?

I'm not in, but I'd be really interested in having an example. I don't like to talk principles without frame.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

MdB said:
			
		

> Could a superior recognize the officer/NCM did that for the welfare of those under him and say to him, you did the right thing? Like if you talk the talk, walk the walk. Leading by example? A beginning?
> 
> I'm not in, but I'd be really interested in having an example. I don't like to talk principles without frame.


        There were officers I served under who would put it on the line to back you, and they got our best.  There were NCO's who knew how to delegate, and get off our backs while we get the job done (or tear us a new one if we slacked off).  There were also a lot of paper shufflers who cruised up the ranks, knew every comma and asterisk of the regs that could be used to justify their advancing as swift as possible through the ranks by screwing over anyone in their way, and to h*ll with the troops.  These garrison cowboys were very spit and polish, conspicuously absent in the field, first in line for any course, and last in line for any deployment.  A depressing number of them CFR'd, turning the most useless but-licking excuses for NCO's into tin-pot dictator instant officers.  Since our civilian lords and masters have long wished a military leadership more "in-step" with Ottawa, our military leadership has for the past generation been more concerned with "not rocking the boat" and appeasing our civilian leaders and the Canadian press, rather than building a fighting force.  This has had the effect of encouraging the rise of NCO's and commissioned officers that think more like bureaucrats in uniform than defenders of our nation.  In the Zulu wars, at Rourke's drift, the Quarter Masters refused to issue more than one box of ammunition at a time, and only to runners of their own company, causing the British to be over-run.  When I was twelve that seemed far fetched.  When I was twenty, I was amazed that they didn't require written authorization from the company commander, countersigned by the adjutant, have to fill out a loan card, and turn in the spent brass from the preceding box before issue of new rounds. Now it would probably also require an environmental impact study on the terrain, and a signed acknowledgement of the ROE's for dealing with howling mobs of screaming barbarians as drafted by some African theologian in his cushy New York UN office.


----------



## CH1

Some body asked for a case in point of an NCO or Officer being recognized for looking after their ppl.

I was #1 on the hit parade from 87 to 98. Slid to #2 Just before the Regt'l Reunion.  I Am still a pariah in the Officers Mess save for the ppl that can be counted on 2 hands & which base I'm on.  It looks like an all out fire fight to get my pension.

That's what I get for 37 years.  Serves me right!  Would I do it again?  Khaki runs in my veins & I will stand up for my bodies till death.  Out of public scrutiny, they will get a new a**s chewed if they require it.

There you have it.  20 yrs as an Lt!!  & all I ever wanted was to be an RSM.

There's no life like it;  INFANTRY!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers


----------



## Heathan

How can we have any accountability in this military when on more than one occasion I have heard, " DONT ADMIT A THING", this when the soldier was taking responsibility for his actions.  Instead of being applauded for his integrity, he was punished harder than those who have been in the exact same spot but denied everything. Another personal motivator for me is the CFL that moans, groans, and does nothing to change the situation yet never gets out. All they do is pollute the minds of the new soldier into believing that the jobs sucks. I have been in-out-back in and the grass always seems greener on the other side, for me and my family the military is wonderful.  I have had lots of bad times and shitty goes, but for those few good ones, it makes it more than worth it.


----------



## CH1

Heathan:

I think you are close to hitting the nail on the head.  Unfortunately this has always seemed to creep into the system ever since Christ was a lance-jack.  I don't think there is any way to stop it due to the wide span of personal nature.

The system does have some checks & balances.  How ever nothing is perfect.

For myself, the military has been my family as long as I can remember.  It has had it's moments both good & bad, but 80%+ good overall.  It is hard to try & adjust to a civvie life. 

Cheers


----------



## DELTADOG13

I apologize for not responding earlier. I do admit these days that we need to move on in our training subjects. I was not discounting the "three block war or the contemporary operating envirement". What I was stating is we need to get back to basic's of the combat arms mentality. Or what I like to call the three tenets of an Infantryman. FITNESS, MARKSMANSHIP AND BATTLECRAFT. Everyday I try teach my young and old soldiers( I have a Pte who is 37) to be fit and have pride in being fit, I try to do fun non injuring fitness training that will prepare them for the field. When we go to the range which we try to do at every availiable moment( first training sacrificed by the C of C) we do relevent applications of shooting. We also try to teach CQB skills. The problem is finding the qualified range staff to carry out the range. Ammo and range bookings for once not being the problem. Battlecraft the bread and butter of the combat arms......everyone a rifleman first mentality. I think I've ranted enough. Eventhough I lack certain qual's to carry out some of the trg I try to carry it out through dry and walk throughs. Keeping in mind the principles of leadership. i strive to ensure when I deploy to have the best trained troops ready to do the job. Constantly while deployed we did continuation training as well as learning new skills. Not once have I neglected my duty to my troops. i emplore my troops to always be looking for new training and ways to keep current with the ever changing tempo. I know I'm rehasing an old theme it just might not be getting through. I still believe in doing bags and bags of the high speed low drag stuff. My intent was to highlight the fact that we sacrifice the basics before going on to the high speed stuff. Plus comd's need to realise that troops need to be challenged physically and mentally with bags of stress. Commanders acceptance of risk on such things as fast rope training, adv mountain trg and such. Well I've ranted enough now. 

Cheers Out


----------



## GO!!!

Delta

I agree with most of your post, but the "getting back to basics" part is the kicker. IMHO the "basics" should BE dynamic entries, unarmed cbt, instinctive shooting and fibua drills. The current basics should become the stuff we do once a year. 

I for one have learned far more on 3 week "high speed" exercises in which there was a concentration on fibua and shooting, than on the long slow grinders in Wx where you spend endless hours waiting for the leaders recce to return, or doing the leaders recce.

In addition to this, the point has been raised about how 1) Troops these days question orders and have attitudes 2) We need thinking soldiers, not drones. Well, what happens when those thinking soldiers think that some of their leaders are gluebags? While I am not advocating insubordination, or a big chip on one's shoulder, is'nt this a bit of a catch 22?


----------



## DELTADOG13

GO, I agree with you whole heartedly. We should still do the "basics" at least to qualify in the Battle Task Standards. I agree we should be doing dynamic entries and instinctive shooting more often. I believe that every couple of weeks we should go to the range and shoot. Concentrating on non standard applications vice the normal grudge. That was the intent of my post. Not to say we shouldn't develop with the times. To do so is die in combat with a ever changing slithering snake. Cheers.


----------



## ZipperHead

> In addition to this, the point has been raised about how 1) Troops these days question orders and have attitudes 2) We need thinking soldiers, not drones. Well, what happens when those thinking soldiers think that some of their leaders are gluebags? While I am not advocating insubordination, or a big chip on one's shoulder, is'nt this a bit of a catch 22?



I think that this brings up a few good points: when I joined, the only experience I had with the military was 5 years in Army Cadets (and a lot of viewings of Platoon, Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket  :warstory, and to be sure I didn't know a lot about true leadership and the army in general. But even then I recognized that there were a lot of shit-pumps in the military. My first "true" crew commander was a Sgt who was about 3 ranks higher than he should have been (let's just say that "Affirmative Action" types of initiatives got him to where he was..... they also say that you rise to your level of incompetency). We knew enough to keep our mouth shut and do what we were told, no matter how stunned-ass and baked we thought it (the idea, the action, etc)was. Of course there comes a point when you feel the need to question the legitimacy (and legality) of what you are told to do, but this can only be done when you have the experience, and the ability to come up with an alternate solution, and also be able to accept the responsibility that comes with questioning something. Any leader who think that their CFL's (corporal/captain-for-life) don't have good ideas, based on experience and intelligence, isn't a  good leader at all. No one person knows everything, nor can think of the 100% off the top of their head for any given problem; they have to be able to rely on others to assist, but ultimately, if they choose a subordinates idea, and it tubes, the leader tubes. And if it works, recognize the subordinate. 

The last thing that we need are mindless drones (everybody would like to have a unit of super-soldiers, with one shit-magnet to do all the duties for the others....), but we also don't need a unit full of Corporal-Colonels, where the disenfranchised whinge and whine about how horrible their leaders ideas are, infect the young soldiers with their malaise, and then crumble like a house of cards when they are put into a position of leadership or authority. Believe me, I see this all the time..... To be a good leader, one must be a good follower, and if you can't follow direction, there isn't much good for you in the military. I internally question some of the stunned-ass things that come down the pipe (based on 17 years of experience in the army), and thenthink up options, and present these to people who can affect change. Usually these ideas are cast on the scrap-heap (don't question the plan: rule #1), but sometimes, those that "think outside of the box" or "lead change" actually listen, and things can change (slowly but surely, things are changing for the better.... too late for a lot of us, but hopefully soon enough for those that just joined).

Anyway, good discussion and hopefully somebody learns something here.

Al


----------



## reccecrewman

I don't really see anything wrong with it............... If there's a leadership position that needs filling, and the leadership doesn't think they have a Corporal fit to do the job but they have a bright & shining star who is only a Private, by all means - promote that man.  Why promote an incompetent over someone who would actually do a better job because one is a Cpl. & one is a Pte.?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Because the Pte may be lacking the necessary experience that he would find in 4 years vice 2.


----------



## ZipperHead

> I don't really see anything wrong with it............... If there's a leadership position that needs filling, and the leadership doesn't think they have a Corporal fit to do the job but they have a bright & shining star who is only a Private, by all means - promote that man.  Why promote an incompetent over someone who would actually do a better job because one is a Cpl. & one is a Pte.?



I don't see anything inherently wrong with this way of thing, but I doubt, RecceCrewman, that you will be so magnamious when a "bright and shining star" leaps over you on the race to MasterJack. It's easy to be young and keen when you are young and keen, but try to slug it out, year after year, waiting for training opportunities that never come (budget cuts, being deployed, being further down in the pecking order, being injured, etc). I have seen it, but never lived it (I had just over 4 years in when I got my CLC), but I have watched a lot of good soldiers get bypassed by the Johnny Cleanboots types who can turn it on for the Tp Ldr or Tp WO, but aren't worth a shit in the long run because they didn't serve their time as an "incompetent" Cpl (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and pretend that you didn't mean that all Cpl's are incompetent, but rather that some are, and shouldn't get leadership trg just because they've plodded along....... After all, one has to start out as an incompetent Tpr before they can rise to the ranks of incompetent Cpl).

The way that the CF is growing, we are going to see guys go from one banana to MasterJack, so we can only hope that the right people are selected for leadership trg based only on performance from a few exercises, maybe a deployment and garrison life. Odds are there will be young bucks launched up to MCpl (and beyond....) who would, in hindsight, been better served to stay as Cpl's (or released.....) than to race up the ranks. Time will tell, and hopefully these "streamers" have the intelligence to realize that they are in the army in a different era than some of the CFL's, and to not think they are anything shit-hot, only lucky for the opportunity, and if they are smart, will seek the advice of the older guys. I won't hold my breath, but hopefully it'll happen.

Al


----------



## NCRCrow

I cannot remember the last time I was allowed to write an adverse comment on a PER?

Is the way of the future?

Are we too accommodating/kinder/gentler military?

Is this setting a bad precedent for the next generation of leaders!

Any comments (especially from Senior NCM's)


----------



## George Wallace

So you are instructed to leave the Box listing any 'shortcomings'/'requires improvement' empty?


----------



## NCRCrow

In PDR's yes (section 5b).......in PER's no!

Has anyone else seen the PER phenomenon of only writing nice things about adverse people.


----------



## George Wallace

Well if they are really bad, there should be comments in the CO's box, which will entail the Bde/Formation/Base Comd to fill in the bottom box.   That screws up a person's career for a minimum of four to five years.   Perhaps, we are a kinder, gentler CF, and our top echelons don't have what it takes to fill in those two boxes, after all, they need to justify what they write.   

From experience, I had a WO and CO screw me over that way.   Follow their statements, with statements from the Bde Comd, who didn't know me from a hole in the ground and.........Although I had a great PER the year before and the same the year after, that one year from them demolished my last four years of service promotion wise.   Both of them, however, had proven how tough they were and got promotions.   One went on to work in the reformation of the Army.   Both lost all credibility.   The things I know.........


----------



## aesop081

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> In PDR's yes (section 5b).......in PER's no!
> 
> Has anyone else seen the PER phenomenon of only writing nice things about adverse people.



It was that way when i used to write them too.   I think it is now systemic in the CF.   A combination of supervisors not wanting to have adverse effects on a members career and the fear of harassement proceedings have tainted the value of the PER system.   I know we are all told that if what we write can be substatiated and behave ethicaly there will be no problems but i find that in the world of harassement you are "guilty before proven otherwise", supervisors at all levels have chosen the easy way out to avoid unwanted complictations.   That is of course my own opinion only.   This all, IMHO , has ead to a cultur of unwilligness to write negatives in a member's PER.


----------



## NCRCrow

I do not think as a military we give an honest assessments of our people and the bad habits continue as they get promoted.

My point of view, the CF is so scared of hurting anybody's feelings.

The H  word is definitely a tactic used by the weak when they have no legitmate cause or moral courage to do what is expected of them.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!!

On two seperate occasions I have written PER's for people that work directly for me and are not seen in any way by the higher ranks in their daily duties. I wrote the PER's with plenty of substantiated evidence and when the PER's were completed, I was told "thats very nice but we had an ogroup and decided this would be the scores for those people."

 So in effect you have an ogroup consisting of senior NCO's and officers that never spend more than 5 minutes a day (during a smoke break) with these soldiers and they determine what the soldiers performance for the year has been. Makes me sick.


----------



## ZipperHead

I think that PDR's/PER's are a huge waste of time, as they have become so generic as to become useless. That and the fact that there are so many misconceptions about what you are "allowed" to write in them. An example of this is that some people think that if you write something positive about somebody under "Initiative" that you can't write something in the Areas for Development under "initiative", because it is impossible to have an AoD for something that you had a strength in. Those people should get a "did not meet the required standard" for Intellect and Reasoning.......

The impression that you are not able to comment on someone's physical fitness just because they passed that super-challenging fitness test that is the AFS is beyond agonizing. So just because I attended harassment/diversity/sensitivity training on Apr 1st, I am good to go, and able to be an arsehole/non-diverse/insensitive for the rest of the year??!?! Same thing for the fitness test standing. If a person is a sack of goo, that should be fair game for commenting on, regardless of passing the AFS (which I'm fairly sure my 74 year old mother could do, and I'm certain my mother-in-law, who is 73 and more active than a good chunk of the people I encounter day-to-day (rides her bike, canoes, plays badminton)). 

I am actually disappointed when I get an overly flowery assessment, that mentions nothing about my obvious shortcomings. To me, it is a sign that people are either too lazy to write an effective (and honest) assessment, or afraid of the dreaded redress of grievance, and take the safe way out.  I have received a few good ones in the last few years, but generally I know what they are going to say before I sign them (which either indicates I am so in tune with what is right/wrong with me, or that I am cynical and jaded...... perhaps a bit of both).

Another pet-peeve of mine is one minor thing that is done in the period around the reporting period, and lo and behold, it appears on the assesment. I'm sure I could cure cancer at the beginning of the reporting period, but forget to spell-check one of the assessment's that I write, and the whole curing cancer thing is forgotten, but under Communication it would read "Sgt Luomala must ensure that he thoroughly proof-reads all his written communications to his superiors before submitting them." And yes, I try to avoid doing the same thing to my subordinates, but I have to admit it probably has happened (hypocrisy is the greatest luxury).

Personally, I think everyone should have to do a "self-assessment" that is reviewed by their superiors, just to see if the person is right out of 'er. Anything that is put on the assessment wouldn't neccesarily be used against the person, but it's a good indicator of what a person would need to work on (or be recognized for.... though each person has (should have) the opportunity to pass on to the superior any accomplishments, trg, etc), and the good old "action plan" could actually take on some meaning. Maybe this is too radical of an idea, where people would have to actually use critical thinking skills and realize their limitations and pursue self-improvement......

Anyway, in lieu of real battles, the paper battles must be fought......

Al


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I once had a Cpl in the Air Force who spent 60% of her time with the Base band, either practicing or playing. They sent me back her PER 4 times, with suggestions, for me to rewrite. Four times they got it back the same way. They finally wrote it themselves. I kept my original copy of her PER until I got out, in case it was needed. At least I wasn't going to be responsible when an oxygen system she worked on crapped out.


----------



## NCRCrow

My biggest pet peeve is the meeting where they decide what the unit merit listing is, prior to even writing a PER draft.

1.Jones
2.Smith
.
.
26.Bloggins


WTF...Bloggins is always being seen off. Poor SOB!

Communication the one skill on a PER, you will never master!


----------



## McG

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> I cannot remember the last time I was allowed to write an adverse comment on a PER?   Is the way of the future?   Are we too accommodating/kinder/gentler military?   Is this setting a bad precedent for the next generation of leaders!


Having written many, and edited many more, I believe there is not enough space to write an honest PER (something always gets left out).   However, that is not an excuse to write a narrative that paints a distorted picture.   One of the many things I have fought against is a desire to right justify bullets to achieve a certain score.   I believe each bullet must be scored as honestly as possible, even if it means that the individual ends up with one or two much higher/lower than all the other bullets.   The other thing that I ensure is that the narrative supports the bullet scores (for good or bad), and if the narrative cannot support the scores then it is launched back to the author.   If your leadership is not allowing honest assessments in the PERs, they need to re-evaluate the professionalism in their approach to PERs.



			
				SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> I wrote the PER's with plenty of substantiated evidence and when the PER's were completed, I was told "thats very nice but we had an ogroup and decided this would be the scores for those people."


This past year, we had the supervisors pass the scores they wanted to give up the chain of comd.   These were then compiled into a list that sorted everyone by rank & score.   With few exceptions, these scores did not change (and where the scores did change the supervisors had the opportunity to defend against the increase or decrease).   It still may not be a perfect system, but it was a good balance of reflecting the supervisors' observations while ensuring nobody was scoring their pers more liberally (or tight-fistedly) than anyone else.



			
				Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> some people think that if you write something positive about somebody under "Initiative" that you can't write something in the Areas for Development under "initiative", because it is impossible to have an AoD for something that you had a strength in. Those people should get a "did not meet the required standard" for Intellect and Reasoning.......


 Unfortunately, I've seen this too.   Unless you are perfect (and I suspect that none of us are) you can even find room to improve your strengths.   It may also be that while you excel in a certain area within your current rank, you also have room to develop that area to better prepare for the next rank.


----------



## Sapper6

As someone who has some knowledge of career management, I offer the following comments:



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Having written many, and edited many more, I believe there is not enough space to write an honest PER (something always gets left out).   However, that is not an excuse to write a narrative that paints a distorted picture.   One of the many things I have fought against is a desire to right justify bullets to achieve a certain score.   I believe each bullet must be scored as honestly as possible, even if it means that the individual ends up with one or two much higher/lower than all the other bullets.   The other thing that I ensure is that the narrative supports the bullet scores (for good or bad), and if the narrative cannot support the scores then it is launched back to the author.   If your leadership is not allowing honest assessments in the PERs, they need to re-evaluate the professionalism in their approach to PERs.



There is no perfect system, plain and simple.  Having seen PERs morph from the 5 page monstrosities to the current one-pagers, it is my opinion that we are refining it in a good way.  The fact remains that eventhough ADM (HR Mil) has reduced the amount of text to be written on an individual, DGMC is still missing approx 5000 PERs from this year.  With a CF population of approx 55K on any given day, I find it abhorrent that certain segments of the CF leadership can live with the fact that approx 10% of their subordinates do not have an annual PER for 04/05.  But I digress.  Of note, DGMC is working on changing the PERs again as it is clear that inflation is becoming more prevalent.  We already know that next year weighting for performance and potential will be switched.



> This past year, we had the supervisors pass the scores they wanted to give up the chain of comd.   These were then compiled into a list that sorted everyone by rank & score.   With few exceptions, these scores did not change (and where the scores did change the supervisors had the opportunity to defend against the increase or decrease).   It still may not be a perfect system, but it was a good balance of reflecting the supervisors' observations while ensuring nobody was scoring their pers more liberally (or tight-fistedly) than anyone else.



I agree with this system.  Again, is it perfect? Probably not.  However, what it allows is some control on scores coming out of a unit.  The fact remains that regardless of what your MOSID is or what unit you are in, the bell curve of humanity applies.  In other words, you will more or less have 15% of your people who are 'needing improvement', 70% who are 'skilled/exceeded the standard", and 15% who are 'mastered'.  Of course there will be exceptions, and that is why we don't have score controls sent down from NDHQ.  Finally, having now seen PERs written from across this great country of ours, there is still discrepencies on how people write PERs.  That is why, Career Managers brief COs and RSMs on how their PERs look from a national perspective.  Remember the bell curve?  No one can prove to me that a certain geographic region has all of the best XXXX (insert rank) and therefore should have a disproportionate share of the promotions.  That gentlemen is why the chain of command may have to maneuvre a few dots one way or another.  Gross misrepresentation of a soldier higher/lower is extremely rare, but sometimes you may have to swallow your pride and move the guy's dot one over to the right/left to line up with  a picture that is dictated from higher - which is in the best interest of the Army, Unit and Individual.  Did I say that I haven't seen the perfect appraisal system yet?



> Unfortunately, I've seen this too.   Unless you are perfect (and I suspect that none of us are) you can even find room to improve your strengths.   It may also be that while you excel in a certain area within your current rank, you also have room to develop that area to better prepare for the next rank.



Agreed.  It was always my policy of telling the individual what his strengths were and his areas for development prior to him/her looking at the PDR/PER.  People tend to listen more and get less focused on where the dots are.

Finally, it would be nice to say in a utopian world that we don't need the dots/scores and someone should be promoted on the narrative.  Well, I'm here to tell you that is really what happens anyways.  The dots translate to a numerical score that is determined when the PER is scanned into software at DMCARM 2.  The raw scores will determine whether you make the promotion board or not.  However, from first hand  experience, I will tell you that the narrative takes over at that point.  Board members are quite astute and can see through an "inflated" PER when the "dots" don't jive with the narrative.  So, the lesson here is that you must back up all your "Mastered/Outstanding/Immediate" PERs with hard examples.  If you can't fill the narrative box with well written justification....then maybe that guy isn't as good as somebody thinks.

S6 (suffering quietly in an NDHQ job)


----------



## Chimo

Well written Sapper6, I share your pain. Keep up the god fight!


----------



## Armymedic

My issue is what,other then the Word Picture book, defines what a skilled, Exeeding Standard or Mastered soldier is. That document is generic, and too often in my experience treated as gospel. So bad at my unit, that one officer told me that I had to write one soldier as a ES vs M because they only met one of the three recomendations in the Word Book for a mastered cpl in a particular PER area and therefore did not have the prerequisite number of M vs ES, while the soldier was obviously immediately ready for promotion (and merited to be anyway!?!).

I believe there should be more discussion, like PD sessions, ref the "merit boards" and how to rate your people, and said scale should be understood by all in the chain, and maintained, not changed with each APS.


----------



## Sapper6

Armymedic,

Sadly, the Word Picture Book, which is part of the CFPAS, is the only "official" guide to writing PERs.  However, my experience with combat arms PERs is that they seldom use the Picture Book.

Again, my experience is that the leadership of a particular unit determines who is ready to be promoted immediately through a unit board.  Hopefully, there is discussion and lots of justification to substantiate any supervisor's claim.  Then the PER is written to match the *Immediate* promotion recommendation.  Usually, a *Mastered* performance and *Outstanding* write-up must follows the Immediate promotion recommendation.  Sound a little ass-backward?  It is, but it is the only way to do it consistently across an particular unit.

In your case, there was a disconnect if the soldier was merited as immediate but your officer told you to write him up as ES.  Doesn't make sense.

As far as PD sessions go, it is my experience that the unit Adjt gives a brief to all unit 2ICs who in turn briefs all Tp/Pl WOs on how the PERs will be administered.  With respect to unit merit boards, I would expect to see the unit CO, RSM, All OCs, All SSMs/CSMs and the Adjt.  Sometimes the unit CC acts as secretary up to the point that his rank is discussed. With the normal turnover of leadership positions every 2 yrs, there should be plenty of folks still around from the previous year to speak up if someone is being treated unfairly or if the criteria changes too wildly.

S6.


----------



## Gunner98

Getting an adverse PER through the labyrinth can be a challenge as well, but one sometimes worth fighting for.

The NCM career manager told our Sr NCOs that NCM PER scores were too low last year ( read not competitive). To me that means we did not exaggerate enough, or at least as much as everyone else. 

It has only taken a few years for the CFPAS system to become as abused as all of those of the past 20 years.  IMHO there could be more promotion authority given to COs.  If you promoted them you gotta keep them for a couple of years.  You reap what you sow.

Conversely the supervisors including CO are seldom around long enough to have to see the results of the harvest and that is why they must rely on centralized boards. A system where everyone(including an honest broker) reads how you rate your crop.  If the crop turns to crap someone else around the table may be stuck with the crappy harvest for a couple of years.


----------



## Armymedic

Gunner98 said:
			
		

> The NCM career manager told our Sr NCOs that NCM PER scores were too low last year ( read not competitive). To me that means we did not exaggerate enough, or at least as much as everyone else.



Or your troops are not performing as well as everyone else's... 



> n your case, there was a disconnect if the soldier was merited as immediate but your officer told you to write him up as ES.  Doesn't make sense.



That was in the performance section...In potential he still had 5/6 Outstanding, and was still promoted. The whole discussion was section by section of the book, with me justifying each section of performance as per the word picture book. I am still confused by the whole episode, as how each section relates the actions of the individual up to personal interpretation.


----------



## Gunner98

Army Medic,

Promotion Recommendations are not based on performance, they are based solely on Potential scores, see excerpt from CFPAS Handbook:

The promotion recommendation indicates the member's overall readiness for promotion to the next rank based on the member's assessed potential. Minimum eligibility requirements/criteria for promotion to the next rank (e.g., time in rank, applicable military qualification) are not factors in assigning a promotion recommendation category. *The promotion recommendation is to be made by the reviewing officer.*

immediate. Member is considered to have outstanding potential for progression to the next rank as described by the "OUTSTANDING" category in the Potential Rating Scale. A minimum of 4 Outstanding assessments factors, with no low ratings, equates to an Immediate Promotion Recommendation. 

ready. Member demonstrates consistently high potential for progression to next rank as described by the "ABOVE AVERAGE" category in the Potential Rating Scale. A minimum of 4 Above Average assessment factors, with no low ratings, equates to a Ready Promotion Recommendation; and


----------



## Sapper6

Armymedic said:
			
		

> That was in the performance section...In potential he still had 5/6 Outstanding, and was still promoted. The whole discussion was section by section of the book, with me justifying each section of performance as per the word picture book. I am still confused by the whole episode, as how each section relates the actions of the individual up to personal interpretation.



Armymedic,

Understood.  I am aware that it is possible to have an ES in Performance and an O in Potential, it is rare but that is how the CFPAS was designed.  There was meant to be a separation between Performance and Potential.  For example, the real young up-and-comer who has outstanding potential but hasn't quite Mastered his performance yet, or conversely, the experienced soldier who completely understands his job (Mastered) but doesn't have the qualities to move to the next rank (Normal/Above Average).  Unfortunately, the CFPAS has been abused in my opinion and there seems to be 'bands' of PERs.  There's the M/O/I, the ES/AA/R and then all the rest.

With regards to the Word Picture Book, I agree.  Many of the sections don't relate to specific MOSIDs and that leaves it up to personal interpretation.

S6.


----------



## armyvern

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> I am aware that it is possible to have an ES in Performance and an O in Potential, it is rare but that is how the CFPAS was designed.   There was meant to be a separation between Performance and Potential.


I've seen this quite often as a support trade. Lot's of re-musters in, many with exemplary leadership skills gained during years of experience in former hard army MOCs. If newly re-mustered, they can be quite lacking in the performance ratings as they just don't have the background knowledge in their new MOCs to back-up ES or Mastered scores. Yet when it comes to Potential scores, they are very easily justified. Thus the differentiation between the potential and the performance.


----------



## ZipperHead

Either I am right-out-'er, or maybe I haven't dove in to the instruction manual for CFPAS (I am a man, after all  ) enough, but the way I see how the word picture book SHOULD work (we use similar procedures to assess soldiers during field trg) is that if in doubt about how a soldier performed in a certain skill group/set, read the word picture book to see where GENERALLY that soldier fits (ES, M, etc) and then use the word picture book as a GUIDE. I have seen assessments that were written word-for-word using the word picture. I'm hoping that that isn't the way that some people write them (I definitely don't), as that would cause the "cookie-cutter" syndrome, and remove the ability for a soldier's attributes to be covered in a more honest and descriptive way. As it is, the CFPAS is written for office workers, not field soldiers, and it can be difficult to tailor an assesment to suit a soldiers performance while in the field, or more importantly, while deployed. 

I don't see why they couldn't create MOC specific assesments or at least seperation in leaders/followers (they do it for Padres, Sr Officers/DND Executives, CWO's etc) that would allow a little more flexibility in assessing somebody in their trade. 

There are a few fields that make me cringe everytime I read them: Leading Change, and Ethics and Values. The military is one of many organizations that fear change, and implying that one has to be "leading" change means that you would have to be going against the norms of the institution, or God forbid, turning into a sensitive, diversified, tree-hugging, mindless drone to be "with it". I think, at the lower levels anyways, a more reasonable term would be Accepting/Following Change. As for Ethics and Values, that one makes me want to vomit with rage. How can anybody assess somebody on Ethics and/or Values. If I'm a chronic alcoholic, wife-beating, DUI-ing, DVD-pirating crack-whore, who am I to assess the ethics of someone else. What is ethical to one person may be unethical to unother (abortion, gay marriage, gun possesion, spanking their child, etc). And would promoting a person who is blatantly unethical not be condoning unethical behaviour (I'm sure anybody with more than 6 months in the military has seen this happen.......). I'm not pro-antiethical behaviour: I just don't feel that I am capable of judging others on it (nor am I comfortable in the thought that someone whose ethics and values are contrary to mine could tube me on that account).

There will never be a one-size-fits-all in this regard (witness having the different formats for those that I already mentioned), but I'm sure we could still look at improving the system (see!!! I'm leading change!!!! Alert my "supervisor": another civilian-speak term that I hate). 

Al


----------



## Armymedic

Gunner98 said:
			
		

> Promotion Recommendations are not based on performance, they are based solely on Potential scores, see excerpt from CFPAS Handbook:





			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> Understood.   I am aware that it is possible to have an ES in Performance and an O in Potential, it is rare but that is how the CFPAS was designed.   There was meant to be a separation between Performance and Potential.



Yes, I developed that understanding after this same example. I had two soldiers in the same yr which fell onto the opposite ends of that Perf vs Potential specrum. Which brings me to my next suggestion for improvement of the system. Potential guidance is a single (no rank, no trade specific) outline per point on PER as to what constitutes L, N, AA, or O. Again up to personal interpretation. If we are to put more wieght to Potential, then I believe there should be more distinct guidance given per trade/rank level, because its not the obvious ones we have trouble with...its always those border line ones which cause me to pull out the last few remaining hair I have.

My complaint is occasionally people take that "guidance" to gospel, and it is my opinion that it doesn't give enough specifics to be used it that way. And now, I am a Sgt, expected to guide a new MCpl in supervising and evaluating our subordinates in accordance with the guidance given in those documents.


----------



## Sapper6

A Luomala,

Agreed.  Whew. Good rant.  Like I said earlier, there is no perfect appraisal system.

Armymedic,

I feel your pain.  I know that DGMC (Career shop in NDHQ) is working on a new CFPAS.  What I don't know is the time-frame for roll-out.  I'll look into this and try and post the answer back here.  Finally, I too hope there is more direction coming down on how we are to write up the Potential box, since it is going to hold more weight for the Sr NCOs and officers next year.

S6.


----------



## Gunner98

Army Medic 

Concerning, "Potential guidance is a single (no rank, no trade specific) outline per point on PER as to what constitutes L, N, AA, or O."  

The general idea of potential was to compare a person at their current rank to their potential to meet the expectations of the next rank level.  This means comparing them to the next rank level or more senior supervisor and evaluating the likelihood of them filling those shoes with the current skills, talents and abilities.  The likelihood is reflected in the chart - Section 305 Potential Rating Scale.

The individual expectations for performance were originally to be based on MOC (Rank) Specifications and now MOSID expectations that si what MOSART was all about. (Military Occupational Structure Analysis, Redesign and Tailoring)

I prefer, the British style PER statements whch includes basically writing a story about what you observed such as, "He has the courage of conviction to keep me informed of everything, even the things he knows I would not want to hear."  Or " He is an excellent problem identifier and solver, ensuring the safe execution of his tasks and fulfillment our missions."


----------



## ZipperHead

Gunner98, I completely agree with you on the British style of assessment. I try as much as possible to write assessments like that. The problem is when someone who isn't good at wordology (those with limited education or intellect.... I have read some HORRIBLE assesments, along the lines of: "He done good this year.") tries to write something, it comes out incoherent. Hence, the Word Pictures. Unfortunately people just copy/paste right from the manual, so we end up with generic assessments because people are unwilling/unable to put any thought into writing an assessment.

Face it, nobody said you have to be smart to be in the Army, but some people take that to heart. I cringe thinking about assessments written in about 10 years by the MSN/AIM/techno-nerds/hip-hop generation: "He wuz a kewl leet hax0r this yeer. Woot!!" 

Al


----------



## Greywolf

I agree that the current evaluation system is ineffective.  It does not really accurately evaluate someone's performance.  I'm a private (been in for one year, excluding the time for basic training and QL3) and I'm not being arrogant here, but I must say I'm a damn good worker.  My section was understaffed, and on several occasions, I happened to be the only one left in the whole section so I was basically put in charge.  On those occasions, the section ran smoothly with no problems whatsoever...everything was done on time.  On many other occasions, even when there was one or at most 2 others working in the section, I was left with the majority of work.  I'm a supply tech and even though I was the one with the least experience in the section, I was supposed to be in charge of doing up ALL the orders for all the units, processing invoices (All that come through the section), plus picking stock in the warehouse, and several other duties around the compound.  Normally, 2 people would be hard pressed to get everything done.  But I have always managed to clear up the workload within 3 days (i.e. nothing is ever left undone for more than 3 days).  No mistakes either!  All the customers that come through have been satisfied when I was working in the section.  But when it comes time for my evaluation, my supervisor tells me that since I'm a private, the evaluation is supposed to be average.  It can't be "Too good".  It seems to me the evaluation doesn't really assess my performance at all.  

And then what gets me the most was when I applied for commissioning, the OC wrote that she cannot write up a recommendation for me (basically saying "cannot comment" in most of the categories) because I haven't been in long enough and she can't assess my work performance.  Well, did she ask my immediate supervisor, the MCpl about my work performance in the section?  NO.  No phone call, no letter...  Actually my MCpl went and asked if she needed a letter written up on my job performance, she said "No, that's not necessary".  Well, indeed how would she be able to write up a recommendation for me if she doesn't go and find out what kind of work I do?  

Am I pissed?  Yes.  And one wonders why so many people want to leave the military!


----------



## armyvern

Greywolf said:
			
		

> I agree that the current evaluation system is ineffective.
> - No mistakes either!
> - All the customers that come through have been satisfied
> - It seems to me the evaluation doesn't really assess my performance at all.
> - I applied for commissioning, the OC wrote that she cannot write up a recommendation for me


Well I'm a Sup Tech too. Do you want to come work for me in Gagetown?? I wouldn't recommend you either because that would mean the section would fall apart and fail once you left. Unit would therefore not achieve it's mission goals.
You'd only get a PDR as a Pte. No PERs until you're a Cpl....
I could use you in Clothing Stores....and I guarantee you'll make mistakes and they'll be noted in your "Areas for Improvement." This is not necessarily a bad thing...we learn by our mistakes, and one tends to find when they are willing to accept their mistakes and take responsibility for them, it goes further towards the write-up than not . We improve upon them.  I've yet to meet a single Sup Tech who doesn't. I'm wondering exactly what section you work in? Your job description below tends to lead one to believe you are in the MAIN Whse or in SPSS. I'm also assuming that by mentioning "invoices" you are actually referring to picking slips? I don't seem to recall a single warehouse (including those of us that also worked out in the H110 compound as part of our daily duties) where we actually handled invoices, as that is a customer services/LPO section function, not a warehouse function. I don't think your over in the Maint Coy QM because I guarantee those EME guys and the ET would definately have picked you up for something.

I can't provide any insight into the application for Commissioning as I always thought that we could not apply for one. I thought you must be recommended by the Chain of Command for a Commissioning if they observed outstanding performance and potential and if they also observed "Officer-like qualities." Kincanuks could probably address this issue best with correct information, whatever it is.  ???


----------



## ZipperHead

I have to make an observation here on what Greywolf said: why is it that Pte's can't have a PER written on them? Is it because we ASSUME that they won't display any of the attributes that we would like to see. Is it that we don't EXPECT them to, because they are _only_ a Private? When they hit Corporal, bang!, a switch is tripped and they are now good to go!! Pretty simplistic, if you ask me. 

I also noticed that Greywolf is 29. That would lead me to believe that they had somewhat of a life before the army. A "real" job probably. A family, no doubt. Having to manage themselves, and maybe a few dependents. This is where the system has to recognize that not everyone goes from high-school to recruit-school, or from momma's apron to the Sgt-Major's. Having said that, older recruits have to understand that the "system" is designed for less mature personnel, with the expectation that an 18 yr old Pte is going to perform differently than a 28, or 38, or 48 yr old Private. I have heard a soldier who joined at 33 say that after 3 years in (the military) that they should be a MCpl, because they are older than some of the MCpl's in the Regt. Uh, not quite. 

I recall a time that when I was a Trooper (Pte), there were a few of us (Tpr's) running Admin Troop, as all the leadership were gone on course. We basically took turns doing what we had to do, and the work got done. Nothing burned down. We didn't get any glorious write-ups out of that, but we were recognized down the road (the majority of us got our leadership trg ahead  of the pack). Everyone is expected to perform at the next rank level (Pte -> Cpl, Lt-> Capt, etc), so it isn't uncommon, particularly now that there is a "boom" in recruiting, and an increase in the releases, for people to perform 2 ranks higher. I was a MCpl acting as a Tp WO, and luckily because it was for over 6 months, I was "creditted" with it on my employment history on my PER, but once I hit Sgt, I was at the bottom of the pile, as though I had never been acting Tp WO. C'est la vie. I was recently a Tp Sgt, and through releases/postings/etc I went to Tp WO/Tp Leader for about 3 months. No write up, no thanks for coming out. It is referred to as doing your job. 

The moral of my story: maybe we should, as an organization, have a higher expectation of what a Pte is capable of, and write them up where applicable (in certain cases), and go against the way things have been done for time immemorial. Or leave it the way it is, and ensure that Privates (especially the older, more mature Private's that have joined in recent history) know what their place is (be a good Private: be seen (working hard), and not heard (bitching about what they think things should be like). I don't know if the system needs to be changed, or people need to change their expectations.

I'm not ragging on you Greywolf: you bring up a good point. I have seen it with some of the soldiers that I have had working for me who joined a little later in life. They don't want to be lumped in with all the teen-agers, and they actually want to be challenged in their work, not just being a "good Private" and doing no less than they are expected, nor more. It fairly sucks having to write up a hard working keen Tpr as less than a pooch-screwing lazy-a$$ Cpl, just because of seniority. But with the write right-up (and behind the scenes work) a keen young Private can (and should) be recognized. It worked for me (just never mind the next 14 years, as they are an example of what NOT to do with your career   )

And, just to bring a little more rain onto the parade, I suspect that the reason that Private's don't get a PER, is due to the paperwork/staffing it would entail. Maybe that's reason enough, as the unit AO (Admin Officer) is usually the busiest person in NATO for the 3-4 month PER blitz. 

I probably didn't give an answer (I think I confused myself somewhat) but if you look deep inside, there may be something to be learned. Or it's the APS (aluminum pot syndrome) convincing me I came up with a pearl of wisdom (the Sr NCO curse).

Al


----------



## armyvern

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Is it because we ASSUME that they won't display any of the attributes that we would like to see. Is it that we don't EXPECT them to, because they are _only_ a Private? When they hit Corporal, bang!, a switch is tripped and they are now good to go!! Pretty simplistic, if you ask me.


I agree with you on this. I did send Greywolfe a PM regarding the PDRS that he does receive as a Pte, and telling him to make sure he adds his accomplishments onto his "I love me sheet" and any BZs etc he receives via e-mail (to keep a hard copy and to include a copy when he hands in his sheet). I also told him to make sure that he included in his "Future Goals" section, his desire "To obtain my Commission."


----------



## Greywolf

That's exactly it, Al.  People think that because I'm Just a Private, then I probably don't know much.  But when people called the section, most often than not, the issue was referred to me to resolve...either the others in the section didn't know how to handle it, or it might be an issue that I had worked with previously.  At first, on the first occasion where the other members of the section had to be absent either on leave/course, the officer in charge of the section had qualms about leaving me, a no-hook private in charge of the section.  But then I was eventually assigned the duty because they simply couldn't find anyone else to take over.  I can say the section did not fall apart when I was in charge.  Things were still getting done.  After a while, they could all see that I was capable of being left in charge, so they left me that duty on several occasions after that.  One time, I had several people that came in requiring my attention and I handled all their requests to their satisfaction and promptly even though I was the only one available.  But when I want to get an evaluation, I had to ask numerous times to get one, going from the corporal, to the master corporal, and eventually talking to the warrant myself because it's just not getting done.  It took literally half a year to get one, from the first time I asked to finally having to request a talk with the warrant.  And then I was told a PDR for a Private cannot be "too good" because there's always room for improvement.  Ok, I agree with that...room for improvement.  But still I thought an evaluation is supposed to indicate my job performance accurately...if it's good, it's good, if it's bad, it's bad...not that it's just supposed to be "average" because I'm Just a no-hook private.  Yes, I've been told that by the one who would write my evaluation!


----------



## Unknown Factor

I guess then specifically the PER system is biased to rank rather than job discription? I wouldn't say that the system is broke, the PER/PDR system has it's place specifically as an objective assesment of attaining performance as well as custructive crit. on short commings.  As it relates to promotion it is not the main tool used to select promotions but it has become a crutch (such as re-writes to justify a promotion), What maybe needed is a points system that evaluates all aspects of the job, such as PER, physical fitness, leadership quals, conduct, courses qual and tasks to name a few.  Having only a specified score for each would take away the crutch and make for a true competion, with an expected score to validate the promotion in the first place.


----------



## kincanucks

Greywolf said:
			
		

> That's exactly it, Al.   People think that because I'm Just a Private, then I probably don't know much.   But when people called the section, most often than not, the issue was referred to me to resolve...either the others in the section didn't know how to handle it, or it might be an issue that I had worked with previously.   At first, on the first occasion where the other members of the section had to be absent either on leave/course, the officer in charge of the section had qualms about leaving me, a no-hook private in charge of the section.   But then I was eventually assigned the duty because they simply couldn't find anyone else to take over.   I can say the section did not fall apart when I was in charge.   Things were still getting done.   After a while, they could all see that I was capable of being left in charge, so they left me that duty on several occasions after that.   One time, I had several people that came in requiring my attention and I handled all their requests to their satisfaction and promptly even though I was the only one available.   But when I want to get an evaluation, I had to ask numerous times to get one, going from the corporal, to the master corporal, and eventually talking to the warrant myself because it's just not getting done.   It took literally half a year to get one, from the first time I asked to finally having to request a talk with the warrant.   And then I was told a PDR for a Private cannot be "too good" because there's always room for improvement.   Ok, I agree with that...room for improvement.   But still I thought an evaluation is supposed to indicate my job performance accurately...if it's good, it's good, if it's bad, it's bad...not that it's just supposed to be "average" because I'm Just a no-hook private.   Yes, I've been told that by the one who would write my evaluation!



Excellent good job keep it up.  Pay attention to what armyvern has graciously passed on to you and move on.  This thread is not about you.


----------



## zishka

The final straw for me taking my leave of the queens good graces and hanging up the boots was the disbandment in 95 followed by the Inquiry ( read INQUISITION) and the continual slide of standards just to boost the numbers. This for me marked the so called kinder gentler army. Though I do recall veterens of the 
 jump in Cyprus 74 saying we werent worth the paper for whipping their arses, etc, etc. And those training films circa 1970 with the guys sporting beefy sideburns must have really put off the Korea guys. And Im sure in not so long it'll be todays soldiers saying; " we didnt have all that fancy robotics doing all the work when I joined...grumble, grumble...."


----------



## C-2humper

Sure we had crap equipment(my first FN was older than I was),were underfunded and unloved but the basic fighting Canadian is a product of his environment.The problems of today are the problems of yesteryear wearing new clothes,we had a bunch of ww2 vets come by for a dog and pony and they could not believe how much we were expected to carry,lovely, polite gentlemen but with more battle xp. in their left toe than the battalion as a whole.Different days all round,I,m sure the veterans of Caesar groused about the young legionaries of Varus getting their heads handed to them(literally)situation normal.We don't need to compare,we need to adapt and survive the powers that be and hold the faith.Our young fellas today need encouragement,concern and support,not a bunch of monty python living in a volcano schtick.Remember the one thing we have going for us is we are Canadian and they(whoever THEY are)are not.Can do eh!


----------



## Too Poor II

Hi all

I need some help here, everyone always wants to write good assessments on their troops but from time to time there are those who unfortunately need to have a evaluation done that is negative.  There are tons of sites out there in Cyberland that tell you how to blow sunshine up someone’s hind end that reflect good job performance. But I have been looking to find a site that gives me (the author of a poor evaluation report) good phrases on writing negative assessments, or at least a list of phrases that can be used to write a negative evaluation.

If any know of a site please forward the link to me
mctaggart.i2@forces.gc.ca

Tanks


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The British Military writes EPR's an officer fitness reports.  The form used for Royal Navy and Marines fitness reports is the S206.
The following are actual excerpts taken from people's "206's"....

  - His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of curiosity.

  - I would not breed from this Officer.

  - This Officer is really not so much of a has-been, but more of a
    definitely won't-be.

  - When she opens her mouth, it seems that this is only to change
    whichever foot was previously in there.

  - He has carried out each and every one of his duties to his entire
    satisfaction.

  - He would be out of his depth in a car park puddle.

  - This Officer reminds me very much of a gyroscope - always spinning
    around at a frantic pace, but not really going anywhere.

  - This young lady has delusions of adequacy.

  - When he joined my ship, this Officer was something of a granny;
    since  then he has aged considerably.

  - Since my last report he has reached rock bottom, and has started
    to dig.

  - She sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to
    achieve them.

  - He has the wisdom of youth, and the energy of old age.

  - This Officer should go far - and the sooner he starts, the better.

  - This man is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ian/Public/Humor/recommendations


----------



## tomahawk6

Aww you beat me to it.  ;D

I do like this one:



> This man is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.


----------



## tomahawk6

Here are some negative bullet examples from the US Army NCOER.

failed to meet APFT standards for the two mile run and sit-ups with a total score of 148

lack of supervision over subordinates and failure to follow procedures resulted in the loss of $2,000 worth of equipment

demonstrated little concern for the security and accountability of sensitive items during cyclic field exercises

improper purchase from subordinate adversely affected morale and discipline within the section

consistently failed to meet administrative suspenses

counseled by the Battalion CSM for having the most disorganized platoon in the company

failed to develop subordinates;  did not perform mandatory performance counseling for the NCO-ER

many times has failed to inspect soldiers and their equipment

perception of improper conduct adversely affected morale and discipline within the Division 

unexcused absence from duty left platoon enlisted soldiers unsupervised 

failed to comply with instructions of superiors on several occasions 

encouraged soldiers to grow by cheating for each other 

integrity compromised upon submission of false documents 

constantly complained about time spent in the field


----------



## paracowboy

from my own: Member sleeps well under maximum supervision.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

"A gross ignoramus. . .144 times worse than an ordinary ignoramus."

"He doesn't have ulcers, but he's a carrier."

"He's been working with glue too much."

"He would argue with a signpost."

"When his IQ reaches 50 he should sell."

"If you see two people talking and one looks bored, he's the other one."

"A photographic memory but with the lens cover glued on."

"A prime candidate for natural de-selection."

"If he were any more stupid, he'd have to be watered twice a week."

"If you stand close enough to him, you can hear the ocean."

"It's hard to believe he beat out 1,000,000 other sperm."

"One neuron short of a synapse."


----------



## TN2IC

Pte Bloggins as set the standard low and has fail to achieve that standard.



I love the look on the troops faces when they see that.


----------



## geo

then again.............
don't be cute... tell it like it is, be honest with the a$$hol@
your supervisor will then choke on his coffee and suggest to you some alternatives


----------



## Franko

Be blunt and straight to the point. Don't gloss it over at all.

Be honest.

It'll either be a wake up call or it'll justify everything that you wrote.

PM inbound.

Regards


----------



## Blackadder1916

How about:

"Lt XXXXXX's poor performance is beyond description.  I have searched for the perfect words to describe it, but have been unsuccessful, much like his attempt to do his job."


That nugget was sent back with the suggestion to search further.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pilot Officer xxxxxx operates the throttles of the Varsity with the enthusiasm of a beserk Lascar seaman operating the bilge pumps of a sinking tea clipper, rounding Cape Horn, in a force nine gale."


----------



## dglad

Too Poor II said:
			
		

> Hi all
> 
> I need some help here, everyone always wants to write good assessments on their troops but from time to time there are those who unfortunately need to have a evaluation done that is negative.  There are tons of sites out there in Cyberland that tell you how to blow sunshine up someone’s hind end that reflect good job performance. But I have been looking to find a site that gives me (the author of a poor evaluation report) good phrases on writing negative assessments, or at least a list of phrases that can be used to write a negative evaluation.



Well, the suggestions to be honest and forthright are good ones, but...

Have you counselled this member previously?  Was he made aware of his shortcomings and given an opportunity to correct them, and have that correction observed?  If not, you have a problem...if so (and I'm assuming that you did all this good stuff and recorded it, as appropriate, on the PDR), then stick to the facts and refrain from "editorializing".  State a shortcoming and give an example to illustrate it:

_Cpl Bloggins demonstrated a complete lack of accountability for assigned resources, shown by his loss of a Leopard tank (complete) on three consecutive exercises in spite of repeated counselling._

Anyway, that sort of thing.  Don't get fancy--just state, in the narrative, what the problem areas were, illustrate them, and make sure the performance ratings properly correspond.  It would be useful, as well, to indicate that the member was counselled for these shortcomings, but still (presumably) failed to correct them, because the PDR is only retained for a limited period of time, while the PER is forever.  If the member changes unit/location/superior and there's nothing on paper to indicate that he was counselled and corrective attempts were made, then more serious action (RW, C&P, etc.) may be tough for a future superior to justify.

Bottom line--you can't go wrong with facts, that you can back up with documentation.  The key, really, however, is to show that you are, ahd have been, actively trying to correct the deficient performance.


----------



## George Wallace

On the Serious Side......From the PDR's you should have all the powder to draw from.  You should find the "Word Picture" book for writing PDR's and PER's or look up the electronic copy of it in CFPAS.


----------



## medicineman

This soldier will forever try to push his way through doors that require a pull to open.

MM


----------



## 211RadOp

Too Poor II said:
			
		

> Hi all
> 
> I need some help here, everyone always wants to write good assessments on their troops but from time to time there are those who unfortunately need to have a evaluation done that is negative.  There are tons of sites out there in Cyberland that tell you how to blow sunshine up someone’s hind end that reflect good job performance. But I have been looking to find a site that gives me (the author of a poor evaluation report) good phrases on writing negative assessments, or at least a list of phrases that can be used to write a negative evaluation.
> 
> If any know of a site please forward the link to me...
> 
> Tanks



Another thing you might want to do is remove your work address as your subordinate may be a member here and you may not want him to know in advance.


----------



## Jimmy SG

I have just been tasked to write my very first PDR. I have read what is available on the site. I am planning on looking back on my old PDR's and using the word picture book. I also have his "Brag Sheet", and was wondering if anyone had some other advice for me. Thanx.


----------



## George Wallace

You have about got it.  Not much more to it.  Remember, this is only a PDR, and you should fill all the boxes, with strong, weak, and ways to improve.  It is from these PDR files that you will later write the PER, and it is documentation of whether or not your subordinate has taken creative criticism and improved or was an insubordinate arse and ignored advice.  The proof will lie in the pudding, as he will have signed it before you give him a copy and file the original in his UER/Pers File.

If you have to do Page 1, make sure you have the correct job discription for the person.


----------



## BernDawg

Something we do in our unit that not all units do is to put the appropriate AF or PF number in front of the statements.  It makes for a clear understanding of what you are addressing the comments to.  It's also very handy when you go to do the PER and then apply the AF and PF's to the master document.  Make sure you have the current version of CFPAS too it just got updated today here and it looks better than before.  The promotion reccomendation is automatic based on the dot allocation.  Very handy.  Most importantly... Don't sweat it, take your time and be honest with the member and yourself.

Cheers
Bern


----------



## Big Foot

I just had to write my first 6 PDRs ever a couple weeks back and as the others have said, don't sweat it. Use the brag sheet, use what you saw of the person and put together what you feel is an accurate assessment of the individual. Thats all you can do, really.


----------



## Good2Golf

Also consider making a separate e-mail folder for each of your subordinates; drop anything relating to them in the folder.  It helps focus on the member come PER time.

G2G


----------



## BernDawg

Awesome idea.  I'm all over that.


----------



## riggermade

Just one note about PDR's don't be afraid to put down weak points.  In my experience alot of people don't like to bring up shortcomings but if you don't the soldier is not going to correct his behaviour and then apperently there is a whole Army of soldiers with no weak points but lots of positive.  Makes it hard to explain to a soldier why his PER is not what he expected after reading his/her PDR's


----------



## navymich

I found it interesting to find out on my recent ILQ when we were discussing PDRs and PERs, that the Navy is the only one that keeps divisional notes.  I've never known any different then keeping them, and find that it makes it that much easier to write the PDRs and PERs when you have the information, good and bad, right at your fingertips.


----------



## Armymedic

A good start is having 3 strengths and 3 areas for improvement. Try to have atleast one example of what they did.

The PDR is written honestly, and with practice, you can write your statements so that they can be copied and pasted right into the PER blocks. If you go off the 16 or so performace points and 6 potential points, even if your troop is getting a Mastered PER again this yr, it'll be easy to find 3 areas they need to improve in.


----------



## Roy Harding

riggermade said:
			
		

> Just one note about PDR's don't be afraid to put down weak points.  In my experience alot of people don't like to bring up shortcomings but if you don't the soldier is not going to correct his behaviour and then apperently there is a whole Army of soldiers with no weak points but lots of positive.  Makes it hard to explain to a soldier why his PER is not what he expected after reading his/her PDR's



Although no longer in, when I WAS, I made it a habit to emphasize shortcomings on the PDRs, and strengths on the PERs.  Seems to have worked well.  (Of course I am speaking of that mythical beast - the "average soldier", if someone is constantly outstanding, or constantly a thud*, this doesn't apply).

My logic was that the PDR was a formal method of me telling the troops what they needed to work on, and the PER was a formal way of me telling the world how great my troops were (and, had they addressed those weaknesses mentioned on PDRs, those areas would be strengths by the time a PER was written).

An overriding concern is that a soldier should NEVER formally hear of his weakness(es) for the first time on a PER - that portion should not be a surprise to him, as you have kept him informed throughout the year by means of the PDR.

For the originator of this thread:  I feel your pain.  Accurately and fairly critiquing your fellow man is an acquired skill.  It gets easier as you do it more.  The posters above have made many excellent suggestions.  Consider them all.  Then use those that work for you.

Good luck to you.  You'll do fine - your concern over doing it right, as evidenced by starting this thread, indicates the right mindset.


----------



## Jimmy SG

That is great. Thank-you for your help.


----------



## Good2Golf

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Although no longer in, when I WAS, I made it a habit to emphasize shortcomings on the PDRs, and strengths on the PERs.  Seems to have worked well.  (Of course I am speaking of that mythical beast - the "average soldier", if someone is constantly outstanding, or constantly a thud*, this doesn't apply).
> 
> My logic was that the PDR was a formal method of me telling the troops what they needed to work on, and the PER was a formal way of me telling the world how great my troops were (and, had they addressed those weaknesses mentioned on PDRs, those areas would be strengths by the time a PER was written).
> 
> An overriding concern is that a soldier should NEVER formally hear of his weakness(es) for the first time on a PER - that portion should not be a surprise to him, as you have kept him informed throughout the year by means of the PDR.
> 
> For the originator of this thread:  I feel your pain.  Accurately and fairly critiquing your fellow man is an acquired skill.  It gets easier as you do it more.  The posters above have made many excellent suggestions.  Consider them all.  Then use those that work for you.
> 
> Good luck to you.  You'll do fine - your concern over doing it right, as evidenced by starting this thread, indicates the right mindset.



+1

Good words, Roy!

G2G


----------



## justmyalias

Greetings, instead of starting a new thread., I'm going to bump this old, but good one.

I have a few questions ref PDR&PERs.

-What is the appropriate action if you find a PER (a page thereof, or the whole thing) left in the communal printer bin?
-What if you don't like what you read on your PER/PDR are you obligated to sign it?  Can you challenge it?  Do you 'Redress' it?
-Can you receive a WORSE PER than a previous one which was outstanding?

I would appreciate specific refs (as my still young'ish self) to orders or what not to the tune of these questions.

Shucks...wish things were more anonymous online...but I guess you guys know what the hell of a predicament I'm in.  If anyone wants to lend a helping hand privately I'd appreciate this also.  pm and I'll get back .


----------



## George Wallace

justmyalias said:
			
		

> Greetings, instead of starting a new thread., I'm going to bump this old, but good one.
> 
> I have a few questions ref PDR&PERs.
> 
> -What is the appropriate action if you find a PER (a page thereof, or the whole thing) left in the communal printer bin?



First, what is your definition of a "communal printer"?  Where is said printer located?  Were you standing at it when the Print Job started, and is the originator walking towards you?

That should never happen, and if it does, the person who printed it should be nearby looking for it.  If you do find part or complete PER in a communal printer, you should bring it to the person who printed it off immediately.  



			
				justmyalias said:
			
		

> -What if you don't like what you read on your PER/PDR are you obligated to sign it?  Can you challenge it?  Do you 'Redress' it?



You can try to refuse to sign it, but you had better have legitimate and documented reasons not to.  You can challenge any PER by using the Redress of Grievance process.



			
				justmyalias said:
			
		

> -Can you receive a WORSE PER than a previous one which was outstanding?



Simple answer is "YES".  Remember that old saying:  "When you are on Top, there is only one direction you can go.....Down."  Yes, you can get a PER the next year that is not as GOOD as your previous years.  Each annual assessment of your job performance is supposed to be unbiased and not an "accumulation" or "progression" of previous PERs.  Your supervisor, if not the same as last year, should have no idea of what your last PER was.


----------



## BernDawg

Not signing a PER does nothing.  It will get submitted with an annotation on it "Member refused to sign".  Signing it just means that you have acknowledged reading it and being briefed on it.  If you are unhappy about it redress it immediately.  Have all your ducks in order and back up your redress points with facts, figures, statements and concrete examples of your performance the preceding year


----------



## MJP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Simple answer is "YES".  Remember that old saying:  "When you are on Top, there is only one direction you can go.....Down."  Yes, you can get a PER the next year that is not as GOOD as your previous years.  Each annual assessment of your job performance is supposed to be unbiased and not an "accumulation" or "progression" of previous PERs.  Your supervisor, if not the same as last year, should have no idea of what your last PER was.



Only if your supervisor did their job and wrote you up accordingly in your 3 quarterly PDRs can they really justify taking you down from lets say a mastered to a skilled.  If the member hasn't been told what to improve then how can he improve.  Believe me saying "well I told him to get his act together" don't fly   You must have documented proof and the best way is the PDRs.  To just arbitrarily take someone down is grounds for redress and they will win unless you can prove they were counselled in-depth at some time in the reporting period.

Justmyalias...you alluded to just one part of a PER which you said is outstanding.  Are you referring to the whole PER in that you were MOI(Mastered, Oustanding and Immediate) or just it was very good in general? 

For those that don't know there are a few parts to a PER, but the main ones are your;

                                                       
Performance which can range from Unsatisfactory to Mastered,
Potential to promotion to the next rank level which ranges from Low to Outstanding
Promotion recommendation.  Three parts to that; one developing means exactly that you are developing the skills required to work at the next rank level, second is ready which means really you can work at that rank level and should be considered for promotion in competition with your peers.  Immediate means while you have proven yourself more than capable of working and should be promoted ahead of your peers

Now that is a generalization across the board.  Really it boils down to when your trade or regimental merit board sit that everything is worth points and ready is worth less than immediate and so on and so on.

You can be mastered in your trade but have an average or low potential to be promoted depending on a variety of factors.


----------



## AmmoTech90

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Simple answer is "YES".  Remember that old saying:  "When you are on Top, there is only one direction you can go.....Down."  Yes, you can get a PER the next year that is not as GOOD as your previous years.  Each annual assessment of your job performance is supposed to be unbiased and not an "accumulation" or "progression" of previous PERs.  Your supervisor, if not the same as last year, should have no idea of what your last PER was.



Just to add to George and MJP's points with regard to dropping your PER rating.  What you get on your PER should be no surprise if the PDR process has been done correctly.  You should get a PER that matches the feedback you have been getting through PDRs.  Depending on your performance between your last PDR and your PER it may be adjusted up or down.  What this means if the last your last PER was mastered but your PDRs that were written to support it were banal and uninspiring, and your current PDRs are similiarly weak but match your current (lower) PER you dont have a case.

What this means is it is in your interest that your PDRs writeups are at a similiar level to your PER.  You have a lot of input to the PDR process.  Question them, document the fact you are following the points for improvement.  If there are no points for improvement, ask for some, even one, and work on it.  Everyone can get better.


----------



## ZipperHead

I'd like to throw in a few points here, and bear in mind the system changes all the time, so my advice might be somewhat dated, but:

1) Before one puts in a Redress of Grievance, ensure you read the process. Completely. Jumping to filing a Redress without going through the COMPLETE process is like going straight to the Ombudsman because you think think someone harassed you, kinda-sorta. There is a step called "mediation" (if my memory serves correctly) which is the lowest level action that should be taken, and then if you aren't satisfied, bring it to the next level. I find people are too quick to jump right to the highest possible resolution, not realizing that there are alternative steps that _could_ result in the same outcome, without the administrative nightmare that higher level actions create. And so it goes for harassment complaints, discrimination, etc, etc......

2) Keep in mind that just because you redress something, it doesn't mean that your PER will improve. In fact, it can go down, if the people start investigating your performance, and all the documentation shows that you should be lower than it [the PER] currently shows (i.e whomever was writing your PER screwed up on more than a few counts, not including the parts that you weren't thrilled about). Has this ever happened? Unlikely, but it is a possibility. 

I know that there are enough barrack block lawyers around that will tell you that it is your 'right' to redress a PER that you are not satisfied with (Lord knows I should have redressed a few.....), and some of the BS policies or directions that I have heard about within units ("Everyones scores WILL be higher than they were last year!!!!", "Only RMS clerks can have "Mastered" for Administration on their PER's.....") don't help people's understanding of the process. Reading the Documentation (handbook, word picture book, etc) helps. CFPAS 2007 for home available here: http://www.forces.gc.ca/cfpas/engraph/CFPAS_Download_e.asp. There are too many crap PDR/PER's written because people don't take the time to learn/understand what is expected of them as a) the one writing the assessment, and b) the one being assessed.

Allan


----------



## MJP

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> There are too many crap PDR/PER's written because people don't take the time to learn/understand what is expected of them as a) the one writing the assessment, and b) the one being assessed.
> 
> Allan



+1 Allan  Well said.


----------



## Gunner98

A Redress of Grievance that reaches DMCARM is likely to take a minimum of one year to be resolved.  Supplementary merit boards may result.

Not signing your PER is kind of like not paying a parking or speeding ticket.  It will still go on your record.

Mediation works in many cases as the member can submit info that has not been included.  However, if the CFPAS process is consultative as it suppose to be, all of the facts should be in the PDRs including your own representation of the facts.


----------



## Cansky

Remember 2 things, One your supervisor when writing your PER ISN"Tsuppose to know what last years PER was.  Having said that, this only works with new supervisors. Your PER is suppose to be based on the reporting period nothing.  It makes it very difficult when others within the reporting period don't due their jobs.  For example when posted to a new unit your suppose to receive a posting PDR. I have 3 troops with no info from last unit. Very difficult.

 Two, If your going to redress you PER, YOU ONLY HAVE 6 MONTHS from the date you sign it.  This is the same for all redresses.  Make sure you keep a copy.


----------



## McG

MJP said:
			
		

> Only if your supervisor did their job and wrote you up accordingly in your 3 quarterly PDRs can they really justify taking you down from lets say a mastered to a skilled.  If the member hasn't been told what to improve then how can he improve.  Believe me saying "well I told him to get his act together" don't fly   You must have documented proof and the best way is the PDRs.  To just arbitrarily take someone down is grounds for redress and they will win unless you can prove they were counselled in-depth at some time in the reporting period.


Having a lower score than the previous year is not grounds for redress.  As you've pointed to, having a score lower than is consistent with the text of the current year's PDRs is grounds for redress.  

I once had the task to do the research for higher to give an answer to a PER redress.  Generally, the member dropped on dot on each factor from the previous year.  The his argument for each contested point was "my score last year was . . . " and to point that no PDR specifically said his performance was less than the previous year.  Unfortunately for the member, the PDR's function is not to make comparisons to previous assessment periods and his entire chain of command had changed (so such comparisons were not possible either).  Additionally, the text of the PDR fully supported the score.  He was good but not outstanding, and all his lowest scores had been mentioned as an area for development in a PDR.  In the end, there were two or three performance dots shifted right.  All I had to work from where the years PDRs, and where the member could have been given the benefit of the doubt I gave it to him.

If nothing else, it illustrates why all pers should take PDRs seriously.


----------



## armyvern

Upon coming into my section for the first time, and each April thereafter I give my personnel a new Critical Tasks (Pt1) which we go over point by point and sign. The member receives a copy of it. I also provide each one of them with a copy of the word picture book for their specific rank's "performance factors."

I explain to them that if they expect a mastered then their performance had better match the book. Ie "Always" instead of "Usually." There is a big difference between the two and ultimately they are responsible for writing their own PERs. If they don't "always" meet the word picture book mastered description for PF2, they are not going to get a mastered on their PER. They will get the score that matches their actual performance such as "usually," "sometimes," or "never" as the case may be.

I also stress that I expect them to keep track of what they have done over the course of the reporting period and that I expect it to be listed on their "I love me sheets" when I collect them. Some members have told me that it's my job to track them and their accomplishments and yes they are correct. I do this for each and every one of them. Then I like to point out the "actively particpates in the PDR process" section to them, and tell them this is how I expect them to do so. It is actually quite interesting the kind of things that they overlook themselves that I as a supervisor make note of. Some of them are quite shocked to receive copies of their "I love me sheets" back when receiving their PDRs only to find that I've added a whole bunch of items to it. 

The FY PER should come as a shock to no-one, especially the one receiving it.


----------



## NCRCrow

Sounds like you are writing & keeping Naval Div Notes...........................


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Oh, no.....*Booker T voice* "tell me you just didn't say that".


----------



## armyvern

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Sounds like you are writing & keeping Naval Div Notes...........................



No. We`ve already been through this. I`m using the PDR/PER sytem. That's what it's there for. No need to double my workload by keeping div notes as well. The PDR forms already contain the areas for me to input my observations and the troops' accomplishments.

Vern


----------



## NCRCrow

Just workin u up on a cold Saturday afternoon. 


Crow


----------



## ZipperHead

Here's a tip for all people who have to write assessments: as the Librarian alluded to, use the CFPAS system (PDR/PER sheets) to track your soldiers accomplishments. Instead of having a separate form, book, etc, keep a draft copy of your soldiers PDR/PER on a memory stick (with the requisite Protected  sticker on it.... and no personal info (Svc #, name) included on it if used on a personal computer..... everybody does know this, right?!??! If in doubt, go back to my last post for the link to the CFPAS site, and all the warning info is there for you). 

Anyway, when Soldier A does something stellar, record it in point form on the PDR sheet. As well, if they do something less than stellar, same same, in Areas for Development. Also record their accomplishments (courses, making it to work on time more than once a week : ), and then come PDR writing time, it's all there, and you just have to flesh it out and use the correct terminology to satisfy the Staffing Gods. And then, at PER time, open up all the year's PDRs, crack open a fresh copy of a PER form, and copy/paste the pertinent information. Yes, this works if you have the same subordinate for the whole year, but would also work if the previous supervisor forwards you an electronic copy of the PDR's that are required.

As well, one could keep a copy of their own PDR's/PER's, and have the ability to look back and reflect on needs to be worked on, and also keep track of what you have done throughout the year. I don't think that there is anything more agonizing than having your current supervisor say (while writing your PDR/PER) "What did you do over the last 3 months/12 months?????". My memory is decidedly goldfish-like at the best of times, and having to remember anything that I've done 11.5 months ago is pretty much a write off.

Another tip for supervisors: create a folder in Outlook calendar (File->New Folder, or Ctrl+Shift+E) for each of your subordinates, and track their duties, appointments, taskings, courses. This way you can look back over the year to see what they've done, so you won't lose track of the fact that they were on Sensitivity Trg back in May, or that they were tasked for 2 weeks to another unit, etc. Added bonus: you can keep notes in the calendar event (name of person they were tasked to, who they worked with, etc). This also keeps you own calendar less cluttered (than if you had each soldiers appt, tasking, etc showing up in your "normal" calendar. I would be pretty much screwed at work (and home) without Outlook calendar. I also used it to track vehicle information (oil changes, monthly inspections, mileage, etc) for the vehicles in my troop. It's use is limited only by how you utilize it. 

Al


----------



## orange.paint

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> As well, one could keep a copy of their own PDR's/PER's, and have the ability to look back and reflect on needs to be worked on, and also keep track of what you have done throughout the year. I don't think that there is anything more agonizing than having your current supervisor say (while writing your PDR/PER) "What did you do over the last 3 months/12 months?????". My memory is decidedly goldfish-like at the best of times, and having to remember anything that I've done 11.5 months ago is pretty much a write off.



My memory of what I did 3 months prior is vague at best.I realised this when my troop warrant asked me what I had done over the past year.I blew fish kisses,quoted a few things I could remember and left.Not only was it a little his fault for not recording the major duties I had done ,It was mine.Someone once told me "You are your own best career manager".And It's true.After this occasion I strolled down to the SQ shop and picked up a yearly planner.I have for the past 3 years recorded every tasking,point of interest on it.Including who I worked for,final mark and have a file folder in my cabinet at home with all the PDR's/course reports labeled with corresponding dates.

So when the time comes for PER,update of UER all my ducks are in a line.

Also for you people who are redressing your PER (I have not to this date) YOU need to have your information to even argue it.

WHO'S RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO SUPPLY INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE A COMPLAINT?
-It is the responsibility of the member seeking redress to supply the information required to substantiate the complaint.Originals of correspondence and other documents pertaining to a complaint shall,where available,be submitted to the redress authority considering the complaint.If originals are not available,legible copies shall be submitted.

(Any other questions on the redress procedure pm me,I still have the package from PLQ for some reason.)

Basically If you don't have documents its your word against his.....can you play paper, scissors, rank? ;D

And as Allen said solve at the lowest level.

"Before a written formal statement of a complaint is submitted by a member,reasonable efforts should be made by all redress authorities to resolve the complaint at the lowest level."


----------



## justmyalias

George Wallace said:
			
		

> First, what is your definition of a "communal printer"?  Where is said printer located?  Were you standing at it when the Print Job started, and is the originator walking towards you?
> .....


The printer is the only one for the COY.  I had printed off my own sheets.  Pers A, had printed it off, had picked up other docs, and returned to anther set of duties, leaving that item in the tray.  I would bet $1000 it was nearly 15-20mins since printing was complete.  Not even walking towards., not even clued into it's existence.



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> a.... If the member hasn't been told what to improve then how can he improve. ....
> bJustmyalias...you alluded to just one part of a PER which you said is outstanding.  ......... it was very good in general?
> ......


a Excellent point.  The very quick things my eyes caught EXACTLY point to this scenario.  IF there was any shred of truth to the damaging comments, the defense is that not once, was any leadership, guidance, feedback given to adjust anything.  How can you expect to perform and improve if you're not regularly given feedback?
b overall..Very good. ;D



			
				AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Just to add to George and MJP's points with regard to dropping your PER rating.  What you get on your PER should be no surprise if the PDR process has been done correctly.........


Excellent point., and I agree entirely.  What happens when there is no PDR during that period?  It goes straight to PER...and as I've conveyed...the MAJOR surprise to me in those few words...ugh...can't wait to get this over.  IT's been 2 weeks of a mental burden for me to carry silently 


Thank you all for the words of wisdom., appreciated.

i-So the rule is...I MUST sign it?  But can request mediation/redress (doubt I'll do this) thereafter?
ii-Only George Wallace mentioned what to do with my question #2.  What to do with the Protected Document?  Report., quietly hand to the pers (assuming you have any inkling of who wrote it).
iii-third question then, is bogus.  You most definately can get a lower PER than previous years.  Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## armyvern

justmyalias said:
			
		

> i-So the rule is...I MUST sign it?  But can request mediation/redress (doubt I'll do this) thereafter?
> ii-Only George Wallace mentioned what to do with my question #2.  What to do with the Protected Document?  Report., quietly hand to the pers (assuming you have any inkling of who wrote it).
> iii-third question then, is bogus.  You most definately can get a lower PER than previous years.  Thanks for clearing that up.




1) Yes, you must sign it as "being read and discussed." (if you disagree with what you've read then you seek mediation/redress afterwards)
2) Take it and give it to the supervisor whose name appears underneath section 4 (about 1/2 way down the page).
3) True.


----------



## 284_226

justmyalias said:
			
		

> i-So the rule is...I MUST sign it?  But can request mediation/redress (doubt I'll do this) thereafter?



No, you're not obligated to sign it.  However, there's no point in not signing it.

Article 314 of the CFPAS handbook states: 





> "The member’s signature on the PER signifies that he/she has read and understood the assessment. A signature does not signify agreement or disagreement. The proper venue to voice disagreement with the PER is with the supervisor and unit during the review period or through submission of a grievance as outlined in CFAO 19-32. If the member refuses to sign the PER, “member refuses to sign” shall be typed in the member’s signature block, dated, and initialed by the supervisor and reviewing officer.  No special treatment is given to such PER's and no NDHQ action is initiated on the basis of the refusal to sign. Selection boards take all such PER's at face value and assess them as if they were signed. "





> ii-Only George Wallace mentioned what to do with my question #2.  What to do with the Protected Document?  Report., quietly hand to the pers (assuming you have any inkling of who wrote it).



It should be handed back to the author (who should be the "Supervisor" listed in Section 4 of the PER), if you can tell who wrote it.  Failing that, give it to the Reviewing Officer listed in Section 5 of the PER.



> iii-third question then, is bogus.  You most definately can get a lower PER than previous years.  Thanks for clearing that up.



Sure, you can get a lower PER.  One's supervisors had better have their ducks in a row with regard to substantiating the lowered evaluation of the current year's performance, though - especially if the member has the same supervisor for both reporting periods.


----------



## armyvern

284_226 said:
			
		

> Sure, you can get a lower PER.  One's supervisors had better have their ducks in a row with regard to substantiating the lowered evaluation of the current year's performance, though - especially if the member has the same supervisor for both reporting periods.



Actually no. One's supervisor would be going by the word picture book. So the subordinate had better have his ducks in a row to be able to back up why he thinks he's deserving of a higher score. Regardless of whether or not it is the first PER by that supervisor or not.

The supervisor will assess based on the performance of that subordinate IAW the word picture book for the current FY. If you got a "mastered" last year for "written communication" because your correspondance, ie logreps, was "always" top-notch and "always" met deadlines but this year your logrep was overdue on one occasion and I had to hunt you down for it, then you do not meet the criteria for the "mastered" as you have only "usually" performed the task as required in your Part1 "Critical tasks." That bumps you down to an "exceeded standard" from the "mastered." 

And, it is also possible for members to be dinged lower on their PER by something that is not noted on a PDR. PDRs are quarterly. In December members should be getting their 3rd and final of the FY. That still leaves 3 months for the member to do something which warrants noting (either good or bad) on the PER, and rightfully so. To infer that because a shortcoming is not noted on a PDR and therefore can not be noted (or used to justify a lower score on the PER) on the PER and is thus re-dressable is also a fallacy. Still, the member should have been made aware of this shortcoming at least verbally by the supervisor. 

In short, the CFPAS process is a two way street. Members and Supervisors alike are responsible for contributing to this system. We are our own best career managers. Look after yourselves. Get in the habit of keeping your "I love me" sheets current as you go along and include all your tasks, duties etc onto them. After all, if you have a hard time tracking your own work how can we expect you to be able to do so on behalf of all of your subordinates? I had 23 subordinates to track and write up. I'm only human, your input is also required.


----------



## McG

284_226 said:
			
		

> Sure, you can get a lower PER.  One's supervisors had better have their ducks in a row with regard to substantiating the lowered evaluation of the current year's performance, though - especially if the member has the same supervisor for both reporting periods.


Wrong.  See my post above.  The current year's score is not based on the previous years score.  The current year's PDRs are what is important.


----------



## 284_226

MCG said:
			
		

> Wrong.  See my post above.  The current year's score is not based on the previous years score.  The current year's PDRs are what is important.



I didn't claim that the current year's score is based in any way on the previous year's score.  The reason for my statement is this:  Hypothetically, if a member gets a "hard-right" PER one year, and goes on the next year with the same or better performance and little or no feedback in the PDR department, and then gets a lower PER the following year, then there's going to be a problem.  The member is going to have the following arguments to make in a grievance:

a.  the member did not receive adequate feedback from the CFPAS process during the year.  The member should have received a minimum of 3 feedback sessions, documented with a PDR.  If the member isn't aware of a shortcoming, they can't be expected to correct it.

b.  the previous PER (by the same supervisor) could be brought into play because the member was evaluated "using the same yardstick", if you will.  Again, if the member was given a "hard-right" PER one year, and something significantly less the next with little or no documentation made on the member, the member could have a potential field day - if they've documented their own performance well.  Their argument will be "Look, I did this, this and this two years ago, and that supported a 'M' dot.  Last year, I did this, this, this, and that, and my supervisor didn't even take note of it, and gave me a 'S' dot".  The supervisor can't claim that the yardstick moved, so they're forced to substantiate that the performance did.  If they didn't take appropriate notes, or document the performance using the PDR system, they're going to have a hard time justifying the lowered score for the current evaluation.

That's about the only way a previous PER could come into play - and I've seen it done.


----------



## 284_226

The Librarian said:
			
		

> And, it is also possible for members to be dinged lower on their PER by something that is not noted on a PDR. PDRs are quarterly. In December members should be getting their 3rd and final of the FY. That still leaves 3 months for the member to do something which warrants noting (either good or bad) on the PER, and rightfully so. To infer that because a shortcoming is not noted on a PDR and therefore can not be noted (or used to justify a lower score on the PER) on the PER and is thus re-dressable is also a fallacy. Still, the member should have been made aware of this shortcoming at least verbally by the supervisor.



This has always been a sore spot with me.  My current supervisor and I were having a discussion the other day, and he grumbled about the fact that he had to have my PER written by end Feb, while the pecking order and scores were sorted out in the "bun toss" a week or so ago.  In our section, our absolutely busiest time of the year is from mid-Feb to end March, corresponding to the annual "let's spend any money we have left over on IT equipment" and RVD purchases - and corresponding mass influx of PCs that need to be accounted for, imaged, and distributed.  None of this performance gets a chance to be mentioned in a PER, because the PER is already written by the time the work is being done.  If I had my way, there wouldn't be a dot assigned or narrative written until 1 April - which ensures that the PER accurately reflects the member's performance for the entire reporting period.


----------



## armyvern

284_226 said:
			
		

> I didn't claim that the current year's score is based in any way on the previous year's score.  The reason for my statement is this:  Hypothetically, if a member gets a "hard-right" PER one year, and goes on the next year with the same or better performance and little or no feedback in the PDR department, and then gets a lower PER the following year, then there's going to be a problem.  The member is going to have the following arguments to make in a grievance:


Perhaps then it was your statement that: 





> One's supervisors had better have their ducks in a row


which threw us off then.



> a.  the member did not receive adequate feedback from the CFPAS process during the year.  The member should have received a minimum of 3 feedback sessions, documented with a PDR.  If the member isn't aware of a shortcoming, they can't be expected to correct it.


Minimum of 2 feedback sessions is the minimal requirement. 3 feedback sessions is the optimal situation.



> the previous PER (by the same supervisor) could be brought into play because the member was evaluated "using the same yardstick", if you will.  Again, if the member was given a "hard-right" PER one year, and something significantly less the next with little or no documentation made on the member, the member could have a potential field day - if they've documented their own performance well.  Their argument will be "Look, I did this, this and this two years ago, and that supported a 'M' dot.  Last year, I did this, this, this, and that, and my supervisor didn't even take note of it, and gave me a 'S' dot".  The supervisor can't claim that the yardstick moved, so they're forced to substantiate that the performance did.  If they didn't take appropriate notes, or document the performance using the PDR system, they're going to have a hard time justifying the lowered score for the current evaluation.


The previous PER has zero bearing. The yardstick used in the writing of the PER is the current years *performance by the member*. Period. It is not related whatsoever to what the supervisor (the same supervisor or not) wrote or scored the member as in a previous year. The first thing the Redress authority is going to do is tell the member that "previous years' PERs, assesments and scoring are absolutely irrelevant to this current PER and have NO bearing upon it." They can redress all they want but I can guarantee you that a previous years PER will not come into play WRT the outcome of the redress. They may win a higher score if they have evidence to back up why they earned a higher score for the current years work, but they will NOT win it because that's what they had last year.

In the case you speak of, the point was won because the supervisor did not document this years performance correctly. It was not won because the member had a higher score the year before.


----------



## Navalsnpr

When I was posted to Shearwater, I remember that one of the units called us at the help desk inquiring as to when the latest version of CFPAS would be available. Mind you it was 15 Dec, so my response was call me next year!!

If you have been at a unit for the entire year, then IMHO it would be alright for supervisors to prepare draft versions in Mid-Feb. If this is the case, then the final version of the PER should be reviewed to ensure that any item that may be required to be added for mid-Feb to End-Mar is indeed added.

If you have been at the unit less than a year, then I would fully support the fact that those PER's should not even be attempted to be written until end-Mar.

The Promotion boards did advice the MOC's that the PER's need to be better written as there appeared to be many problems with them. For example, Potential remarks in the performance section and vice versa. This is probably why many units choose to have PER's written before the end of the reporting period.


----------



## armyvern

284_226 said:
			
		

> This has always been a sore spot with me.  My current supervisor and I were having a discussion the other day, and he grumbled about the fact that he had to have my PER written by end Feb, while the pecking order and scores were sorted out in the "bun toss" a week or so ago.  In our section, our absolutely busiest time of the year is from mid-Feb to end March, corresponding to the annual "let's spend any money we have left over on IT equipment" and RVD purchases - and corresponding mass influx of PCs that need to be accounted for, imaged, and distributed.  None of this performance gets a chance to be mentioned in a PER, because the PER is already written by the time the work is being done.  If I had my way, there wouldn't be a dot assigned or narrative written until 1 April - which ensures that the PER accurately reflects the member's performance for the entire reporting period.


In any Unit I've served with (including deployed) we also jump started our PERs. Generally speaking, ones performance will be consistant throughout the year. Just because the draft version of it is drafted prior to end-year does not mean that changes to it can not and don't occur if warranted and necessary. I've seen people perform so poorly in the last quarter that they actually fall out of that 'pecking order' of which you speak and I've seen others step up to the plate in that last quarter in such a way that they ended up bumping someone out of that 'pecking order.' Usually though, the performance is consistant with the rest of the FY and no changes need to occur to the PER. Most PERs reflect the performance in areas "overall" and the mention of a specific activity ie "did exceedingly well during end FY budget consolidations" is limited and only certain scores will have specific examples used. A PER can not list every single thing that you do during the FY specifically, it would then be a 10 binder presentation, and therefore not likely to be read by those sitting on your merit board.


----------



## 284_226

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Perhaps then it was your statement that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One's supervisors had better have their ducks in a row
> 
> 
> 
> which threw us off then.
Click to expand...


It shouldn't have thrown you off.  If the member has kept detailed notes and accounting of all the tasks performed in the past year, and the supervisor hasn't, then the end result is going to be that the supervisor didn't have their ducks in a row.  Any successful grievance is based on the premise that the grievor is going to have a better substantiated case than the supervisor, in this situation.  If the supervisor doesn't have records of counselling interviews and documented performance, then they're pretty much doomed in the face of a grievor who has kept everything to substantiate their own performance.



> Minimum of 2 feedback sessions is the minimal requirement. 3 feedback sessions is the optimal situation.



My bad.  I think what I meant to say is that a PER supporting a "problem child" or "boy wonder" is going to need that additional level of substantiation of three feedback sessions.



> The previous PER has zero bearing. The yardstick used in the writing of the PER is the current years *performance by the member*. Period. It is not related whatsoever to what the supervisor (the same supervisor or not) wrote or scored the member as in a previous year. The first thing the Redress authority is going to do is tell the member that "previous years' PERs, assesments and scoring are absolutely irrelevant to this current PER and have NO bearing upon it." They can redress all they want but I can guarantee you that a previous years PER will not come into play WRT the outcome of the redress. They may win a higher score if they have evidence to back up why they earned a higher score for the current years work, but they will NOT win it because that's what they had last year.
> 
> In the case you speak of, the point was won because the supervisor did not document this years performance correctly. It was not won because the member had a higher score the year before.



Yes and no.  Bringing the previous PER into the grievance eliminates any chance of the supervisor being able to claim that different supervisors might subjectively view the same performance with different ratings.  The system isn't perfect, and since humans do the evaluating, there's always a degree of subjectivity to it.  If one has the same supervisor for two consecutive years, the grievor can essentially rule out the "subjectivity" aspect.


----------



## armyvern

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> If you have been at a unit for the entire year, then IMHO it would be alright for supervisors to prepare draft versions in Mid-Feb. If this is the case, then the final version of the PER should be reviewed to ensure that any item that may be required to be added for mid-Feb to End-Mar is indeed added.
> 
> If you have been at the unit less than a year, then I would fully support the fact that those PER's should not even be attempted to be written until end-Mar.


This is why it is critical that supervisors (and members alike) ensure that the quarterly PDR is written. If you don't get one, go ask for it!! It is also why it is critical that these PDRs be forwarded as per the regualtions to the new section or Unit. So that everyone's performance and end FY PER is based on the entire year and not just a part thereof.


----------



## Navalsnpr

The Librarian said:
			
		

> This is why it is critical that supervisors (and members alike) ensure that the quarterly PDR is written. If you don't get one, go ask for it!! It is also why it is critical that these PDRs be forwarded as per the regualtions to the new section or Unit. So that everyone's performance and end FY PER is based on the entire year and not just a part thereof.



When you are posted from a career course, you do not get a posting PDR from the school, you only get a course report. This course report may not arrive onboard for up to 3-4 months. In my trade, our QL5 training is around 24 months, so when I guy arrives from their QL5 course onboard in January, there is no course report or PDR to go by, therefore they only have 3 months to be observed and it is also difficult to write a PDR part 3/4 on the member


----------



## 284_226

The Librarian said:
			
		

> In any Unit I've served with (including deployed) we also jump started our PERs. Generally speaking, ones performance will be consistant throughout the year. Just because the draft version of it is drafted prior to end-year does not mean that changes to it can not and don't occur if warranted and necessary. I've seen people perform so poorly in the last quarter that they actually fall out of that 'pecking order' of which you speak and I've seen others step up to the plate in that last quarter in such a way that they ended up bumping someone out of that 'pecking order.' Usually though, the performance is consistant with the rest of the FY and no changes need to occur to the PER. Most PERs reflect the performance in areas "overall" and the mention of a specific activity ie "did exceedingly well during end FY budget consolidations" is limited and only certain scores will have specific examples used. A PER can not list every single thing that you do during the FY specifically, it would then be a 10 binder presentation, and therefore not likely to be read by those sitting on your merit board.



For the most part, I'd agree with you.  However, there are cases where the member could really shine based on "meat" in the last quarter, but doesn't get the benefit of consideration for it.  A change in the scoring might possibly mean a change in section ranking, or base ranking if it was an immediate PER.  How many supervisors are actually going to go through the hoops to fight for an upward change, knowing that it's going to potentially nudge a whole bunch of people that have already been ranked on unit and base merit boards?  It's not a widespread problem, but I'd think it pops up from time to time.


----------



## 284_226

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> When you are posted from a career course, you do not get a posting PDR from the school, you only get a course report. This course report may not arrive onboard for up to 3-4 months. In my trade, our QL5 training is around 24 months, so when I guy arrives from their QL5 course onboard in January, there is no course report or PDR to go by, therefore they only have 3 months to be observed and it is also difficult to write a PDR part 3/4 on the member



Have things really slid that far at the school?  I know when I was there, every student was given the opportunity to hand carry their own copy of a course report for their own records.  There's nothing stopping them from giving a copy of that to their supervisor, pending the arrival of the "official" copy through the mail...


----------



## Navalsnpr

284_226 said:
			
		

> Have things really slid that far at the school?  I know when I was there, every student was given the opportunity to hand carry their own copy of a course report for their own records.  There's nothing stopping them from giving a copy of that to their supervisor, pending the arrival of the "official" copy through the mail...



I just left the school and 99% of the instructors are actually in class or the trainer instructing all day long with little to no breaks between courses. From Jan 06 until my posting in Jul 06, I had only 8 days that I wasn't required to be in class instructing all day long. 

So to answer your question about things sliding at the school, the answer is no. We are teaching twice the number of students with a section that is sitting around 75%.

Course reports are written and submitted as soon as humanly possible.....


----------



## 284_226

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> I just left the school and 99% of the instructors are actually in class or the trainer instructing all day long with little to no breaks between courses. From Jan 06 until my posting in Jul 06, I had only 8 days that I wasn't required to be in class instructing all day long.
> 
> So to answer your question about things sliding at the school, the answer is no. We are teaching twice the number of students with a section that is sitting around 75%.
> 
> Course reports are written and submitted as soon as humanly possible.....



I'm not doubting you, as I know quite well that the old trade is bleeding in experience and numbers pretty badly - so the school being short staffed is no big surprise.  Still, don't the students have to sign their course reports at the end of the course, or are they being forwarded to the home/gaining unit for student's signature after their course is complete?  In the grand scheme of things, it shouldn't matter to the member either way, as the course report forms part of the package at the following merit board.  The merit board should and does realize that if the member is on course for 9 months, that there's only going to be 3 months of observation towards the PER.  The other time is covered by the course report.


----------



## armyvern

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> When you are posted from a career course, you do not get a posting PDR from the school, you only get a course report. This course report may not arrive onboard for up to 3-4 months. In my trade, our QL5 training is around 24 months, so when I guy arrives from their QL5 course onboard in January, there is no course report or PDR to go by, therefore they only have 3 months to be observed and it is also difficult to write a PDR part 3/4 on the member



True. I however have taken the initiative to ask the member who has completed the course for a copy of the course report in question, which they would have been given upon signing it. Once, the member had washed it. In that case I called CFSAL and they were gracious enough to fax me a copy of it.

The situation you describe above is absolutely correctable with a little work on the supervisors part. 

Edit: typo


----------



## armyvern

284_226 said:
			
		

> For the most part, I'd agree with you.  However, there are cases where the member could really shine based on "meat" in the last quarter, but doesn't get the benefit of consideration for it.  A change in the scoring might possibly mean a change in section ranking, or base ranking if it was an immediate PER.  How many supervisors are actually going to go through the hoops to fight for an upward change, knowing that it's going to potentially nudge a whole bunch of people that have already been ranked on unit and base merit boards?  It's not a widespread problem, but I'd think it pops up from time to time.


Did you even read my post that you quoted? I stated that when the performance justified a downward or upward move during the last quarter it was done. At least it has been at the various Unit's I served in. Even the "meat" in the last quarter however does not negate the other 9 months of the members performance which must still be taken into account; otherwise we'd have a whole bunch of pers who only 'performed' from Jan til Mar.


----------



## Navalsnpr

284_226 said:
			
		

> Still, don't the students have to sign their course reports at the end of the course, or are they being forwarded to the home/gaining unit for student's signature after their course is complete?  In the grand scheme of things, it shouldn't matter to the member either way, as the course report forms part of the package at the following merit board.  The merit board should and does realize that if the member is on course for 9 months, that there's only going to be 3 months of observation towards the PER.  The other time is covered by the course report.


Course reports are written, and sent through the service mail system to the member's OR or SHO, where they are logged and sent down the chain of command for signature by the members. Upon completion, they are sent back to the school and D MIL C


----------



## armyvern

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> Course reports are written, and sent through the service mail system to the member's OR or SHO, where they are logged and sent down the chain of command for signature by the members. Upon completion, they are sent back to the school and D MIL C


Well there's part of the problem right there then. I have always, and I mean always, signed my course report the last day of the course. When I have instructed I have always, and I mean always, had them ready to be signed on the last day of the course. Whether that meant working 16 hour days or whatever to get it done after everything else occured. It was part of my duties as staff. No student should be leaving a school without a signed course report. That is when they get screwed around.


----------



## Navalsnpr

Just because CFSAL does it that way does not mean that all CF schools do it the same way. Course reports are written and submitted up to the Divisional Commander for review and signature prior to it being released by the member. If the Divisional Commander is away on TD or Leave, then they will be processed upon his/her return.

I don't see it as a problem, I see it as a mechanism that is in place to ensure that the course reports are correctly written prior to signature by the member. Course reports are sent to the merit boards just as PER's, therefore course reports must be afforded the same scrutiny that PER's are.


----------



## armyvern

Are you telling me that your Divisional Commander goes away on leave or TD and does not delegate his duties to someone else during his absence? That's certainly unusual.

And yes, CFSAL course reports must also make their way up to the Comdt (or their delegated authority during their absence) for his/her review/vetting/comments and signature prior to being presented to students as well.


----------



## Navalsnpr

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Are you telling me that your Divisional Commander goes away on leave or TD and does not delegate his duties to someone else during his absence? That's certainly unusual.



Above my pay grade.... And besides, 50% of the courses I taught were during the 1600-2359 or 0000-0759 shift. I'm not waking the Div Commander up during those shifts to review a course report.


----------



## armyvern

Put them in his secure mailbox at the OR? I know I certainly didn't hand deliver mine. Have the OOW wake him? I don't know. But it seems like a wholey preventable situation to me.


----------



## 284_226

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Did you even read my post that you quoted? I stated that when the performance justified a downward or upward move during the last quarter it was done. At least it has been at the various Unit's I served in. Even the "meat" in the last quarter however does not negate the other 9 months of the members performance which must still be taken into account; otherwise we'd have a whole bunch of pers who only 'performed' from Jan til Mar.



I did read it, and the point I was trying to make is that more often than not, it's deemed to be more work to substantiate an upwards/downwards move in the last quarter than to just leave things the way they are.  I'm not saying there aren't supervisors that won't take that effort, but I am saying that it's rare.  A lot of it comes down to the position - some positions don't have duties that vary from one part of the year to another, while some positions are heavily weighted toward a great deal of work at the fiscal year-end.  I'm thinking of dots related to resource management, initiative, problem solving and decision making.  A person might go the first 9 months without demonstrating anything more than "skilled" levels in those AFs; however, when the proverbial crap hits the fan at year end, they shine through.

Having everyone wait until 1 April before they start work on PERs isn't unreasonable, considering that would leave two full months to get the whole process done and have the PERs at DMCARM by the 1 June deadline - or perhaps the 1 June deadline needs to be moved to the right...on the face of it, three months seems like quite a bit of time to have the files ready for the Electronic Selection Boards in the fall.


----------



## McG

284_226 said:
			
		

> ... there are cases where the member could really shine based on "meat" in the last quarter, but doesn't get the benefit of consideration for it.  ...  How many supervisors are actually going to go through the hoops to fight for an upward change, knowing that it's going to potentially nudge a whole bunch of people that have already been ranked on unit and base merit boards?


If a member's performance in the last months of the year merits a change in the draft PER, then that change should happen.  If this is not happening where you are, blame your unit for not using CFPAS properly & get after people to sort it out.

CFPAS scoring is not supposed to be based on some form of bell-curve either.  That means if one individual's performance improves or dives, there is no requirement to re-score anyone else.


----------



## McG

284_226 said:
			
		

> Having everyone wait until 1 April before they start work on PERs isn't unreasonable, considering that would leave two full months to get the whole process done and have the PERs at DMCARM by the 1 June deadline


Keep in mind that your solution does not fit the realities of our soldiers at war in Afghanistan.  As most of the BG soldiers deploy as part of their own unit or sub-unit, they are getting annual PERs.  They certainly need flexibility in when PERs can be written and waiting for 01 Apr will not help anyone.


----------



## 284_226

MCG said:
			
		

> If a member's performance in the last months of the year merits a change in the draft PER, then that change should happen.  If this is not happening where you are, blame your unit for not using CFPAS properly & get after people to sort it out.



Agreed; however, sometimes it's easier said than done.



> CFPAS scoring is not supposed to be based on some form of bell-curve either.  That means if one individual's performance improves or dives, there is no requirement to re-score anyone else.



Not re-score - re-rank.  If a raised PER moves a member from a "Ready" to an "Immediate" recommendation, then they most certainly will be looking at having to be ranked in MOC, as well as having the additional review done.  Additionally, if the scores are raised sufficiently, then it may well have an effect on ranking on a base/wing merit board - which would be indicated in the additional review section, would it not?  (I've never been on a base/wing merit board, so I'm guessing here...)


----------



## 284_226

MCG said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that your solution does not fit the realities of our soldiers at war in Afghanistan.  As most of the BG soldiers deploy as part of their own unit or sub-unit, they are getting annual PERs.  They certainly need flexibility in when PERs can be written and waiting for 01 Apr will not help anyone.



One could also argue that those who are operationally deployed would be the ones that stand the most to gain from ensuring that the entire reporting period is considered on a PER.  I personally don't know how to address that particular concern.


----------



## armyvern

284_226 said:
			
		

> One could also argue that those who are operationally deployed would be the ones that stand the most to gain from ensuring that the entire reporting period is considered on a PER.  I personally don't know how to address that particular concern.


Those that are deployed have the added advantage of having both the FY PER and the Tour PER sit before the merit board. Twice as many words in their favour (or not) dependant upon their performance of course!!


----------



## MJP

Hmmm I never got a end tour PER...PDR yes and I wrote a PDR for all my guys.  I thought those where only given if you were from an outside unit and where leaving back to your orginal unit after the tour.  Like in the case of an individual augmentee or reservist.


----------



## armyvern

MJP said:
			
		

> Hmmm I never got a end tour PER...PDR yes and I wrote a PDR for all my guys.  I thought those where only given if you were from an outside unit and where leaving back to your orginal unit after the tour.  Like in the case of an individual augmentee or reservist.



True that. If one deploys as part of his parent Unit, then his parent Unit would be aware of his performance for the entire reporting period.

Not the case for an augmentee, loggie etc. In either case, the entire reporting period is then covered and not neglected as 284_226 has alluded to below.


----------



## Sub_Guy

I still think a test is in order, and the scoring of the test would be the heaviest weighing factor in the Annual evaluation.  We have div notes in the navy, and if you read some (for example my unit we have had 3 MS/MCpls go through here in the last year) you can easily see what individual each MS/MCpl thought was number 1, and who wasn't.  

Opinions on the individual being evaluated do indeed play a role in how well the PER is written.  I know that most supervisors don't do this but we have all seen it.


----------



## armyvern

Some people are able to score exceptionally high in tests and have lots of book-smarts. When the crap hits the fan for real though they become clueless. 

Consistant performance and ability to get the actual job done is the standard, as it should be.


----------



## 284_226

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Opinions on the individual being evaluated do indeed play a role in how well the PER is written.  I know that most supervisors don't do this but we have all seen it.



Shall we go into the effect of a supervisor who writes so well that they can make flatulence smell like roses, compared to the supervisor who isn't so skilled in a literary capability and can't adequately represent a subordinate who deserves better?

Nah, better not  ;D


----------



## Sub_Guy

Seen, I thought of that right after I posted it, the Timmies is taking a while to jumpstart my brain this morning.  Which is bad considering I am trying to write PER's here at work.  

There are many fellas around who can memorize anything in a book, but crossing the street is a challenge.  They are the last ones I would be willing to follow when the crap hits the fan.


----------



## armyvern

284_226 said:
			
		

> Shall we go into the effect of a supervisor who writes so well that they can make flatulence smell like roses, compared to the supervisor who isn't so skilled in a literary capability and can't adequately represent a subordinate who deserves better?
> 
> Nah, better not  ;D



Situations like this are exactly where the redress process becomes most successful for the member grieving.


----------



## Navalsnpr

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Put them in his secure mailbox at the OR? I know I certainly didn't hand deliver mine. Have the OOW wake him? I don't know. But it seems like a wholey preventable situation to me.



I forgot to mention that for certain courses, the Divisional Commander is actually located in another building and for some of the training sections, that building is on the other side of the harbour!!

This is how it works in most of the schools in Halifax and Esquimalt.


----------



## armyvern

Geez though, I'm quite sure that you could get course reports to him for signature the same way leave passes, memos etc would go.


----------



## Navalsnpr

We put it in the outgoing mail, it goes to the base mail office and then back to the other building... takes a couple of days for the trip.

That's what happens when the base is spread over a half dozen physical sites..


----------



## armyvern

Yes, I recall my days in Halifax very well as the DST travelling back and forth between MARCOM to pick up the pri message, Supply to check out the strips, NAD to pick up the part, back to the Halifax side again to deliver.

Guess it goes with the territory.


----------



## riggermade

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Those that are deployed have the added advantage of having both the FY PER and the Tour PER sit before the merit board. Twice as many words in their favour (or not) dependant upon their performance of course!!



The only problem there is if you go on a tour with your unit you get your annual PER only even though on tour you may be doing alot more


----------



## armyvern

riggermade said:
			
		

> The only problem there is if you go on a tour with your unit you get your annual PER only even though on tour you may be doing alot more


But your theatre one would be used to make that annual one with would it not? That's how it's supposed to work for deployed Units. Their PDRs from theatre are supposed to be taken into consideration in the writing of the annual PER.


----------



## riggermade

Not if you are on tour during PER season


----------



## armyvern

But if you are deployed as a formed Unit of your parent Unit, then when your annual is written the quarterly PDRs from home are available to be used with the annual.

I really must be missing what you are trying to say.

Whether your annual is written in theatre or not, your quarterly PDRs are available (or should be) for use in it's writing when deployed as a component of the parent Unit.


----------



## armyvern

Memo from DGMC S&P regarding changes to policy for those members who refuse posting or refuse to report to new place of duty when their promotion includes a posting to a new Unit.

DIN Link here:

http://hr3.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgmc/docs/programs/dg/20061024_PostingPromCancel_e.pdf


----------



## geo

Thanks Vern
Excellent reference library you maintain


----------



## CFFB

How serious is it if one isn't receiving PDR's?  I left my last unit doing quite well on last years PER and left halfway through the year with a good posting PDR.  Since I've been at my new unit I haven't received *any* PDRs, not even the initial one that gives you your job description.  I've even asked for some feedback and was told that the PDR's from my last unit count towards the two a year that you are guaranteed and that I shouldn't expect anything from this new unit.  I don't even think my supervisor knows half of what I do, he does a completely different job and is only my supervisor because he happens to be in the same room.  

With the supervisors being this carefree I cringe at the thought of what my PER will look like this spring.  It wont be horrible but I can't see that much effort going towards it.  I know I'm entitled to redress the PER but how far can one expect to get when redressing a PER.  How far should you go,  receiving no feedback verbal, written or otherwise I can assume that my PER is going to be perfect.  I know that's taking it too far, but with such a nightmare of a chain of command I feel I could redress it if even one dot is one spot to the left.  Does a redress only go to the unit CO or can it go as high as the formation commander.  The CFPAS handbook says how many PDR's one should receive, but when reading it, the handbook doesn't come across as absolute law.  I've looked in various orders but haven't been able to find anything.  Are we absolutely entitled to receive PDR's or is it just a niceity that you may or may not receive.


----------



## AmmoTech90

CFFB,

I would suggest that you follow the advice that has been given before in this thread.  Gather supporting documentation.  Submit a memorandum or send an email requesting an initial interview, description of duties.  Keep that and any responses.  If you send it by email, turn on receive/read notificaiton and keep that.  Make notes of when you have asked for direction and take note of the responses.  Submit and brag sheet (from the PDR form) up your chain of command so that your supervisor is aware of what you are doing.  Ask for feed back on that.  As always document it.  Document any verbal feedback.
Just because one side of PER process is letting their end down does mean you should.  You are your own best career manager, make sure your supervisor know you know that.


----------



## armyvern

CFFB,

If you recd 2 PDR this FY already, you have recd the minimum. But you should have, at the minimum, recd a new pt1a&b initial interview/critical tasks when moving into the new position as per AmmoTech90's words below.

Keep your notes. Make notes. You may be thinking the worst as well. You don't have your PER yet. Don't stress yourself out just yet; you may be surprised.

Matter of fact, I haven't got any PDRs this year, nor have I recd anything since my posting to my new place of work. Hmmm. I'll have to work on that.

Vern


----------



## Fdtrucker

But your theatre one would be used to make that annual one with would it not? That's how it's supposed to work for deployed Units. Their PDRs from theatre are supposed to be taken into consideration in the writing of the annual PER.

I can only let you know what we are doing here. The personnel from TF 1-06 from 1 Svc Bn got their theatre PER and in conjunction will be getting a annual PER. The Annual PER will not reflect on anything overseas, only their performance and potential back here. These will both be going to the CM.


----------



## armyvern

That makes sense because they only augmented the tour. They didn't deploy as a formed Unit thus the theatre PER and annual PER make sense. That's normal, augmentees usually get a theatre PER to cover that time and an annual from their home Unit to cover the remainder of the reporting period.


----------



## Fdtrucker

They were a formed unit with a UIC of 6294 (mostly 1 Svc and 1 GS Bn pers), but I think because of their tour dates (Jan - Sep or for the HQ & Sigs 9 months Feb - Nov) they are getting the 2 PERs (in conjunction with each other). The tours I have been on overseas I only got a annual PER because they were within the Apr to March timeframe.


----------



## armyvern

Fdtrucker said:
			
		

> They were a formed unit with a UIC of 6294 (mostly 1 Svc and 1 GS Bn pers), but I think because of their tour dates (Jan - Sep or for the HQ & Sigs 9 months Feb - Nov) they are getting the 2 PERs (in conjunction with each other). The tours I have been on overseas I only got a annual PER because they were within the Apr to March timeframe.



All Units overseas are considered formed Units and assigned UICs, SCAs etc.

For CFPAS theatre PER purposes we are talking when a Canada based Unit deploys, in strength, overseas as a formed Unit. 1 Svc Bn didn't deploy, but a lot of their members did to the TFA NCE & NSE. Therefore you get a theatre PER. The PPCLI meanwhile deployed en masse, and therefore belonged to the same Unit overseas that they do in Canada, they got PDRs (unless of course they were in-theatre 31 Mar).


----------



## Fdtrucker

With the new tour of RCRs and VP in the same same BG (not including the 1 and 2 VP on the last tour) they will have the same UIC. Are they consider a formed unit with both Regts having their own merit lists???


----------



## McG

Where pers have deployed with a sub-unit of thier home unit, they will likely get PDRs and an annual PER.  The sub-unit HQ gets the joy of coordinating with the unit back in Canada.  Only the OCs of these sub-units will get theatre PERs from the BG CO.  So, in the case of the BG Engr Sqn, the OC gets theatre PER and everyone else will get annual PERs.


----------



## navaho

I am looking for some information or an aide-memoire to help me with a queston on PER exemptions.  I have gone through the CFPAS Policy Directive and I am having some difficulty finding some clarification WRT filling in section 4. I asked numerous of my peers and supervisors and most were unsure or made these faces  ??? : :-\ :boring: :blotto:

The following quote is pretty much all there is for filling in the form.



> Exemptions
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> There is no defined minimum observation period for a CFPAS Annual PER. However, in those rare instances where observation is so limited as to render it impossible to accurately report upon a member's performance and potential, then the unit CO may consider an exemption. The CO's authority in this regard must be exercised judiciously with an awareness that under no circumstances should an exemption be selected simply to save staff effort. To process the exemption the unit shall complete a PER exemption form with section 1, 2 and 3 completed. The CO must sign section 4 and where possible the member should sign section 5 in order to confirm his/her notification. Note that paragraphs 23 and 24 of the CFPAS Policy Directive continue to apply. Where uncertainly exists, DMCARM 2-3 should be consulted.
> 
> 
> Members receiving an Exemption PER should be made aware that there is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to having an Exemption PER over having a short observation period Annual PER. In terms of being found competitive enough to be seen by future selection boards, an average of the last two PER's on file is used to stand in the place of the exemption form so the member's place on the selection list reduction remains largely unaffected from what it otherwise might have been. A short observation period per, however, stands on its own merits and if it is not as highly scored as previous per's, the member's placement may be affected.



My primary concern is what is required to be filled out in the small text box located on the right hand side of descrption/dates in Section 4 of the PERX

Some clear direction with this matter would be most appreciated.

Regards,

Navaho


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

Contact the DMCARM 2 reps listed on the website.  They should be able to tell you everything you need, from the source.  I've dealt with them before and they know their stuff.  Here is some info from the CF Personnel Newsletter:

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/9_04/9_04_qc-per_e.asp


----------



## navaho

Thanks, I should have checked with the DMCARM 2 reps about the PERX after the first set of silly faces. They must be contagious because I started doing it. Thanks for setting me back on track.


Regards,

Navaho


----------



## orange.paint

Didn't find anything on it,however don't believe it should have it's own tread.

Besides writing normal PER's I have to admit my knowledge of certain aspects on it are lacking.I went into my office to grab something from my locker as I'm currently on course.Ran into someone who had to ask me a few questions about a certain task I had done this year.He said it was for my "Promotion PER."

Now is this basically the same PER I will receive?Or is this one a different format to go off to the boards etc?

May sound stupid to somebody in the know,however after looking through my CFPAS book I found nothing.

I ASSUME (ass out of you and me....I know)it is the same PER,but has to be written IAW where I placed on a merit board?

Little confused,hopefully someone can comfirm for me.Seem's like a dumb question,however dumb guys wouldn't think so much....you wouldn't believe the amount of useless garbage I run through in my head in the run of a day.


----------



## twizted

Thank you dataperson for you clarification, the posting stuff in the other hand I do not agree on the mentality "if you are not happy with it get the $/%%?&? out" from the career manager.  Some people have spouse and wife that make equal or more in salary, should you lose half your income to do the same job in a different province for a rank in salary raise !!!  What about your better half does he or she deserve to put everything on hold for you.  Now in 2008 it's time to adapt to modern society and become more flexible with posting.  Don't get me wrong I love the military and my job but it's time to be realistic.

Cheers !


----------



## armyvern

twizted said:
			
		

> Thank you dataperson for you clarification, the posting stuff in the other hand I do not agree on the mentality "if you are not happy with it get the $/%%?&? out" from the career manager.  Some people have spouse and wife that make equal or more in salary, should you lose half your income to do the same job in a different province for a rank in salary raise !!!  What about your better half does he or she deserve to put everything on hold for you.  Now in 2008 it's time to adapt to modern society and become more flexible with posting.  Don't get me wrong I love the military and my job but it's time to be realistic.
> 
> Cheers !



Yeah so??

Other people have spouses and families too -- that they can't even get posted close to driving range within, because there's asshats out there who think their families are more important than everyone else's.

Ever be a newf and try getting posted to Newfoundland? Or even the East Coast?

We ALL have our jobs to do and when WE refuse to go where the CF NEEDS us to -- we are SCREWING someone else.

This from a girl who's family has packed up and moved 7 times in 19 years -- because others refused to do so. Now you tell me why YOURS is more important than mine. Do my kids deserve to have to lose then remake friends every 2 years?

It's about damn time they started kicking their asses out. I have ZERO sympathy.


----------



## George Wallace

twizted said:
			
		

> Thank you dataperson for you clarification, the posting stuff in the other hand I do not agree on the mentality "if you are not happy with it get the $/%%?&? out" from the career manager.  Some people have spouse and wife that make equal or more in salary, should you lose half your income to do the same job in a different province for a rank in salary raise !!!  What about your better half does he or she deserve to put everything on hold for you.  Now in 2008 it's time to adapt to modern society and become more flexible with posting.  Don't get me wrong I love the military and my job but it's time to be realistic.
> 
> Cheers !



This really proves how little you know.  People do get posted and leave their higher earning spouse behind.  It is a choice that they have made.  In some cases the CF can accommodate them and Post them on IR (Imposed Restriction).  They get an allowance for being "Separated". 

Can the CF accommodate everyone?  No.  Nor could any other Agency.  CF members will have to make their own decisions.  

In days of old, I advised young soldiers not to even think of marriage before they had attained the rank of Cpl.  Then they would have more 'job security' and of course a better level of pay, and perhaps some savings in the bank.  Anyone running off and getting married as soon as they finish Basic is a FOOL.  Today we face other problems with many older people joining the CF who have already established families while they finished their Schooling or worked in another profession.  Hopefully, they were a little frugal and built up some savings before joining the CF, as they will be facing some very tight few years, money wise, when they join.  

The harsh reality is, like any job, the employer really doesn't care about your family; it is you that they have hired and you that they want to perform to their expectations.  At least the CF does take some interest in the members family and has over the years brought in policies and benefits to aid them, but the CF can not become a Welfare Cheque for them.

It seems that many young people today have been raised to believe that they are "entitled" to things; that they don't have to "work" for anything.  As far as I remember, Canada is still not a Socialist State.


----------



## aesop081

twizted said:
			
		

> What about your better half does he or she deserve to put everything on hold for you.  Now in 2008 it's time to adapt to modern society and become more flexible with posting.  Don't get me wrong I love the military and my job but it's time to be realistic.



So then what, us single people with no working spouses should get the shaft and get posted so your wife doesnt lose her job ?


----------



## George Wallace

twizted

I wonder what you would have done to "accommodate" all the members of 1 RCR a decade ago when the whole Bn was moved from London to Petawawa.  I am sure that the CDS at the time would have been quite willing to let a good 400 or more soldiers stay in London, because their spouses or girlfriends had good paying jobs..................Not!


----------



## armyvern

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So then what, us single people with no working spouses should get the shaft and get posted so your wife doesnt lose her job ?



Probably posted to Wainwright too -- so you'd have no hope in hell of even finding a wife.

Your remark illustrates perfectly the BIG picture that the "me me me" generation is obviously not familiar with -- every time they don't do their job -- they are screwing their buddies and that includes when it comes time for a posting.

There used to be a day when the mere thought of that would make anyone in uniforms skin crawl, and if it didn't -- those people got out.

Nice to see the pendulum starting to swing back the other way for a change.


----------



## mummiebear5

Hey!!  Wainwright is not that bad. We are into our fifth year here.  As a military spouse, I found a good job with PSAC working on the base as a CR3.  Have no intentions of retiring here though.


----------



## aesop081

mummiebear5 said:
			
		

> Hey!!  Wainwright is not that bad.



Try being and there single.

I have no desire to ever be posted there because some bleeding heart has a wife that doesnt want to give up her job.


----------



## armyvern

mummiebear5 said:
			
		

> Hey!!  Wainwright is not that bad. We are into our fifth year here.  As a military spouse, I found a good job with PSAC working on the base as a CR3.  Have no intentions of retiring here though.



I've yet to meet someone who planned on retiring there!! How many single girls there for Cdn Aviator to hook up with though? Any referrals for him -- ??  ;D


----------



## twizted

I can read bitterness in your post about moving 7 times in 19 years, if you had the choice would you have move so many times ? 

About trying to go somewhere and get turn down by the career manager, how about that, last year two MCpl's one with 18 years in and the other with 15 years in the 18 years in wants to go to Gander he has relative there, the other is looking the stay put, guess what happen 18 years stayed put and the 15 years in went to Gander, the final product two releases but the 15 years joint back as a reservist.

If the CF (career manager) would pay a little more attention to his people, life would be a lot better.  I've been on IR for the past 1 1/2 years and I have about 75 to a 100 people on IR in the same building.  Let me tell you some people are about to go postal with that posting stuff, so like anything else it's not because it has been done like that for the past 50 years that we can not do it differently for the better of the CF.



Cheers !


----------



## aesop081

So now we cant posted you if your wife has a job AND we cant post you if you have 15 years in or more.

I guess i'm safe on one count.

 :

Now that you have told us that the CM has to pay more attention. How would YOU handle postings so that everyone is happy and that all the "less than desireable" locations / jobs are filled ?


----------



## armyvern

twizted said:
			
		

> I can read bitterness in your post about moving 7 times in 19 years, if you had the choice would you have move so many times ?
> 
> About trying to go somewhere and get turn down by the career manager, how about that, last year two MCpl's one with 18 years in and the other with 15 years in the 18 years in wants to go to Gander he has relative there, the other is looking the stay put, guess what happen 18 years stayed put and the 15 years in went to Gander, the final product two releases but the 15 years joint back as a reservist.
> 
> If the CF (career manager) would pay a little more attention to his people, life would be a lot better.  I've been on IR for the past 1 1/2 years and I have about 75 to a 100 people on IR in the same building.  Let me tell you some people are about to go postal with that posting stuff, so like anything else it's not because it has been done like that for the past 50 years that we can not do it differently for the better of the CF.
> 
> Cheers !



You are an ass.

So, if I had the choice? I was asked (because some ASS refused), so I said yes. It was either that OR get out.


No, you tell me ... is the better option than NOT doing my job that I signed to do UPON enrollment, to get out instead and thereby cut the household income in HALF, thus reducing the QOL of MY family so that YOURS doesn't have to ever change? Wasn't that your friggin' arguement in the first place?  :

BIG picture -- the CF is NOT about YOU. Attitudes like YOURS ... SCREW people like me. It really _is _ that plain and simple. 

As to your other situation -- neither one of them would have had to get out had others cycled OUT of Gander and let someone else have the chance.


----------



## George Wallace

Ok.  I do know someone who retired to Wainwright.......

twizted

100 people on IR in your building alone?  That seems odd.  Why did you post earlier that the CF didn't accommodate people when now you claim that you and a 100 others in your building are being so accommodated?  Seems you want your cake and eat it too, although I am more likely to call you on those numbers.  

As for you example of Gander.  I have seen it before in the past.  Whoopee.  Why didn't your 18 year guy take his Release and go to Gander and become a Reservist there; like the guy who refused to go and took a Release?   He wouldn't have lost anything.


----------



## twizted

I can be post ! I have been posted 4 times in 8 years so far,  That not the point I'm just saying if you have given 18 years or more in and do not want to be posted again I do believe you deserve to stay where you are.


----------



## aesop081

twizted said:
			
		

> That not the point I'm just saying if you have given 18 years or more in and do not want to be posted again I do believe you deserve to stay where you are.



I asked you a question, would be nice if you answered it. 

Or are you just one of those guys who sees a problem and doesnt offer a solution ?


----------



## twizted

"100 people on IR in your building alone?  That seems odd.  Why did you post earlier that the CF didn't accommodate people when now you claim that you and a 100 others in your building are being so accommodated?  Seems you want your cake and eat it too, although I am more likely to call you on those numbers."

In Ottawa that's not unusual,  I don't talk only for myself, the day I would not be happy with my situation I will find something else to do. 

As for the reservist position, no position for his trade.


----------



## aesop081

Dont have any answers for me eh ?

Good job sport

 :


----------



## armyvern

twizted said:
			
		

> I can be post ! I have been posted 4 times in 8 years so far,  That not the point I'm just saying if you have given 18 years or more in and do not want to be posted again I do believe you deserve to stay where you are.



Well, that refers to approx 1/2 the CF these days. Look outside the box -- see the BIG picture.   :

As for IR --

I was posted during an op deployment in 03 (an 8.5 month long deployment at that--extended by 2.5 months at the last minute). Returned in fall 03 to a brand new home in a brand new province. Posted away IR in spring 06 to yet another Province. Posted again in fall 07 out of that Province. Do not talk to me about what I deserve or what my family deserves. 

What my family deserves is for my career managers to start saying "GET OUT" (and they have!! YAY!!!) to asshats and "me me me" people who cause MY family to end up in situations like this in the first place!!


I deserve it -- I have 20 years in on the 12th.  :


----------



## twizted

recruit by geographical region, we have recruitment center all over Canada.  Posting where people don't want to go offer better allowances !.  That won't solved everything but it will be a beginning.


----------



## George Wallace

twizted said:
			
		

> recruit by geographical region, we have recruitment center all over Canada.  Posting where people don't want to go offer better allowances !.  That won't solved everything but it will be a beginning.



Excuse me!  Are you for real?  Recruit by geographical region.  Well it is sort of done already.  Many Quebecer's, not all, who join the Infantry will stay in Quebec.  Can you tell me how many would be recruited and posted to Labradour or PEI?  How about those guys in Saskatchewan who want to join the Navy?  Will the Canadian Government now build a mega Seaport and Naval Base in Saskatchewan to accommodate them?  

I have to go now.  A drink or two and a movie makes more sense.


----------



## twizted

Armyvern I don't  tell you what you deserve or not, I'm talking for the big picture and other people not just me, if you are happy with your situation, you are GTG.


----------



## armyvern

twizted said:
			
		

> I can be post ! I have been posted 4 times in 8 years so far,  That not the point I'm just saying if you have given 18 years or more in and do not want to be posted again I do believe you deserve to stay where you are.



My postings were actual honest to goodness postings (ie pack up my family and make them move). I'm not talking my first enrollment posting or courses. And, I'm not talking my IR posting either as my family (obviously) did not move with me.

AFTER I completed my trg ... postings -- every second year from year 3 until year 18.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

By joining the military you have an obligation to go where you are needed, if you are not prepared to go there, then you are wasting everyones time. You could take a lesson from Vern by sucking it up.


----------



## aesop081

twizted said:
			
		

> recruit by geographical region, we have recruitment center all over Canada.



What good would that do ?

Or do you mean we should employ people in the are that they are recruited in ?





> Posting where people don't want to go offer better allowances !.



No amount of money will get me to go to the following bases : Dundurn, Greenwood, Wainwright, Meaford and Yellowknife.

Now what are you going to do when no one wants to go regardless of money ?


----------



## armyvern

twizted said:
			
		

> Armyvern I don't  tell what you deserve or not, I'm talking for the big picture, if you are happy with your situation, you are GTG.



You're not talking BIG picture. Your framing job on your little self-portrait is screwing people like me.


----------



## navy-nesop

I think I have to agree with GW, even if  on the Bell Curve, I may place in the 50% range.... (teasing you, that's all).

People don't realise the whole nature of this job.  I'm glad I' m not a CM.  Can you imagine how many different cases he as to deal with on a regular basis.

It's hard enough to manage one member's carrier, you can't ask them to manage your spouse or husband too.  I must say they seem to be better than 10 years ago and it probably is way different then 30 years ago.

There is one solution that can fix this problem, in part anyway.  GO NAVY... hard sea trade.  Only two coasts, cost an harm and a leg to move you around.  You are never home, but your wife is!

that's my 2cent,

navy-nesop


----------



## armyvern

I have the perfect solution!!! 

All career managers should post each and every one of us to our hometowns and our hometowns only. Each spouse should be guaranteed a job by government enacted legislation which guarantees them 20 years worth of income just so they don't get shafted.

Also, each CF member should receive PLD benefits too of course ... just because.

That way -- all the "me me me" people will be happy, fuck the defence of the Nation because that's obviously not what it's all about anyway.  :


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I have the perfect solution!!!
> 
> All career managers should post each and every one of us to our hometowns and our hometowns only. Each spouse should be guaranteed a job by government enacted legislation which guarantees them 20 years worth of income just so they don't get shafted.



Sorry.  That won't work.  My spouse wouldn't be able to get as good a job in my hometown.  Next?


----------



## twizted

CDN Aviator

You will always find people to go places where the money is good ! and yes employ people from the area they are recruited in.

ArmyVern

I don't see how I'am screwing you by moving on IR to where they told me to go.


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry.  That won't work.  My spouse wouldn't be able to get as good a job in my hometown.  Next?



Doesn't matter. The Liberals would amend the legislation to ensure that the guaranteed job comes with a guaranteed flat-rate annual income for all spouses. And, when your kid reaches 16 years of age ... he starts getting paid too!!


----------



## navy-nesop

Can I be different too, they don't have an ocean yet in my home town.


----------



## armyvern

twizted said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator
> 
> You will always find people to go places where the money is good ! and yes employ people from the area they are recruited in.
> 
> ArmyVern
> 
> I don't see how I'am screwing you by moving on IR to where they told me to go.



It's NOT about *YOU*. Your suggestions so far have been shown to be right the fuck out of 'er. It's not about your IR. 

It's about your suggestion that the CF should worry about YOUR family (ie your wife's income) instead of looking after my family.

Bullshit. The CF looks after YOU -- YOU look after your wife; that's NOT the CFs job, and that, I'm afraid IS the big picture that you fail to see. And if you need to get out because she'll lose her salary if you get posted -- then you do that or you go IR --- but don't think that refusing to move doesn't SHAFT someone else.

That's your choice -- IR or Out. But accomodating and letting someone stay in and stay put when they've said "no" to a posting or an IR option -- is total and complete bullshit that affects other families or the single guys/gals... and that will NEVER be fair.


----------



## aesop081

twizted said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator
> 
> You will always find people to go places where the money is good ! and yes employ people from the area they are recruited in.



I'm not so optimistic. I've been at this for 15 years and i've seen people refuse some pretty sweet deals.

You are still not adressing some of my points. Everything you have said so far is a contradiction. You want to be fair for one type of member by being unfair to another.


----------



## George Wallace

twizted said:
			
		

> ........ and yes employ people from the area they are recruited in.




How many people in the CF were "Recruited" from an area within close proximity (less than an hour away from) of a Canadian Forces Installation?


----------



## aesop081

twizted said:
			
		

> and yes employ people from the area they are recruited in.



So now only east coasters will be allowed in the Atlantic fleet ? 8 wing in Trenton will only have pilots from Ontario ?

Wow, i'm glad you are not in HR


----------



## George Wallace

Guess (s)he doesn't like working in NDHQ.


----------



## Rowshambow

I am glad I didn't go to a Regiment in Ontario, I love the west and prefer to be away from home! It's nice to cut the umbilical cord, some people need to do exactly that!


----------



## twizted

I'm not saying go to that extreme, if you are from Ontario and want to stay in Ontario for whatever reasons, if they have a base that can accomodate you, why do not try to make it happen.

Some people want to stay out west if it's possible let them stay there.

That's what I'm saying.


----------



## twizted

Good night folks !


----------



## armyvern

twizted said:
			
		

> I'm not saying go to that extreme, if you are from Ontario and want to stay in Ontario for whatever reasons, if they have a base that can accomodate you, why do not try to make it happen.
> 
> Some people want to stay out west if it's possible let them stay there.
> 
> That's what I'm saying.



They already *DO* that as much as possible.  :

When it's NOT possible someone gets posted. When that person refuses to proceed on that posting -- someone else gets shafted to go. Why the hell should the refuser then be allowed to remain in when he's just screwed someone else?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

twizted said:
			
		

> Good night folks !



Getting a little too hot for you?


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

twizted said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator
> 
> You will always find people to go places where the money is good !



Twisted now you are talking about a mercenary army, who fight only for money, not layalty, not the good of thier nation, or the safety of thier neighbors, only for the good ol' looney


----------



## RTaylor

Im not sure how the Forces makes their decision on where to post their soldiers, but as far as I've been told is that they always try to give a posting reasonably close to home if possible. Sometimes it's not always possible and the wishes just can't be accomodated. This is still a far cry from when my father was in and when you got posted you either moved or quit.

The military is constantly changing, who knows where things will be in 10 years? Or even in 5 years? With the constant changes going on even in the past 10 years since I've been in the reserves and from what I'm seeing now there seems to be a SHITLOAD more accomodation in regards to choices that you have.

There are alot of valid points here, if you want to join the Navy and live in Manitoba chances are you won't be near home for your career. 

I was contemplating going Air Force so I could have a stab at getting posted to Greenwood ( I live an hour away near Annapolis Royal), but I'm joining the army so I can see the world and taste what's out there. Even my wife is looking forward to it. The cash will be much MUCH better than what I'm earning now and my wife has some solid government credentials to hopefully get her employed. Either way, she'll be off work for a bit raising our children (pregnant with our #2).

I'm just hoping I get posted to Gagetown hehe, close enough to home for a weekend visit (like 4 hour drive and ferry or less).


----------



## scoutfinch

Why doesn't this guy get it... the CF already accommodates spouses etc who do not want to leave their jobs.  

It's called IR.


----------



## Blakey

^ +1 (and to eveyone else who thankfully *Gets It*)

Been IR since 2004 ya, it sucks *BUT*, it was *MY/OUR* choice.

SIU


----------



## Greymatters

That was brutal.  Four mods against him, and he still insisted on trying to make his point...

Based on the lack of support Twisted received in his argument from other members, its pretty much obvious that most member here agree with ArmyVern's statement.  The CF looks after you, you look after your wife.  Her job is not the CF's problem.


----------



## Franko

Greymatters said:
			
		

> That was brutal.  Four mods against him, and he still insisted on trying to make his point...



They we not acting as mods in their posts. If they were they would have "The Army.ca Staff" under their responses.

They were responding as members of the site and nothing more.        

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## twizted

Everyone has the right to different opinion, it was a fair discussion. I will see what people have to say about it.


----------



## X-mo-1979

twizted said:
			
		

> recruit by geographical region, we have recruitment center all over Canada.  Posting where people don't want to go offer better allowances !.  That won't solved everything but it will be a beginning.



So Newfoundlanders would be able to be...
SAR Tech's 
Supply Techs
Clerks

So How would Us Newfoundlanders become lets say...Infantry....or Armoured...Or Artillery...
Thats the dumbest idea Ever.

But if you can get a tank sqn in Carbonear Newfoundland,I'm game to be posted.


----------



## 284_226

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Based on the lack of support Twisted received in his argument from other members, its pretty much obvious that most member here agree with ArmyVern's statement.



I don't think that's an accurate conclusion to be drawing.

Not supporting twisted ≠ agreement with ArmyVern
Not voicing an opinion ≠ agreement with ArmyVern



> The CF looks after you, you look after your wife.  Her job is not the CF's problem.



I think that's an overly simplistic description.  The CF can and does take spousal employment into consideration when it can.  Ultimately, when the CF can't take it into consideration, it's the member's decision whether to continue being employed by the CF.

Do I think the CF should bend over backwards to guarantee spousal employment on posting?  No.

Do I think more could be done to accommodate member's wishes (and consideration of spousal employment) when it comes to posting location, short of impinging upon other members?  Sure.


----------



## armyvern

284_226 said:
			
		

> I don't think that's an accurate conclusion to be drawing.
> 
> Not supporting twisted ≠ agreement with ArmyVern
> Not voicing an opinion ≠ agreement with ArmyVern



I agree.



> I think that's an overly simplistic description.  The CF can and does take spousal employment into consideration when it can.  Ultimately, when the CF can't take it into consideration, it's the member's decision whether to continue being employed by the CF.
> 
> Do I think the CF should bend over backwards to guarantee spousal employment on posting?  No.



I agree.



> Do I think more could be done to accommodate member's wishes (and consideration of spousal employment) when it comes to posting location, short of impinging upon other members?  Sure.



I somewhat agree. As I already pointed out too -- the CF already does this. If the members family IS going to be affected by a move, the CF has already has the additional option of Soldier A going IR and leaving the family stable. That IS accomodating a members family situation. I'm fine with that. In this case, if the member does proceed on IR he has made the choice to leave his family in their stability (ie the wife at the good paying job) and to not shaft someone else into the posting. If soldier A however, will NOT proceed to the posting (even IR) ... then he has failed "to perform his duty to the Crown" and this action by him will result in another CF member (who also possibly has a family) to get shafted by soldier A's failure to perform his duty ... and soldier A should be OUT -- no ifs, no ands, no buts.

And that is who we are talking about here -- the boys/gals who just flat out refuse to leave a location "don't post me or else (not even IR)...". It's about time they reaped the benefit they deserve. I'm not sad to see them go because I, for one, am sick and tired of being their beneficiary by being posted every second year and being posted IR because the CF has not done anything about the members we have serving today who hold that attitude. Their "do not post me or elses" have affected my family one too many times ... it's high time their own family was affected by their statement instead of mine.

*When I got posted to Pet, my sponser there was posted to my current location 3 months later. 3 years later I was posted here and my my sponser was still here. 2 years later I was posted back to Ontario and he remained here. 3 years later I was posted back here ... and here he still sat. 18 months later, I found myself posted to another province yet again on IR ... and here he still sat. 18 months later I got posted back here and here he still sat. Finally, this fall --- off he went after 14 years here. Good bye -- it's about time.    (Our ranks matched throughout  :).


----------



## 2 Cdo

Just my two cents here twisted. When I was posted to Kingston in 02, we took a pay cut of close to $2,000 a month due to wifes loss of a job. It was hard but we managed. Now my wife makes far more than me, so rather than move back out west again I retired. It's all about choices. it might sound like a cliche but in the big picture your spouse really doesn't matter to the military. She/he is not their employee, you are. I think Vern hit it on the head, there seems to be a lot more of the "me me" attitude in the CF these days which overall reduces capabilities.


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyVern has made some good points about these people who are "refusing" Postings and I might add Tours.  They are a burden on the System, whether they know it or not.  When they refuse to be posted or go on a Tour, someone else must fill that spot.  As it turns out, it seems it is always the same people being selected to replace them.  This causes a lot of stress on these people, while the person who refused sits in a "comfortable" position at home.  The "Replacements" soon begin to "Burn Out" and show signs of PTSD or other symptoms.  In the majority of cases, I would recommend that anyone refusing a Posting or Tour be released.  They are "Dead Weights" who are causing a snowball effect on the morale of the CF.  

For every one of them that refuses a Posting or Tour, two others are usually affected in a negative manner.  Get rid of them.


I will qualify this a bit by saying that in some very rare cases, a person has some very legitimate reasons to refuse a Posting or Tour, but as I said they are very rare.  These people have some serious problems such as children with "Special needs" or "Health concerns" and should have the extra consideration shown them.  This by no means qualifies everyone who's spouse has a job of any sort or children in school.  Too many today come with a feeling of entitlement and only want to "milk the system".


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I will qualify this a bit by saying that in some very rare cases, a person has some very legitimate reasons to refuse a Posting or Tour, but as I said they are very rare.  These people have some serious problems such as children with "Special needs" or "Health concerns" and should have the extra consideration shown them.  This by no means qualifies everyone who's spouse has a job of any sort or children in school.  Too many today come with a feeling of entitlement and only want to "milk the system".



Absolutely agreed on the above, but in this case the member is accomodated via the "Compassionate route" by the CF, either remaining at the current location (ie if the child requires sick kids treatment that's not readily avail say -- in Gagetown etc) or by Compassionate posting to a location due to a situation with parents occuring there etc.  I am 100% fine with that as well.

So the CF already accomodates for "spousal employment" via the IR route, and for serious family concerns such as health via the "compassionate route" ...

They are doing what they can, it's the situations of flat out refusals to go IR or to state that "or else" that I have issues with.


----------



## Gunner98

I will add that the further into your career you get, providing you still have your original family complete (the one you were issued 20 years ago), it gets harder to move DF&E every few years.  What can be annoying even to seasoned soldiers (those with a CD and 1st clasp) is the relative diminishing options.  Ergo many people end up on IR often.  I know of a few in the HSS community that have been on IR for a total of more than 10 years (not always continuously).  This does not make for a great family setting, but surprisingly some of these relationships survive the challenges.  

One constant is that the Career Managers and Sr staff (DComd and COS) have very different ideas about your next location and position than what you may have discussed with your immediate chain of command or foolishly listed on your MPRR as "posting preferences".  Although experience and qualifications will limit your available options, it is still be satisfying to have some spirited discussion on your future, prior to just accepting your fate.  In some cases, a compromise is found if the threats of or else are avoided.

In the HSS community, they are currently attempting to rotate (post) people out of the comfortable clinical setting into the field units to alleviate the constant deployment of a smaller group of people.  Succession planning has been attempted on a number of occasions but IMHO, these boards tend not to come up with the desired plans (at least those results expected from the senior leadership.)  The results of these deliberations have not been endorsed and the succession planning terms of reference continue to evolve.


----------



## twizted

I totally agree for tour, if you don't want to deploy the CF it's not your place.


----------



## armyvern

twizted said:
			
		

> I totally agree for tour, if you don't want to deploy the CF it's not your place.



But the CF comes with postings too -- that's also a given upon being sworn in, so if you flat out refuse to comply with that condition as well (being that the CF accomodates family sits via IR and health sits via Compassionate) -- why should the CF still be "your place?"


----------



## twizted

I believe it's a question of priorities, if a person doesn't want to move at all he or she should join the Res and not the Reg forces.  I believe there is a way out there to let people in the same spot for a longer period of time and by doing so still meet the mobility requirement of the CF.

  From your experience ArmyVern what do you think should be a good solution.  Except it's not "your place". Because everytime you kick someone out you lose money, training, and as mentionned before the people staying are getting overworked.

Cheers !

P.S. I wont be back for a while this week I'm on the road.


----------



## aesop081

twizted said:
			
		

> I believe there is a way out there to let people in the same spot for a longer period of time and by doing so still meet the mobility requirement of the CF.



Oh i realy want to hear your plan.


----------



## armyvern

twizted said:
			
		

> I believe it's a question of priorities, if a person doesn't want to move at all he or she should join the Res and not the Reg forces.  I believe there is a way out there to let people in the same spot for a longer period of time and by doing so still meet the mobility requirement of the CF.
> 
> From your experience ArmyVern what do you think should be a good solution.  Except it's not "your place". *Because everytime you kick someone out you lose money, training, and as mentionned before the people staying are getting overworked.*
> Cheers !
> 
> P.S. I wont be back for a while this week I'm on the road.



I don't think "we" need a solution. It's already there for the RegF. You go on your posting (IR or compassionate deals with family and health issues if required). If you still won't go on your posting -- you get out or they make you get out.

As to your bold (my emphasis) portion ... no, you see when they make you get out of the RegF for NOT doing your duty to the Crown that you have sworn to do -- then there is now an empty position to recruit someone into. Perhaps even, someone who gives a shit about the BIG picture and will do that duty they have sworn to do. Will I then be busier for a bit while that person is trained? Yes, but my morale will be much higher because my family will no longer be getting shafted every second year by being posted because the CF has allowed (decided) that someone else's family stability and QOL takes precedence over mine.

And, in the long run ... what is cheaper? Posting me IR (or posting me with my family) every second year ... or FINALLY putting your foot down and posting the guy/gal who has had nice jammy family stability for 12 or 13 years somewhere for what is, often times, the first time in their career? 

1) That posting expands and broadens their trade knowledge which is of huge benefit to the CF; 

2) That posting garners work related experience that is beneficial to that member for both overall performance and advancement within the trade; 

3) That posting is ultimately a part of the duty that member is sworn to do; and

4) Finally, that member being forced to go or to get out ... benefits the people like me who seem to be the ones doing our duty by allowing us some stability for once or twice in our careers and is good for my families morale which has suffered at the expense of "their" morale for long enough.


----------



## Greymatters

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> They we not acting as mods in their posts. If they were they would have "The Army.ca Staff" under their responses.



Fair enough.  However, there is a lot of experience behind the names and position identified, if not speaking as Mods then certainly as informed and experienced persons.

Regarding the lack of comments (Not supporting twisted ≠ agreement with ArmyVern, Not voicing an opinion ≠ agreement with ArmyVern) that may be true if a thrid position has been stated and brought into the argument, but lacking a third view = fence-sitting ...


----------



## TN2IC

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The "Replacements" soon begin to "Burn Out" and show signs of PTSD or other symptoms.  In the majority of cases, I would recommend that anyone refusing a Posting or Tour be released.  They are "Dead Weights" who are causing a snowball effect on the morale of the CF.
> 
> For every one of them that refuses a Posting or Tour, two others are usually affected in a negative manner.  Get rid of them.



+1 Excellent Statement


----------



## X-mo-1979

*X-Mo_1979's View On Refusing Posting.*

Anyone with more than 6 years in the army has had "The" posting.The one everyone talks about every APS.I have just finished my 3 years at "the"posting.Was I happy there?Nope.However I had a clear choice.Take the posting or try to fight it and be a selfish idoit who was going to bone someone else (who guess what...doesnt want that crappy posting either).So what did I do?Went there and looked for the lighter side of that posting.Every posting has a goodside.And honestly when I was getting posted back to my unit I realised that there were aspects of that posting I would certainly miss.

Some troops say certain postings are career deaths.Lies.I find most soldiers kill their own careers with their attitudes.Now I didnt become allied supreme commander,however I did get some career progression due to having a positive attitude and looking FORWARD in my career to make sure I made myself desired (trade qualifications/work ethic) to return to my previous post.

Dual Service Couple.Now armyvern I mean no mallice by saying this.However I know you suck it up and get posted away:

TOO BAD.
Me and my wifey were a service couples.We could not be posted together so we decided that one of us would release.She did.
Long IR postings,TOO BAD.One of you get out.
we once had a CO's hour and one Mcpl stood up and asked the CO what they were going to do for couples who were both deploying at the same time.Honestly I forget what he has said in response,but guess what...TOO BAD.
I dont care if Sally and Billy don't see their parents for 9 months,I really don't.You make over 100,000 dollars a year,your both adults,FIGURE IT OUT!You as service couples decided to make 100,000 plus a year and stay in.You as service couples decided your careers were important to you.If doing the job of a soldier (I.E Deploying) or going away does not work for you.Release.
I could make 100,000 plus, however me and my service spouse couldnt make it work for us.We did not want to have our kids with family for 9 months so one of us released.

*"My wife is making 200,000 grand as a nurse in Edmonton.You CANT post me!"*

wrong.

When the hell did the career manager have to be Dr.Phil as well?

As my career manager told us this year.

"So you are posted.If you refuse your posting,your COS quickly becomes your release date."


----------



## armyvern

I'm interested to see what the statistics would show on that IR ...

Because 85% of the people I know on IR ... are married service couples (don't know if that's just because most that I happen to know personnaly are MSCs or if that's the actuality of the figures) -- who seem to be doing just fine at proceeding IR and thus complying with their obligation to the Crown.

I also know a great many of them who want to deploy at the same time (some are currently deployed as such) because they find it easier to have them both gone at once for 6 or 7 months than to single parent year round --- deployment after deployment after deployment.

It's a two way street with MSCs just like everyone else. I also know MSCs who whine when they can't be posted together (despite both being IN the CF WHEN they married each other  :). 

Either they go on the posting/tour or get OUT -- there's absolutely zero difference between them and a single guy, or a guy married to a civy. Go on the posting, go IR ... or get out. Same rules apply.


----------



## BinRat55

Vern, who know you'd be so smart this far along!!  I'm actually impressed by MOST of your topic replies (this thread being no exception) they are well argued, debated and (for the most part) clean and tidy (I say this because some of your posts re: Supply Etiquette et al are a weensie bit colorful)  But I digress.  Here is my point - yes, I do have one - you didn't get that way but working in the same place, living in the same circumstances and experiencing only the different variety of coffee at the surrounding Timmies.  We as soldiers (sometimes it actually IS soldier first) accept certain hazards, but along with those "hazards" come rewards.  My 2 cents?  As has been stated in many responses prior to this one, we  do have choices.  At no time is it professional to put someone "over a barrel" by saying something like "I'll get out if you post me there..."  Go there.  Make the best of it.  Unless there is a legitimate non-lasting reason not to.  Compassionate will halt your career - your choice, but how important is this "reason"?  It can be fixed.  If not, you have another choice, right?  QOL (I think it's changed now but I'm unsure to what) will not halt your career, but again, it's temporary.  Is it important to you? Again, your choice.

My bottom line - I have never refused and will never refuse a posting - and I do have legitimate reasons for alternate avenues, but that is MY CHOICE.  I get a kick out of people who, when they find out I spent time in Petawawa, say to me "I'd never go to Pet - release me first"  If you're talking out your butt, good for you, but if I ever get back to Pet and have the privilege of working with you while you wait for your release or your grievance to go through, be sure to know that I will note your attitude.

Sorry for going off there, but I too believe that the CF bends over WAY too much for some people.  A posting is considered an order, is it not?  There was a time when everyone in the CF never questioned an order.

I'll spare everyone my rant on refused tours - for now!!


----------



## McG

CANFORGEN 127/08 - Seems there are some new developments for those unhappy with PERs.


----------



## aesop081

AirForce said:
			
		

> I was wondering if PDR's were mandated to be given at certain periods? (eg. Quarterly, which is what I thought). What I've read here so far suggests that they are not...



The CFPAS system only requires that you get a Part 1 and then followed by a minimum of one Part 5 during the year. There can be more but this is left to the discretion of local commanders.


----------



## AirForce

Ah so since they've done that initial PDR there doesn't have to be another one for this PER cycle.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I greatly appreciate it!


----------



## aesop081

AirForce said:
			
		

> Ah so since they've done that initial PDR there doesn't have to be another one for this PER cycle.



You should have been given a Part 1 ( the job description) when you started your job. At some point during the year ( idealy at mid-point) you should have signed a Part 5 telling you how you were doing. At the end of the year you will be presented with your PER. This completes the cycle at a minimum.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I copied the 'word for word' info into this thread from the CFPAS Handbook and Policy Directive.  You sound like you are somewhat familiar with the CFPAS application, you should be able to find all the info on policy, requirements, etc in the application Helpfile and Policy Directive in the future.

However, to quote the official policy:

From the CFPAS Help File Version 2007.0.3:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1 of the process occurs during the initial meeting between the supervisor and member at the beginning of the reporting period or when a new supervisor or member is assigned. A new supervisor has the option of either confirming the previous supervisor's PDR or initiating a new one. *Step 2 of the PDR consists of a minimum of two feedback sessions; the first at the mid point and the second at the end of the reporting period concurrent with the PER debrief.  Feedback sessions may occur more often as desired or directed by local commanders.

(* as already said by Cdn Aviator, but some people miss the part "concurrent with", creating a misunderstanding on their part)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as your concerns about your PER being sub-standard to what you expect, I will refrain from commenting other than to say you should wait until your PDR review happens, and address what differences appear to exist on what you've done and what your superior doing the feedback session indicates he/she thinks you have done.  Your feedback *should* line-up with your initial interview/PDR, which should have laid out your critical tasks/expected results.  I would be concerned if my immediate superior said to me "I wont use your initial PDR to...."...well wtf else are you using then?  But, regardless, if you signed the initial PDR and they did not rewrite it, that is the one they are bound to IAW the CFPAS policy/directive.

It appears like you have documented your accomplishments well (brag sheets), but don't be too trigger-happy on being ready to fire away at the PDR review, you might go in alittle hostile and that is usually counter-productive.


----------



## AirForce

Thank you Eye in the Sky;

That was informative and answered all the questions I had. Now that it's more clearer I'm not as worried about them changing the PDR dates around. 

Thanks for the advice, I'll most deffinitely see how the PDR review goes before making any firm decisions - I really appreciate your input!


----------



## PiperDown

Can anyone tell me how a PER is scored? ie. perfomance, each bullet is worth a certain amount, and in potential each bullet is worth a certain amount.

also, does anyone know where I can get the CFPAS handbook from the Internet? I am not at work and I have to write a PER.

cheers,


----------



## dangerboy

Here is a link where you can download it: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/ps/index-eng.asp


----------



## aesop081

PiperDown said:
			
		

> Can anyone tell me how a PER is scored?



Performance is worth 60 points total. Potential is worth 38 points total. Second language is worth maximum 2 points.

Each individual bullet is scored electronicaly when the PERs are scanned for the merit boards. Over the years i have seen different scores for each bullet for each MOCs.


----------



## PiperDown

thanks for the replies.
I still need a bit of direction regarding the scoring. I will be more specific.
under performance, each factor is scored as either ? for unacceptable, or ? for mastered.
conduct on/off duty is scored as ?
for a total score of ?? out of ?? for performance.

potential is scored as either ? for low, or ? for outstanding

anyone know the answers for the question marks?

Cheers,


----------



## aesop081

PiperDown said:
			
		

> I still need a bit of direction regarding the scoring.



If you are writting a PER, the score for each bubble is irrelevant to you.


----------



## George Wallace

PiperDown said:
			
		

> thanks for the replies.
> I still need a bit of direction regarding the scoring. I will be more specific.
> under performance, each factor is scored as either ? for unacceptable, or ? for mastered.
> conduct on/off duty is scored as ?
> for a total score of ?? out of ?? for performance.
> 
> potential is scored as either ? for low, or ? for outstanding
> 
> anyone know the answers for the question marks?
> 
> Cheers,



Have you looked at the top of the columns?


----------



## George Wallace

An even better idea..........................Go TO the CFPAS site and download the information you need.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/ps/download-telechar-eng.asp


----------



## MARS

Exactly what Cdn Aviator wrote.  

There is no numerical score assigned to each factor.  The bubble you mark must...MUST... be an accurate reflection of the associated word picture (from the handbook) which must...clearly... be reflected in the narrative section.  

The scoring that Cdn Aviator alluded to earlier has to do with the merit boards that sit at HQ each year.  Each member of the board reviews the PER and scores the PER out of 60 (for performance as an example) - those scores are then cross-checked, large variances are reconciled and a total score (from 4 board members based on my expereince at the last merit boards) is then tabulated.  Not anything that a PER writer nees to worry about. 

Your job is to ensure that the PER is accurate and that the scoring reflects the narrative.  As anyone who has sat on a merit board will tell you, a mere minutes are spent reviewing each file - like 4 or 5 minutes - maybe - depending on the size of the PER load you have to review.  That is not a lot of time to review 3 or more PERs, plus the other things in the file, and then score the PER.  So....clear and accurate PERs are key.  If I (as a board member) can't quickly and clearly identify (from the narrative) why you scored Bloggins as having Mastered various PFs, then the PER gets a lower score than perhaps it deserved.

Brevity, accuracy and clarity.

Hope this helps,

MARS


----------



## Northern Ranger

Did anyone see the CANFORGEN this year on CFPAS issues, its title this year was  "Lessons Not Yet Learned" LOL.   It amazes me the amount that they have to reject and the reasons for those rejections.  One thing that I am proud of is that my last unit didn't have a rejected PER on my watch.


----------



## aesop081

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Did anyone see the CANFORGEN this year on CFPAS issues, its title this year was  "Lessons Not Yet Learned" LOL.   It amazes me the amount that they have to reject and the reasons for those rejections.  One thing that I am proud of is that my last unit didn't have a rejected PER on my watch.



If people followed national directives rather than local , made up, policies..........if.....


----------



## aesop081

From CANFORGEN 034/08



> SELECTION BOARDS CONTINUE TO DISCOVER INSTANCES WHERE NARATIVES HAVE BEEN CUT AND PASTED FROM YEAR TO YEAR OR FROM ONE SUBORDINATE TO ANOTHER. SUCH INSTANCES GENERALLY HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT N THE INDIVIDUAL



or



> NARATIVES DO NOT ALWAYS REFLECT THE SCORES GIVEN DUE TO LACK OF SUBSTANTIATION. THIS MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR SELECTION BOARDS TO EVALUATE FILES. SELECTION BOARDS DO NOT SCORE QUOTE IAW THE DOTS UNQUOTE. CLEARLY SUBSTANTIATED NARATIVES SUPPORT HIGHER SCORES FROM THE BOARDS



or, my personal favorite.....



> THE DEADLINE FOR PERS TO ARRIVE AT NDHQ IS 01 JUN EACH YEAR. ON 24 AUG 07, 3322 PERS WERE NOT RECD AND ON 01 DEC 07, 1895 PERS REMAINED DELINQUENT CREATING A POTENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR SUPLEMENTARY SELECTION BOARDS.


----------



## dapaterson

"Faire un exemple pour encourager les autres".  Hang a LCol for failing to have his PERs in on time, and I'll bet there will be many fewer delinquent ones the following year.

But that would involve enforcing the rules...


----------



## BernDawg

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If people followed national directives rather than local , made up, policies..........if.....


I, wholeheartedly concur, Mon ami.


----------



## Armymedic

Artilce by Allan woods who states it is the bureaucrats both in uniform and out within DND that is causing a surge of releases amongst soldiers.

link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/645309


Bureaucrats killing Forces morale, soldiers say

Allan Woods
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Every soldier loves a bit of spit and polish. But too much shine and not enough substance appears to be pushing Canada's finest out the door.

Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen who have retired are complaining that the dirty work of war is losing ground to a force obsessed with image, political correctness and the kind of inclusiveness one might expect to find in the most corporate of corporations.


more on link


----------



## PMedMoe

> In the surveys at bases in Gagetown, N.B., and Edmonton, the *average length of service of retiring members was 16 years – just four years short of receiving a pension*.



It can't just be the bureaucrats.


----------



## George Wallace

Actually, that is fairly high.  Consider the numbers of members who join the CF and only last through their first Engagement, that means that there is a very large number of pers serving well over 25 years and earning a good pension.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

On the other hand, one thing that struck me when I transferred across from the British Army was the level of bureaucratic bullcrap that you have to deal with in the CF.

The REAMS of paperwork that junior (sect comd level) leaders are expected to complete. During 6 1/2 years in the British Army, I wrote a total of 2, yes 2 memorandums, and I didn't have them red inked to death before they even got to the addressee. And I left as a sect 2I/c as well. 

The brits had a nice system of a pad of paper pre-printed with TO and FROM on the top. You hand wrote the rest.

Also, take a look at Pravda err I mean the Maple Leaf. And look at how much news is dedicated to front line, combat units. I think the last issue had a 2 page spread on some sort of 'display unit' that travels the country to events and shows off pretty pictures to civvies. How much money is wasted on things like this? 

Where is the CF's strategic focus? War fighting? Or information ops, WITHIN canada????

How many e-mails do I get at work that concern war fighting, or information relevant to operations? And how many are useless, DND Info Ops type releases that I immediately delete, and block the sender. 

Why are fitness standards so relaxed at training units? Why are soldiers arriving in the field army out of shape, medically unfit or simply unfit for military service? Why is it nearly impossible to fail a course these days? PC-ness would be my guess. 

I would not be surprised if a lot of those releasing asked themselves the same questions, and came up with the answer, nothing will change, so why stay?


----------



## kilekaldar

Having spoken many junior NCOs who are exiting the forces, taking hard won experience from Afghanistan with them, they almost universally have told me that they are leaving because of the garrison bureaucrats. A minority of senior NCOs who display bad or non-existent leadership, the obsession over petty office politics and 'busy work' over combat readiness and realistic theatre specific training has left a lot of people bitter and disillusioned. It doesn’t take many garrison bureaucrats like this for a poisonous work environment that leaves a large number of people angry, frustrated and wondering if they could be doing something else with their time.


----------



## George Wallace

Aw yes.  Bring back the Round Trip Memo!


----------



## Journeyman

I have to start with a disclaimer: I can't imagine getting worked up about _anything_ the Toronto Star writes about the CF/DND; you know it's going to be distorted muck-raking at best, but most likely just plain wrong.

Take this article as a case in point. 
Actually _reading_ it, it states that "*The main reason behind a soldier's decision to find new work has been family*." 
Is that questionaire-based fact reflected in the headline?: *Bureaucrats killing Forces morale, soldiers say*. Nope.
How about the sub-headline?: *Retirees bemoan civilian influence, obsession with political correctness*. Nope.

So now that we've reaffirmed the Star's complete lack of journalistic integrity...
It's human nature to pine about "the good old days." It's this sort of selective memory that allows us to be civil to our kids after we all get through their teenage years.

I remember bitching about the "RV" exercises; now there's bitching about the lack of Bde-level training exercises. Complaints about 'when is our Bn going to get a Cyprus roto' have been replaced by 'Op tempo is too high.' About the only constant is perspective: from the tactical level, higher HQ doesn't have a clue; from higher HQ, subordinates aren't following direction.

While I'm just as guilty, I'm glad I'm generally a 'glass half-full' kind of guy --it's a sunny day, I truly believe the CF is a great place to work, and the bike is calling my name.  ;D


Mind you, the article wasn't completely useless; I did find some of the comments amusing: 


> *Conservatives*
> Always destroy the Armed Forces in this Country and it takes the Liberals to build them back up again.



Oh, and Star editors....in the title, Forces is possessive (but I learned grammar back in Grade 7)


> Bureaucrats killing Forces*'  *  morale, soldiers say


----------



## Michael OLeary

Considering the number of members of Army.ca that joined here over the past years with no intent other than figuring out how fast they could get to Afghanistan, I am not surprised that many of those individuals had no intention of ever being part of the institutional army that exists between wars.  Those who joined with an intent to go overseas did so and are now looking at postings to Schools or long periods of garrison time. They already planned to leave - describing their releases as "to avoid the bureaucratic BS" is sensationalizing a decision that was part of their original plan. After all, who wants to tell a reporter they only joined to go to the war?

The average of 16 years is a hollow statistic.  Let's see the real data.  How many are leaving at the end of 3 to 6 years?  How many are hitting 20-25 years?  (And what's the median between those two groups?)  What are the real high points on that graph using useful data resolution?


----------



## McG

> In the surveys at bases in Gagetown, N.B., and Edmonton, the average length of service of retiring members was 16 years – just four years short of receiving a pension.


Well, the author is clearly ignorant of statistics and attempting to dazzle with BS.  He is hoping the stupid reader will infer that things are so bad that there is a glut of soldiers releasing just prior to receiving a pension entitlement.  Nothing in the article substantiates such a suggestion.  

Can anyone tell me the average length of service for five soldiers having served 5, 10, 20, 20 and 25 years?  That's right, the average length of service is 16 years but neither of the two individuals not collecting a pension came anywhere near deserving it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MCG said:
			
		

> Well, the author is clearly ignorant of statistics and attempting to dazzle with BS.  He is hoping the stupid reader will infer that things are so bad that there is a glut of soldiers releasing just prior to receiving a pension entitlement.  Nothing in the article substantiates such a suggestion.



You're talking about Toronto Star readers. What do you think?


----------



## Rifleman62

The exit survey will now be changed so that no matter how stupid the Canadaian media is, the answers given by releasing CF pers, cannot be spun to sell a newspaper (or highlight on TV).


----------



## Jammer

I would argue as well that the promotion freeze and the ill concieved Force Reduction Program in the 90s has has an effect on disproportionate releases.
I was in the last influx of recruits in the late 80s that went though Cornwallis when it was still running 12 crses at a time. I can still remember our crse WO saying that there will be dark times ahead.
Now in an effort to keep the numbers rational you are seeing 5 and 6 yr MCpls in the trades that normally would see them see that particular rank in 10 yrs.


----------



## Tow Tripod

That's it I'm getting out. 2025 can not come soon enough. Sixteen more years and I'm hitting the skids. I LOVE THE ARMY, BEST GIG EVER!!! People bitch no matter what. I have another famous quote "You don't like it get the **ck out"

TOW TRIPOD


----------



## Jammer

So what's your point?


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> I have another famous quote "You don't like it get the **ck out"
> TOW TRIPOD



And many people are choosing that option......hence, as Jammer pointed out, 5-6 yr MCpl's if not younger. A PLQ course ran last fall in Pet with the majority of the candidates 1-2 yr Pte's (Tprs sorry). It's all well and good to let those go who don't like the system, but why have those exit surveys in the first place, if all we're going to do is ignore any warning signs that the system isn't the best it could be, and therefore be blind to any need to change. 

I too love soldiering, but I hate idiotic, garrison, no-point bureaucratic horsepoo. And the higher up you go, the more you see it, the more you get pissed off, the more you see the similarities between the DND and The Vogons.


----------



## Jammer

It was once said that if you told your CM that you were getting out because of reason X that they would help you pack your kit.
We're now at that point that CMs are almost to the point of begging the SNCOs who are contemplating release to stay in.
The high OPTEMPO in the last few years has had a detrimental effect of retention.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Agreed Jammer, and in other ways that some might not realise. 

For an NCO, it is hard to rationalise things when you go from calling in 9 liners/contact reports as fellow troops are fighting, to being faced with someone rejecting a leave pass because you didn't put periods in between their intials. That is my point, the petty official dom that has spread like a virus throughout the CF.


----------



## Fusaki

Well,

I'm about a month out of leaving the Reg Force.  My 2nd BE is due to expire and my plan is to CT to the PRes while I go to school.  In contradiction to this article, I can't say that I'm leaving because of frustration with the "Morale sucking managers."  To be honest, I love my current job and I'm grateful of my time serving with the RCR.  

The only reason I'm leaving is to experience new things.  Ironically, I think the most important thing I've learned in the army is that in order to reach your potential you need to push out of your comfort zone.  Looking at my life right now, the army _is_ my comfort zone.  It's just time for me to move onto something different.

A couple other thoughts:

-Paperwork, in my mind, is a necessary evil.  Memorandums are the standard for the passage of clear and concise information.  The more you deviate from that standard, the more chance the message will get confuddled, and misinterpreted. This ends up being a burden on the command team, who can juggle more things effectively if one ball isn't shaped like a brick.  638 Cards are necessary to ensure that equipment goes where it needs to go, and when it needs to be allocated elsewhere the CQ knows where to look for it.  Everyone has limited resources, so if an army wants to win wars it needs to have an organized supply system. I agree that a fanatical observance of the "little things" can seem anal and get frustrating at times, but without taking a few extra minutes to cross the Ts and dot the Is in the short term we'd lose all sorts of speed and agility in the long term.

-I got to Battalion in March 2004, and I'll admit that there were a few anal rules that struck me as pretty silly.  Over the past 5 years though, it seems like so much of that has fallen by the wayside. Troops are allowed to take out their bootbands in the field. Non-issue Camelbaks are allowed. Stealth suits are being worn as outer garments. In the summer, you can wear your sleeves up _or_ down. I regularly see Sergeants Major with hands in their pockets.  Guess what? The army hasn't fallen apart either. I think alot of this newfound leniency has to do with the fact that getting shot at puts things in perspective. IMHO the past few years has seen the army changing for the better.


----------



## mariomike

Wonderbread, I've enjoyed reading your posts. I've learned from them. 
I'm a civilian, so this is hardly adivice, just a question. 
Have you considered an OT?


----------



## Fusaki

Thanks for the compliment. 

I really can't see myself applying for an OT.  I joined the army to carry a rifle and the only place I could see myself aside from the infantry is one of the CANSOF units.  Thats a pretty big commitment though, and there are other things I'd like to try first.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

"16 years average?"

There are lots of companies who would love to be able to keep trained personnel for 16 years.

"too politically correct?"

I'll bet it would be about 90% if you asked the same question about Canadian society.


----------



## dapaterson

There are lies, damn lies and statistics, as this discussion illustrates.  The FRP trough is biting hard right now.

However, there are instances I can recall that do illustrate this premise.  I recall one friend who was a DND civilian who submitted their resignation letter to their boss.  Unspoken in the letter was the boss' micro-management and obsessive/excessive attention to staff duties details.

The letter was returned, red-penned, for correction and re-submission...


----------



## Harley Sailor

What an interesting read.

After being around for the last 30 years, I can say a couple of things for sure.
1. The only thing that does not change is the fact that there will always be change.
2. The good days were years ago. What I think are the good old days are the days other people thought were the end of the good times. Well I think now is the end of the good times, but I am sure people will look back and remember these as the good old days.
3. The good guys all leave early.  They see the light and know they can do better else where. So what does that leave behind?  Like the monkeys in the tree. When the ones on top look down they see lots of smiling faces. When the ones on the bottom look up they see nothing but a**holes.

I wonder what that makes me after 30 years. Ya, I know what they say about me. Well it's time for me to go and I'll be gone (retired) by the end of the month.


----------



## gcclarke

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> I wonder what that makes me after 30 years. Ya, I know what they say about me. Well it's time for me to go and I'll be gone (retired) by the end of the month.



I'm fairly certain that makes you someone who's honourably served his country for many years. Thank you, and good luck with your retirement.


----------



## X-mo-1979

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are lies, damn lies and statistics, as this discussion illustrates.  The FRP trough is biting hard right now.
> 
> However, there are instances I can recall that do illustrate this premise.  I recall one friend who was a DND civilian who submitted their resignation letter to their boss.  Unspoken in the letter was the boss' micro-management and obsessive/excessive attention to staff duties details.
> 
> The letter was returned, red-penned, for correction and re-submission...



I have only seen ONE person put the true reason they were releasing on their memo.The RSM didn't like it much.Lets face it the CO/RSM never get truthful memo's,as no one wants to burn bridges or wants a favorable letter of recommendation upon release.

I think the biggest pile of releases are going to be when we pull out of Afghanistan and we start sitting around the hanger floors again.Only to deploy to stalk the fantasians in the woods for days on end.

Don't get me wrong training is great and all,but we have a whole younger generation who never dealt with the late 90's and the B/S training that was underfunded and useless for the most part,when we had the money to go on ex.Plus the HOPE of deploying once every 4-5 years.The new lad's have 2-3 tours under their belts,which has been 3-4 years of their careers deployed/training to deploy.

The biggest strain I see on morale right now from my vantage point at work is the seem to see stuff more trivial.After losing friends,engaging and being engaged sitting around the hanger or being a extra in a TCCC scenario is not what or where they wanna be.

Just my observations.


----------



## armyvern

kilekaldar said:
			
		

> Having spoken many junior NCOs who are exiting the forces, taking hard won experience from Afghanistan with them, they almost universally have told me that they are leaving because of the garrison bureaucrats. A minority of senior NCOs who display bad or non-existent leadership, the obsession over petty office politics and 'busy work' over combat readiness and realistic theatre specific training has left a lot of people bitter and disillusioned. It doesn’t take many garrison bureaucrats like this for a poisonous work environment that leaves a large number of people angry, frustrated and wondering if they could be doing something else with their time.



It certainly doesn't help either that around here ... you can forecast to your troops in February that their long weekends of the upcoming summer will be busily taken up performing "dawg & pony" shows and photo ops everywhere except where their families are. And so, with last week's O Gp - it has come to pass for people already doing overtime just to get their jobs done. _Sigh._


----------



## armyvern

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Agreed Jammer, and in other ways that some might not realise.
> 
> For an NCO, it is hard to rationalise things when you go from calling in 9 liners/contact reports as fellow troops are fighting, to being faced with someone rejecting a leave pass because you didn't put periods in between their intials. That is my point, the petty official dom that has spread like a virus throughout the CF.



Ahhh, a soldier of the generation who actually learned "typing" on a keyboard vice a typewriter. A keyboard where the rule is "NO periods between initials and only ONE space after a period ending a sentence." Anything else is from the days of a typewriter.


----------



## Occam

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Ahhh, a soldier of the generation who actually learned "typing" on a keyboard vice a typewriter. A keyboard where the rule is "NO periods between initials and only ONE space after a period ending a sentence." Anything else is from the days of a typewriter.



The problem is that there are multiple style guides which now conflict with each other.

The webpage for the now-obsolete _Staff and Writing Procedures for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces_ refers to suggests _The Canadian Style_ on the PWGSC website.  Many units are still using a renamed-but-still-the-same-document version of the Staff and Writing Procedures.  Renaming it must magically render it an effective document.   :

For what it's worth, _The Canadian Style _ says to put periods after initials, but one space after a period ending a sentence.  I put two spaces because I learned how to type on a Mod 28 teletype and it's burned into my skull.

This whole nonsense of bouncing back memos for periods/no periods after initials in a signature block is pure malarkey.  I continue to be a thorn in the side of my CoC because I don't police niggly little things like that in my subordinates' memos - because there is no style guide which has been declared the authoritative source for military writing in the CF.  When one is issued, I'll be happy to comply with it.


----------



## Michael OLeary

We used to have a single staff writing manual, it was relatively easy to follow and everyone used the same standard.  Those were also the days when, in most units, only half a dozen people were even authorized to send correspondence out side a unit.

STAFF AND WRITING PROCEDURES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE AND THE CANADIAN FORCES (Note the last revision date.)

Then came WANs and e-mail and loss of control when the entire DND IT world decided that supporting standard formats wasn't worth _their_ time. When you load a single copy of MS Word into the DWAN that's going to be downloaded into every DND computer, there's no logical reason why standard formats couldn't be "fixed" to match those the Forces had been using for over a century already.

And with computers came the proliferation of locally produced orders, instructions and directives.  We used to manage pers with two documents; QR&Os and CFAOS, no Land Force instructions, no Area directives, no special Base level requirements like a different BPSO interview request at every base.  And we got along pretty well with that comparatively thin slice of admin burden over getting the job done.  (Some still complained that it was too much and too rigorous.) Computerization gave all those command layers the local tools which enabled them to generate masses of paper orders, instructions and directives, and the work requirements that went with them for their subordinate HQs and units. Most of those "new" layers of admin direction only reiterated the main CF documents, except where they were tweaked so that finding the special local requirement became a time consuming "where's Waldo" mission.

Whatever the hypothetical increase in productivity was that computers were supposed to create, we have effectively canceled it by failing to regulate the growth of additional labour which came about as a result of the misapplication of the "tool." Computers aren't the evil component in this system, but we failed in the implementation and now we're paying for it.


----------



## Occam

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> We used to have a single staff writing manual, it was relatively easy to follow and everyone used the same standard.  Those were also the days when, in most units, only half a dozen people were even authorized to send correspondence out side a unit.
> 
> STAFF AND WRITING PROCEDURES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE AND THE CANADIAN FORCES (Note the last revision date.)



There's part of the problem - units would download copies of a publication, publish it locally - and then the original pub would become superceded/cancelled and the unit would never know about it, as they have their own copy.  Here's the homepage for  CFP121



> Then came WANs and e-mail and loss of control when the entire DND IT world decided that supporting standard formats wasn't worth _their_ time. When you load a single copy of MS Word into the DWAN that's going to be downloaded into every DND computer, there's no logical reason why standard formats couldn't be "fixed" to match those the Forces had been using for over a century already.



Oh, the ability is still there - individual sites have to load the templates onto a common drive in order for you to have access to the "memorandum template", for example.  If you don't have it on your PC via Word, then it's simply because nobody has asked your local help desk to implement it.  I have no idea if the templates are current, or what style guide was used to create them, though - that would involve someone being put in charge of the templates on a national level, who would update them and distribute to all the sites.  I ain't doing it...   ;D



> And with computers came the proliferation of locally produced orders, instructions and directives.  We used to manage pers with two documents; QR&Os and CFAOS, no Land Force instructions, no Area directives, no special Base level requirements like a different BPSO interview request at every base.  And we got along pretty well with that comparatively thin slice of admin burden over getting the job done.  (Some still complained that it was too much and too rigorous.) Computerization gave all those command layers the local tools which enabled them to generate masses of paper orders, instructions and directives, and the work requirements that went with them for their subordinate HQs and units. Most of those "new" layers of admin direction only reiterated the main CF documents, except where they were tweaked so that finding the special local requirement became a time consuming "where's Waldo" mission.
> 
> Whatever the hypothetical increase in productivity was that computers were supposed to create, we have effectively canceled it by failing to regulate the growth of additional labour which came about as a result of the misapplication of the "tool." Computers aren't the evil component in this system, but we failed in the implementation and now we're paying for it.



I agree totally.  For example, we have CFPAS, which contains official CFPAS guidance on the PER/PDR process.  We have annual Command-issued "lessons learned" messages, issuing guidance from the individual commands.  We have Base/Wing messages, again giving guidance on the process.  And as if that wasn't enough, units always generate their own guidance for the PER/PDR process.  For a system that's supposed to be standard across the board, why does everyone and their dog feel the need to provide their own personal interpretation of the CFPAS guidance??   So much for comparing apples to apples...


----------



## Jammer

Power trip...


----------



## Michael OLeary

Jammer said:
			
		

> Power trip...



That's an over-simplification.  No doubt applicable in some cases, but the broader issue is the completely unregulated growth of administrative documents and resulting requirements at every command level in the past 10-15 years.  Much of it might have been avoided if a lot of commanders and senior staff had actually been working to create efficient systems rather than measuring staff work product by weight of paper produced.


----------



## dapaterson

Occam said:
			
		

> I agree totally.  For example, we have CFPAS, which contains official CFPAS guidance on the PER/PDR process.  We have annual Command-issued "lessons learned" messages, issuing guidance from the individual commands.  We have Base/Wing messages, again giving guidance on the process.  And as if that wasn't enough, units always generate their own guidance for the PER/PDR process.  For a system that's supposed to be standard across the board, why does everyone and their dog feel the need to provide their own personal interpretation of the CFPAS guidance??   So much for comparing apples to apples...



But if I don't issue my own PER direction, how can I get PER points for written comunication?  Or leading change?  We've built perverse incentives into the system, and reap what we have sown.


"Any darn fool can make something complex; it takes a genius to make things simple" - Pete Seeger.


----------



## Jammer

Maybe,
I'm dealing with an two issues now with me in the middle...new bosses trying to see who the Alpha male is.


----------



## Rifleman62

Call it administration masturbation. We beat our selves to death with paperwork.

My son-in-law, on his Afghanistan tour, was out in an Allied FOB for three months. The PDR/PERs went back and forth by resupply helicopter with red marks from a Francophone Capt whose English was very difficult to understand (so I was told). My son-in-law even had to write a couple of PER's "for practice" on people he did not know, including a person of the same rank. How do I know?? Because I assisted him to write the PERs. I am (was) very experienced at writting/reviewing Reg F PERs. Several of the PERs I assisted with were returned with snide remarks and red pencil. I have the PDF to prove it. On top of that, the PDR/PER manual was not being followed. How's that for morale. This went on in an operational theatre.

In the meantime, the Pl WO did not think it was important to send out the mail/care packages out regularily.


----------



## armyvern

Occam said:
			
		

> I agree totally.  For example, we have CFPAS, which contains official CFPAS guidance on the PER/PDR process.  We have annual Command-issued "lessons learned" messages, issuing guidance from the individual commands.  We have Base/Wing messages, again giving guidance on the process.  And as if that wasn't enough, units always generate their own guidance for the PER/PDR process.  For a system that's supposed to be standard across the board, why does everyone and their dog feel the need to provide their own personal interpretation of the CFPAS guidance??   So much for comparing apples to apples...



Agreed 200% !!

Heard in this Coy the 1st week of May coming from all the Pl WOs: "When are we getting the PERs back that we submitted the last week of February? We need to get them out to the members, signed, and in to NDHQ 4 weeks from now?" (And, to clarify the "Coy" comment - I can only say what our Coy's Pl WOs were asking again & again, but this was NOT a Coy related issue - the PERs were being held at a higher level than that).

2nd Week of May "Where are all the PERs that you've had ... 3 weeks from now?"

3rd week of May: "Where are all the PERs that you've had ... 2 weeks from now?"

4th week of May: "Where are all the PERs that you've had ...they are due IN NDHQ on Monday!"

30th May (Friday!!) comes the response:  "Pl WOs, please come get your pers PERs, get your members in for interviews and get them signed and back here by CoB today - they are due in Ottawa on Monday you know."

Despite the fact they had them for MONTHS, we still didn't get them back until just before they were due to be IN to NDHQ and - to top it all off - they had been changed by the CoC and no longer complied with the CANFORGEN directing compliance with CFPAS policy and handbook.

On 01 Jun, the Monday they were actually supposed to be in Ottawa - I said "where's mine for me to sign?"

Go figure.

It's not like PERs are actually a new concept. They happen every year. If the various assorted CoC would just leave them the F alone and follow national direction as they are supposed to instead of micromanaging us to F'n death ... life would be grand and PERs would actually make it to Ottawa written as required and on time. What a concept!


----------



## Jammer

Ack,
I started writing PERs in DEC...there were still 3 months left in the reporting year for goodness sake.
I made two drafts and sent them in from the strong point with the caveat that I wasn't re-doing them.
I had bigger things to deal with at the time.
I never saw them again....I wonder....


----------



## armyvern

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That's an over-simplification.  No doubt applicable in some cases, but the broader issue is the completely unregulated growth of administrative documents and resulting requirements at every command level in the past 10-15 years.  Much of it might have been avoided if a lot of commanders and senior staff had actually been working to create efficient systems rather than measuring staff work product by weight of paper produced.



Nah, not here. It can't be the weight of the paperwork!!

I get Area, Base, Br, and Coy written direction on how to complete PERs (that's mostly NOT in compliance with CFPAS policy direction [ie: no-one will be right-lined/left-lined]) use AF/don't use AF etc etc even though the national direction is available right on each one of our compputers!!

BUT, I haven't seen an Op Order on ANYTHING in approx 14 months. Not a parade; nary a Mess Dinner; Not a tasking; nary a range PWT III; nada. You know, the stuff they actually SHOULD be issuing written direction for. Why not?

"Well, because we put it on the Br trg Calendar in Outlook. We said "Range/Gas Huts. Sup Coy to provide 6 pers, Tn 6, Maint 12".

So, I get to review the Br calendar in Outlook Express each and every day to see if someone has added anything to it for 5 weeks from now or whatever that I have to provide pers for so that I can actually Plan, Organize, and administer. Because if I don't --- I have no idea my pers were tasked to something until after they've missed it. So where was the Op Order on that? says I and my fellow WOs --- only to be told ... none was required because we put it in Outlook Calendar.

Yep, Houston - we have a problem.


----------



## Old Sweat

We have a long tradition of red tape, needless paper work and general bumpf in the army. Take a look at Otter's Guide for the Canadian Militia, which has not a word on tactics or real leadership, but pages on pages of procedures for laying out camps, organizing an orderly room, etc, etc. (I am in our RV and don't have my library handy, but believe me most of us would recognize the mindset.)

Fast forward to the South African War. Sergeant William Hart-McHarg of A Coy 2 RCR wrote probably the best personal account of the Canadian army in South Africa. At one point he commented adversely on the parade square, garrison mentality of the permanent force. He wrote, words to the effect, that in each of the regular garrisons there was only about half a company's worth of troops available for duty. Despite that, the whole regimental routine of a British infantry battalion was practiced rigidly. Hart-McHarg ended his diatribe with the observation that red tape had been elevated to an art form.

I'm afraid we, well you, are trying to f.rt against thunder.


----------



## Rifleman62

My Lord, if I attempted to answer the mass of futile correspondence which surrounds me, I should be debarred from the serious business of campaigning...So long as I retain an independent position, I shall see no officer under my command is debarred by attending to the futile driveling of mere quill-driving from attending to his first duty, which is and always has been to train the private men under his command that they may without question beat any force opposed to them in the field. - The Duke of Wellington, to the Secretary of State for War during the Peninsular Campaign


----------



## Dog

From reply number 26.... until here. Read it, and then imagine it magnified across the army. Obsession with paperwork, indeed.

I know that where I am right now, and Towards_the_Gap might know about this, there are a TON of troops just waiting out their 5 year stint, and chomping at the bit to get out. And it all has to do with doing Dog and Pony shows, and sitting around when we could be training, and being told we 're ALL busy ... except, no, the MCpls are all too busy to "supervise." So training goes out the window. However, the RSM, a true bureaucrat if I've ever seen one, insists we stay until exactly 4pm everyday, whether there's work for us to do or not. Guys go stir-crazy sitting on there asses.

 We get told to "look busy, the Sgt-Major is coming down." So we count a triwall of supplies we have for a deployment that never happened, and we count it 3 times in a row until we find out he isn't coming. Or we take 2 days longer than we need to, to build something so that the Brigade commander can come down and see us in action. It's stupid, and we know it, and our superiors seem think it's just the "nature of the beast" (a phrase I'm sick of hearing as an excuse) when we all know its blatant ball-licking. None of us joined the army for that.

Guys join the army to do "army-stuff" take that away from them, and they'll leave.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Dog said:
			
		

> Guys join the army to do "army-stuff" take that away from them, and they'll leave.



Yup, "guys" do join the Arny to do army-stuff, but the purpose of the Army isn't to keep the troops entertained with hi-speed army-stuff to do every day.  The reality is, the resources simply don't exist for that.

You've probably done more army-stuff in the past five years than my section commanders 20 years ago did in their careers that ended at 25+ years before the Army got busy with the Balkans.  It's all a matter of perspective, 20 years ago spending a week of company live fire training with two live attacks was a highlight of a training year (and usually done on someone else's training budget).  You can bitch about the change of pace when you're not on the operational high-speed track, or you can suck back and enjoy the relaxed pace  before the whirlwind starts again (and then we see the bitching about the pace and volume of training).


----------



## Kat Stevens

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Yup, "guys" do join the Arny to do army-stuff, but the purpose of the Army isn't to keep the troops entertained with hi-speed army-stuff to do every day.  The reality is, the resources simply don't exist for that.
> 
> You've probably done more army-stuff in the past five years than my section commanders 20 years ago did in their careers that ended at 25+ years before the Army got busy with the Balkans.  It's all a matter of perspective, 20 years ago spending a week of company live fire training with two live attacks was a highlight of a training year (and usually done on someone else's training budget).  You can bitch about the change of pace when you're not on the operational high-speed track, or you can suck back and enjoy the relaxed pace  before the whirlwind starts again (and then we see the bitching about the pace and volume of training).




While I agree with you mostly,  when was the last time you had to sweep the compound for the fourth time in the same day, or count the same pallet of 6' pickets repeatedly, just so that middle management can tell the guys in the tile floor and air conditioned part of the building that they managed to keep you busy till 16:00 on a Friday?  It gets boring after 8 or 10 years.  Even back in the crappy old low budget 80s we had a saying, "if you've got nothing to do, don't do it here."


----------



## McG

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That's an over-simplification.  No doubt applicable in some cases, but the broader issue is the completely unregulated growth of administrative documents and resulting requirements at every command level in the past 10-15 years.  Much of it might have been avoided if a lot of commanders and senior staff had actually been working to create efficient systems rather than measuring staff work product by weight of paper produced.


It does not help where, in some cases, we have policies specifically directing each successive lower level of command to create its own parallel, amplifying & reinforcing policy.


----------



## X-mo-1979

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You've probably done more army-stuff in the past five years than my section commanders 20 years ago did in their careers that ended at 25+ years before the Army got busy with the Balkans.  It's all a matter of perspective, 20 years ago spending a week of company live fire training with two live attacks was a highlight of a training year (and usually done on someone else's training budget).  You can ***** about the change of pace when you're not on the operational high-speed track, or you can suck back and enjoy the relaxed pace  before the whirlwind starts again (and then we see the bitching about the pace and volume of training).



Yes we can *****.There is no enjoyment out of sitting on a hanger floor for 8 hrs of the day doing nothing.The time tends to fly when you can surf army.ca and other entertaining websites,however go stare at a wall and see how qucik that clock flies by.

I remember people saying "if there's nothing to do don't do it here"...and they actually followed through on it!I seem to hear that in each organization I ever get into and we are still sitting waiting for 16h00.After doing a PT then 9h30 parade being the highlight of our day.

It costs nothing to the unit budget to send guys off home.Or send them off to the gym,or a crazy idea which has died being sports afternoon.

This ties back into what I was saying about a large amount of people releasing whe nour OP tempo die's and the stupidity doesn't.


----------



## danchapps

Here's my 2 cents, being a "young pup" with 16 months left in my initial contract.

There are some days that I love my job, but those days are few and far between. I joined to be a supply tech, and up until Ex Desert Ram, I had done more supply work before my 3's than I did in the 8 months after my 3's. I was the top student in my class, yet some members of my CoC don't trust that I know how to do my job. This is because on a regular basis they can't be bothered to get out from behind their desk to watch me do my job. And when they do they micro-manage the job that I am doing, causing the job to be done wrong. Or other members spending more time going over the plan of what they want me to do instead of just letting me DO the job that I was trained to do. "Dude, you aren't doing it the way I wanted you to, do it the way I want it done." To which I reply, "I don't think it really matters how the hell it gets done, as long as it does. My way is a more efficient way, it's already in my head, piss off and let me work." This usually winds up causing the Cpl to pull the rest of the section from their jobs, so we can spend ANOTHER 30 minutes going over the same thing we talked about 20 minutes prior, having him moan and grumble about how the job is taking too long, and nothing is getting done.

As well, with my unit, getting qualifications for anything is like pulling teeth. I've had to fight tooth and nail, just to get basic qual's like MLVW and a supply must, Forklift! I've been in unit since July last year, I just got the qualification for RTFL last week. A little slow on the trigger you think?

Like I said, I have 16 months left, that gives my CoC about 4 months before they offer me a new contract. That is 4 months for my CoC to un-f*** themselves, or else I'm going to a major defense contractor (that I have a guaranteed job with as a supply tech IF I decide to leave the CF), where my skills will be better used, and more appreciated. Too much BS makes people want to leave the CF.

End of rant.


----------



## chris_log

Dog said:
			
		

> From reply number 26.... until here. Read it, and then imagine it magnified across the army. Obsession with paperwork, indeed.
> 
> I know that where I am right now, and Towards_the_Gap might know about this, there are a TON of troops just waiting out their 5 year stint, and chomping at the bit to get out. And it all has to do with doing Dog and Pony shows, and sitting around when we could be training, and being told we 're ALL busy ... except, no, the MCpls are all too busy to "supervise." So training goes out the window. However, the RSM, a true bureaucrat if I've ever seen one, insists we stay until exactly 4pm everyday, whether there's work for us to do or not. Guys go stir-crazy sitting on there asses.
> 
> We get told to "look busy, the Sgt-Major is coming down." So we count a triwall of supplies we have for a deployment that never happened, and we count it 3 times in a row until we find out he isn't coming. Or we take 2 days longer than we need to, to build something so that the Brigade commander can come down and see us in action. It's stupid, and we know it, and our superiors seem think it's just the "nature of the beast" (a phrase I'm sick of hearing as an excuse) when we all know its blatant ball-licking. None of us joined the army for that.
> 
> Guys join the army to do "army-stuff" take that away from them, and they'll leave.



What unit is this happening at, 'cause I sure ain't seeing it. In fact, I get to see people releasing because the op tempo is way too high. No one where I am is releasing out of being bored, thats for sure. 

As to the point at hand, we're red-penning ourselves to death. My personal opinion is that if a memo is in the right format, gets the point across quickly and clearly then its good to go. Regrettebly, I seem to be the only one who thinks that. 



> As well, with my unit, getting qualifications for anything is like pulling teeth. I've had to fight tooth and nail, just to get basic qual's like MLVW and a supply must, Forklift! I've been in unit since July last year, I just got the qualification for RTFL last week. A little slow on the trigger you think?



The reasons you aren't getting courses stems from a complete and utter lack of instructors and functioning equipment (stemming from a lack of pers to fix them). This will be made only worse by the up and coming Army 2011 re-org where the hoo-rah gunslingers and such, with their utter lack of CSS understanding, will cut even more positions. If you think its hard getting an MLVW crse now, wait until we're down another 60 MSE Ops.


----------



## danchapps

Working in a POL section, being nominated for a HAZMat course, then being told "No, you aren't going because nobody is to leave the ex for a course."

Also, the vehicles were an example. I know there is a lack of instructors and vehicles. I asked one of the instructors while in Suffield "What would it take to get some of the heavy equipment written off?" Having previously explained that I used to work in construction before joining the CF, and being raised with all of the "toys" in the yard, so to speak. His answer, never, unless I worked in Major Equipment. The fact that I have hundreds of hours in machines means squat. So when I'm forced to shovel out the POL compound by hand because "POL isn't a priority", I get a bit moody, because it would have been done in no time flat if they'd let me use the machine.

Also, I just barely got on the ML course that I was on, partly because one of my platoon mates didn't want the course (doesn't feel comfortable backing up bigger vehicles), and partly because one of the instructors went to bat for me. No, not my direct CoC, but a friend, who happened to be instructing. He was livid I was't on the course, because I had been in possession of a temp for 3 months, and I was always the last one out from under the trucks during stables. Even in -30 temperatures. It's always a fight for me to get anything done, because people can't be bothered to stick up for their troops, or let the troops do what they need to do to get things done.


----------



## chris_log

Chapeski said:
			
		

> Working in a POL section, being nominated for a HAZMat course, then being told "No, you aren't going because nobody is to leave the ex for a course."



That is, admittedly, odd. 



> Also, the vehicles were an example. I know there is a lack of instructors and vehicles. I asked one of the instructors while in Suffield "What would it take to get some of the heavy equipment written off?" Having previously explained that I used to work in construction before joining the CF, and being raised with all of the "toys" in the yard, so to speak. His answer, never, unless I worked in Major Equipment. The fact that I have hundreds of hours in machines means squat. So when I'm forced to shovel out the POL compound by hand because "POL isn't a priority", I get a bit moody, because it would have been done in no time flat if they'd let me use the machine.



Agaim, crappy but there IS a major shortage of functionable gear (remember the NSE and other TF 3-09 types took most of it, broke most of it, and then took what was left). 



> Also, I just barely got on the ML course that I was on, partly because one of my platoon mates didn't want the course (doesn't feel comfortable backing up bigger vehicles), and partly because one of the instructors went to bat for me. No, not my direct CoC, but a friend, who happened to be instructing. He was livid I was't on the course, because I had been in possession of a temp for 3 months, and I was always the last one out from under the trucks during stables. Even in -30 temperatures. It's always a fight for me to get anything done, because people can't be bothered to stick up for their troops, or let the troops do what they need to do to get things done.



Again, odd. However, keep in mind there's often more at play then what one sees out on the floor (I know that sounds somewhat pretentious, but it's not supposed to be). Trust me, courses usually fill up pretty quick and some, like the MLVW crse, don't run very often (there are other more pressing priorities). 

Of course, issues with WHO get loaded on courses rest with your company's training staff and immediate CoC. If you keep asking for a course and don't get course loaded, then maybe your section commander isn't doing his/her job.


----------



## danchapps

Piper said:
			
		

> Of course, issues with WHO get loaded on courses rest with your company's training staff and immediate CoC. If you keep asking for a course and don't get course loaded, then maybe your section commander isn't doing his/her job.



That's what I'm thinking. Like I said, it helps if the CoC backs up the troops. In my case, my supervisor seems to act like a yes man. Yes to those above him, not so much to us below him. I'm hoping for a switch in the next slave trade, but these are the sort of issues that cause us young folk to think about leaving.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Chapeski said:
			
		

> Also, the vehicles were an example. I know there is a lack of instructors and vehicles. I asked one of the instructors while in Suffield "What would it take to get some of the heavy equipment written off?" Having previously explained that I used to work in construction before joining the CF, and being raised with all of the "toys" in the yard, so to speak. His answer, never, unless I worked in Major Equipment. The fact that I have hundreds of hours in machines means squat. So when I'm forced to shovel out the POL compound by hand because "POL isn't a priority", I get a bit moody, because it would have been done in no time flat if they'd let me use the machine.



You also could have wondered over to the Engineer Heavy E guys and asked  I'm sure they would have helped you out.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Why does this Article just remind me of a good comedy, that all the retirees were hinting at.....

Morale sucking "managers" causing increased releases within military documentary

dileas

tess


----------



## X-mo-1979

Oh my god.I hadn't seen that before!
That is priceless!I needed a good laugh!

Unfortunately the Canadian army would march till 16h30,because something might "come up".Then let you go at 16h00,letting you go"early".


----------



## mummiebear5

I am only a civilian admin working in Supply, but after the week I have had can we say "frustrated"?


----------



## armyvern

mummiebear5 said:
			
		

> I am only a civilian admin working in Supply, but after the week I have had can we say "frustrated"?



Seems to be the norm these days the past couple of years.

6 message demands to SMs this week, all with either "No national stock," "Contract Expired (it's in the MERX)," or "What is left in the depots is restricted to Ops, so you can't have any.

The last one would be modular. Modular that we need here for tent cities so that all that influx of increased Army recruiting can actually be housed with at least something over their heads ... but no.

I know that NDHQ/SMs suffered severly during our past cut-backs, and that the CF has grown it's field force in a huge way over the past few years with no corresponding growth to the purple tail (our PML remains at year 2000 level - not a single posn more has been added).

But hell, when there's no one in NDHQ to actually ensure contracts get renewed, to action demands, to action QD msgs, or to actually "read & answer" emails ... the Supply system quickly breaks down; we call it the non-Supply system.

Seems every second contract that is nationally managed/funded is expired. What the fuck is up with that Ottawa? Hire more contractors if you have to, but do something!!  There's no vehicles for MSE courses, because there's NO spare parts in the CFSS to fix them with --- and even when there are, the parts are restricted to "Overseas operational use only", and when they aren't there's no damn SM (or contractor) in place to actually action them.

I've already predicted that the crash heard accross the nation will occur pre-Aug ... this year. When all those candidates show up and someone "just" figures out that they'll have no place to stay, no kit to wear, and that, in any case, there's not enough instructors or tail to support them. It may occur as soon as Monday --- we ran out of large size BEWs just this past Wednesday). RULE #1 in Gagetown: No BEWs ... No passing Shirley Road. In other words = NO FIELD TRG. We haven't had smalls in a month. This has all been recorded and noted in our Logreps (by me!) No National Stock. None exist to demand in the system. Now how is CTC going to get those LFDTS course candidates out into the trg area here? Overrule a "No BEWs, No Trg Area" rule that was put in place due a "safety" ruling as the result of a workplace injury? (Yeah, loss of an eye by one of the troops in the field - preventable inury had BEWs been on). And, I can assure you - we do have troops to whom we could not issue BEWs scheduled to enter the trg area Monday; I know this because the CTC emails started flying about it on Friday - despite the fact it's been in Logreps for a month now. Do people actually read those things or am I just wasting my time writing them up?

Because it's not like any instructors will actually take a posting to this place now ... what with losing all that money every month because they'll have to give up their field duty allowance, yet actually spend more time in the field. And the career managers will bend over backwards then NOT to post them here because then the poor soul would get out and we can't have that and instructors that have been "stuck" here for 6 years trying to get out of here will have to stay another year again ... or perhaps they just might get out instead. Someone really, really needs to shake out the big tree that is the CF in a big way.

Molly-coddling pers who don't want to be posted on one end ... is causing low morale and releases at the other end because those pers then can't get out of these shitty spots. EVERYONE should get to take their turn - whether they like it or not. Career Managers need to get back to the business of posting people - not baby-sitting them. Supervisors (all levels) need to get back to supervising not micro-managing.

SMs need to get back to the job of ordering/contracting and actually responding to emails. I do get 'read' receipts (usually timed about 15 mintues after I press send ... which I then include "print screens" of when I fire it up to the next level because they just haven't bothered to respond (and yes, THEY) even when the demand is a priority demand and after 5 or 6 hasteners for a response (for which I also have all the read receipts) ...

You know what? 

"It's fucking embarassing to be a Supply tech these days." _ArmyVern 06 Jun 2009 - 0626hrs_


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Dog - I am away in gagetown until the end of this month, but trust me, nothing used to give me more pleasure than to come back to work after lunch at 1, do a task until 2, and come back to the breezeway to await further orders. Walk up to the tp office, ask 'anything going on?' have a certain WO say, umm, don't know, then go back to his computer. I would then walk back down to the breezeway and tell the guys to go home, go to the gym, or go for a run. Moment later:

WO:'where's all the troops?' 
Me: ' I sent them home'
WO:'Why did you do that?'
Me:'there's nothing for them to do, I told them to go to the gym or for a run'
WO: 'but something might come up!!'
Me:'It's 3:00, do you really think anything will come up that can't be fixed tomorrow at 7:30??'
WO:'..........'
Me:'right I'm off'
WO: 'well don't do it again'
Me:'Gotcha'

However I've heard of the insanely stupid rules put in place by the Really Scary Man. Allocated times for smoke breaks during the day? I can't wait to go back.

This is the kind of crap that pushes dudes out the door, as Dog said.

I only wish I could teach every stupid pencil neck who comes up with crap like that, what I was taught in the British Army. It's called the service test question, and initially it was used to judge the severity of a soldiers misconduct. 
It went 'Did the actions of the individual adversely affect the operational effectiveness of the Army?' If the question was no, minor discipline, or none at all (ie get a case of beer for the troop at the next beer call). If yes, throw the book at him.

It can easily be modified to read: 'Does this adversely affect the operational effectiveness of the Army (CF sorry)?'

IE. does not having periods in between initials adversely affect the operational effectiveness of the Army? 

NO, so bore off. 

I will agree however with wonderbreads post a few back, there is definitely a time and place for all t's crossed and i's dotted, and supply and maintenance is one of them. In my world (043), my work is HIGHLY dependant on all manner of machines and tools, and if they are not taken care of, I am ineffective. Paperwork and administration is not one of them however, especially at section/troop level. There should be no need for the amount of paperwork we see.


*This has to be one of the more enjoyable threads so far in my time here at army.ca


----------



## aesop081

Chapeski said:
			
		

> To which I reply, "I don't think it really matters how the hell it gets done, as long as it does. My way is a more efficient way, it's already in my head, piss off and let me work."



You then are lucky to have a job where "how" doesnt matter much. I dont have that luxury. Here "how" matters because doing it any other way gets people killed. You may not see it right now but i do caution you that , should you stay in the CF, you will be employed in areas of the military not directly related to your MOC and that " right time, right place for eveything" is something to remember.

Furthermore, your "more effecient way" may not always be within the regulations and you may not be aware of this so telling your supervisor to "piss off and let me work" may not always be the right option.


----------



## danchapps

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Furthermore, your "more effecient way" may not always be within the regulations and you may not be aware of this so telling your supervisor to "piss off and let me work" may not always be the right option.



My more efficient way involves being able to access the drums of stock in a reasonable manner. One would imagine that if all of the drums of DEX III are right next to each other, the 15w40 next to each other and so on, as compared to "Just put all of the stuff that isn't being tested over there" in no particular order, I think my efficiencies are well within regulations.

As for me telling my Cpl to piss off, there are many times I've done this. This is because he spends more time pulling people off of their tasks to have mini-o groups throughout the day. Or he'll be meaning to talk for 30 seconds, when 30 minutes of wasted time go by I tell him to take a hike. Unlike some, I'm here to do a job. If they don't want me to do my job, then yeah, I'm going to want to get out.

As for Vern, if you are wanting supply techs that don't mind going to Gagetown, you know one that doesn't mind, just ask the CM to have me posted


----------



## Sub_Guy

Piss off and let me do it my way!  Sounds like a plan, I am fairly certain if I said that to one of my Sgt's, I would be sure to get a sono across the head.

As for micro-managing and morale killing, its out there, and it's like a bad case of crabs.  It spreads like mad.  I have had to type memos requesting to play hockey (ship's team), jog into work (back in the days when the Navy made you do this, I then had to carry my chit with me so I could present it to anyone who challenged me) and cancel leave.  I have had the pleasure of working for a fella who insisted that every request form be accompanied with a memo.

Then to have memos come back to you because of spacing and format!  It could take a week to get it in. 

That's just my  :2c:


----------



## Monsoon

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> However I've heard of the insanely stupid rules put in place by the Really Scary Man. Allocated times for smoke breaks during the day? I can't wait to go back.
> 
> This is the kind of crap that pushes dudes out the door, as Dog said.


Gosh! Having to stay at work until 4 or 5pm even though things are apparently quiet at 2pm? Mandated break times? Anyone quitting the CF because of this is going to be in for a rude awakening in the private sector, I can tell you.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Yeah, and all that extra money they force on you for working after hours and weekends are another nasty shock when you get out, too.


----------



## Monsoon

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Yeah, and all that extra money they force on you for working after hours and weekends are another nasty shock when you get out, too.


Unless your employer is following the overtime laws: http://www.workplace.ca/laws/employ_standard_on.html

Overtime only gets paid in Ontario when you work over 44 hours a week or on stat days. Working on weekends or after hours (under 44 hours) is called "having a job". Unless you work at GM or Chrysler, but...


----------



## Kat Stevens

Oh, so THAT'S how overtime works, thanks awfully for the lesson. I happen to have one of those "job" thingies you seem to think are such hardship compared to the idle army life.  When I'm on an install job, I work an average 12 hour day, 6 day week, and make considerably more than my 40 hour week in the shop.  Other than FOA, I never made an extra dime running up and down combat team traces in Wainwright and Suffield for 48-72 hours continuously sitting in an AVLB.  Don't bang on like the army guys have it so good compared to us poor misused working class dogs, please.


----------



## mariomike

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Overtime only gets paid in Ontario when you work over 44 hours a week or on stat days. Working on weekends or after hours (under 44 hours) is called "having a job". Unless you work at GM or Chrysler, but...



I retired from the City of Toronto one week ago. It was always a 40 week. There's money to be made. One of our paramedics made $221,447.12 in 2008.  I know him well. He's a hard worker.
I'm not talking out of school. It's a matter of public record:
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/publications/salarydisclosure/2009/munic09.html
But, money isn't everything. Job satisfaction, in my opinion, is more important. I have no regrets.


----------



## Monsoon

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I happen to have one of those "job" thingies you seem to think are such hardship compared to the idle army life.


Groan! I'm happily employed in the "idle army life" at the moment, and left a civie job (and its "morale sucking managers" and work-to rule mentality) to come back to it. I'm not saying flexibility is bad, but when people start saying that spending upwards of 37.5 hours a week on the job is an unbearable imposition on their quality of life, I have to roll my eyes.



> When I'm on an install job, I work an average 12 hour day, 6 day week, and make considerably more than my 40 hour week in the shop.


Well yeah - because you worked 76 hours in a week you got paid overtime.



> Other than FOA, I never made an extra dime running up and down combat team traces in Wainwright and Suffield for 48-72 hours continuously sitting in an AVLB.


We also get 4-5 weeks vacation, plus Christmas leave and generous stats, and a very good salary (IMHO). And I think you'll agree that 72 hour weeks is by no means the career norm in the CF - it represents a pretty selective slice of the posting pie.

I think the "morale-sucking managers" line has more to do with people feeling like they can't work as meaningfully as they'd like (re-drafting memos, etc), not that they're being asked to stay at work until (gasp) 4pm.

Anyhoo, all that to say that the grass is always greener. Having made that unpopular observation, I shall now bow out.


----------



## Kat Stevens

The point I was trying, badly I guess, to make, is that civy jobs reward working long hours of high activity with monetary compensation.  The army does not.  The idea of getting our money's worth from troops by having them sitting on their thumbs till 16:00 every day is a civy idea that doesn't translate very well.  Add up the total hours in a year that your average troop spends "on the job", you may be surprised.  A civy also has the option of saying "no" to extra hours, soldiers don't.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

And the point I was making hamiltongs, and blatantly missed by you, is that troops RELISH hard work, and valuable training. They HATE sitting around, NOT WORKING, for no other reason than the RSM mandates it. 

And yes, I've worked on civvy street too.


----------



## Armymedic

If the problem is OC's and CSM's upward, are keeping the sections sitting on their butts with nothing to do, then if is OUR job as Sgts and MCpls to invent things that the troops can do to keep entertained. 

There is always more training, learning and refreshing need to be done. Vehicle and kit to be checked and maintained. Theoretical tactical problems that can be discussed, solutions found.

There is no excuse to have troops flattening their gluteus if the NCOs are worth their salt.


----------



## chris_log

No one's answered my question yet, which units are these where soldiers sit around doing nothing?


----------



## X-mo-1979

SFB said:
			
		

> There is always more training, learning and refreshing need to be done. Vehicle and kit to be checked and maintained. Theoretical tactical problems that can be discussed, solutions found.
> 
> There is no excuse to have troops flattening their gluteus if the NCOs are worth their salt.



Agreed.However 8 hr days of dry training and sitting in a classroom gets real old real quick as you well know.I just can never see the reason we just can't send guys home.After a long deployment and 13 days off that's where guys heads are anyway.Why not give them time off/go to the gym when the MLOC training has been beat to death....as it already has.But alas something may come up prior to 16h00 which needs attention right away.

Another big one thats is pissing guys off is how messed up things get.I.E our sub unit UAB is still sitting in KAF.It also holds 2 pairs of green combats/1 pair black boot which we were FORCED to bring (it was enforced)due to it being on a kit list from battle group.Simple things drive guys nuts really.


----------



## 54/102 CEF

From the Bureaucratic Trenches - just biding my time - waiting to pounce on all Fin Offrs when the balloon goes up in September 

PS - Hats off to all old timers still with us from WW2 and all our Combat Arenas since then


----------



## Towards_the_gap

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Agreed.However 8 hr days of dry training and sitting in a classroom gets real old real quick as you well know.I just can never see the reason we just can't send guys home.After a long deployment and 13 days off that's where guys heads are anyway.Why not give them time off/go to the gym when the MLOC training has been beat to death....as it already has.But alas something may come up prior to 16h00 which needs attention right away.
> 
> Another big one thats is pissing guys off is how messed up things get.I.E our sub unit UAB is still sitting in KAF.It also holds 2 pairs of green combats/1 pair black boot which we were FORCED to bring (it was enforced)due to it being on a kit list from battle group.Simple things drive guys nuts really.



+1 X-Mo. 

My view is that, we all sign up knowing the vagaries of service, that with deployments, we will be away. When we have returned from deployments, and are on the 'recuperate' part of the readiness cycle, we expect to have a bit of stability in our lives. And so do our families. What screws that all up is the endless taskings, dog & ponies, and all other bits of nause that takes us away, when we in fact are supposed to be home. That, unfortunately, we also expect. That is the way of the world, doing too much with too little.

Now with that in mind, is it really a stretch to think: 'I can't see WWIII/Armageddon happening this afternoon, how about I ask for 4 volunteers to stick around in case something needs doing, and send the rest home/to the gym?' 

Thinking like this will go a little way, and I mean a little way, to alleviating the overall sense of frustration felt by the troops. I know as a sapper I would be inclined to think, alright, we get the poo jobs from now and then (requiring me to work late/weekends etc), but at least I know my CofC has the common sense to cut me loose when their is no work to be done, and more importantly has the balls to look out for us.

Now in regards to X-mo's story about green combats in the UAB, one has to ask, why, out of the whole battlegroup's worth of SNCO's/senior officers, did someone not ask WHY???? And then pass that on to the troops????? Or rescind the quite obviously ridiculous order?


----------



## Armymedic

Piper said:
			
		

> No one's answered my question yet, which units are these where soldiers sit around doing nothing?



Pick one. Even when a Bn is deployed, there is a rear party component. Regardless of the busiest training schedule, there will always be days, or even weeks when the troops are sitting.


----------



## chris_log

SFB said:
			
		

> Pick one. Even when a Bn is deployed, there is a rear party component. Regardless of the busiest training schedule, there will always be days, or even weeks when the troops are sitting.



Heh, well, I haven't seen it where I am. Everyone, from the CO down is working continuously from day start to day end (and in many cases guys are going days without PT because there's too much work to do).

In fact, where I am people are releasing due to being way too overtasked (i.e. they and their families just can't keep up). Send some of your under-tasked people my way (especially people who can instruct), I'll find work for 'em.


----------



## Armymedic

Piper,
Its the shortage of all those instructor level pers (MCpl, Sgt, WO, and Capts) is the entire reason that the troops are sitting waiting to go do something.


----------



## X-mo-1979

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Now with that in mind, is it really a stretch to think: 'I can't see WWIII/Armageddon happening this afternoon, how about I ask for 4 volunteers to stick around in case something needs doing, and send the rest home/to the gym?'
> 
> Now in regards to X-mo's story about green combats in the UAB, one has to ask, why, out of the whole battlegroup's worth of SNCO's/senior officers, did someone not ask WHY???? And then pass that on to the troops????? Or rescind the quite obviously ridiculous order?



And believe me as soon as we saw it we quickly asked higher WTF.And were quickly told you will bring what is on the kit list,out.We left very early compared to the rest of the battle group,and then found out someone actually smartened up and told them to leave it home.
Here we are now with a huge percent of us posted,and UAB sitting in a seacan somewhere.

And believe me I got questioned a good many days about where so and so was.As far as I was concerned there was bugger all going on they could all take off/make appt's for the afternoon.I was quickly questioned about sending guys away....then a stop was put to it.

As far as I'm concerned making the schedule to say PT gym every afternoon after say 14h00 should be the norm.Why not do PT twice a day,soon enough we will be on work up and PT will never happen again.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

I may be old school but when you sign on the dotted line you do whatever is asked of you, If that means endless hours of boredom or weeks of back breaking labour or deployments, so be it, you belly up and do it. 

The military has always been this way, lots of redtape, bureaucracy and sometimes a bit of confusion thrown in for good measure, its still better than any civy job.

If that memo gets sent back red inked to death, so what? If that directive isn't what its supposed to be, so what? If your sitting on your keister in a hanger for days on end, so what. Your getting paid regardless, pucker up and deal with it. 

I hear allot of complaining, just like people do out here in civy land and boy can they complain!. "I gotta work this weekend!!" What, you want me to stay until six!!" "I gotta work over my lunch!!" on and on and on, the belly aching is endless! 

I wish I was still serving, believe me, because I have a boss out here in civy land who is a brain sucking, micromanaging ***hole. Forn those of you considering release, take a bit of advice and think about your decision, because the grass is not always that green over on this side.

I once had an RSM that always told us 

*"Before you open your pie hole, make sure your brain catches up"*


----------



## chris_log

SFB said:
			
		

> Piper,
> Its the shortage of all those instructor level pers (MCpl, Sgt, WO, and Capts) is the entire reason that the troops are sitting waiting to go do something.



I'm well aware of said shortage. That being said, there is still pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenty of work for Pte's and Cpl's to do (again, just where I am it seems, according to the comments made here). It's incomprehensible to me how troops can be sitting around doing nothing. It shows only a complete and utter leadership failure.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Piper said:
			
		

> I'm well aware of said shortage. That being said, there is still pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenty of work for Pte's and Cpl's to do (again, *just where I am it seems*, according to the comments made here). It's incomprehensible to me how troops can be sitting around doing nothing. It shows only a complete and utter leadership failure.



And where is this place from which you have such clarity of vision to pronounce that so many units must have these instances of "complete and utter leadership failure"?  Please, enlighten us, since your profile describes no experience whatever.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I'm willing to bet there's plenty of sitting around "where you are", just not under the gaze of your apparently not so all seeing eye.


----------



## chris_log

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm willing to bet there's plenty of sitting around "where you are", just not under the gaze of your apparently not so all seeing eye.



There really isn't. But hey, what do I know?



> And where is this place from which you have such clarity of vision to pronounce that so many units must have these instances of "complete and utter leadership failure"?



That was mentioned previously in this topic, but I didn't see you jump on it then.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Piper said:
			
		

> That was mentioned previously in this topic, but I didn't see you jump on it then.



Then reference the post.  I'd like to know what your experience and perspective is to make such a wide sweeping claim about unit level leadership.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Piper said:
			
		

> There really isn't. But hey, what do I know?



More than me, clearly. I bow to both your omniscience, and your wealth of experience.


----------



## X-mo-1979

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> I may be old school but when you sign on the dotted line you do whatever is asked of you, If that means endless hours of boredom or weeks of back breaking labour or deployments, so be it, you belly up and do it.
> 
> The military has always been this way, lots of redtape, bureaucracy and sometimes a bit of confusion thrown in for good measure, its still better than any civy job.
> 
> If that memo gets sent back red inked to death, so what? If that directive isn't what its supposed to be, so what? If your sitting on your keister in a hanger for days on end, so what. Your getting paid regardless, pucker up and deal with it.
> 
> I hear allot of complaining, just like people do out here in civy land and boy can they complain!. "I gotta work this weekend!!" What, you want me to stay until six!!" "I gotta work over my lunch!!" on and on and on, the belly aching is endless!
> 
> I wish I was still serving, believe me, because I have a boss out here in civy land who is a brain sucking, micromanaging ***hole. Forn those of you considering release, take a bit of advice and think about your decision, because the grass is not always that green over on this side.
> 
> I once had an RSM that always told us
> 
> *"Before you open your pie hole, make sure your brain catches up"*



I also remember sitting around the hanger in 2000.Difference was we were not deployed with 6 months between returning and work up.We also noticed when we treat the troops well we get good results when needed(imagine that! we treated them good and they didn't become individuals questioning authority!)

However the leadership above has to realize the guys will be right back in the breach very soon, why not cut them some slack where we are able?

What am I doing? Not much now as I'm off work.However while I was there I was trying my best to convince the leadership that "if you got nothing to do don't do it here" was important in this re constitution phase.

And yes Retiredgrunt the army has changed.Dicking troops around is sorta frowned upon,and not a privilege of rank anymore.It disappeared along the time frame when your Mcpl decided if a injury on PT needed attention or if it was "nothing" and told you to suck it up.

One of the main things that has changed from your service time is people started realizing troops are our hugest resource.And dicking them around get's less enthusiastic results when you need them.They can fear you and your rank all they want but if they can actually respect (not even like)you for looking out for their interests you get better results.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Piper said:
			
		

> Heh, well, I haven't seen it where I am. Everyone, from the CO down is working continuously from day start to day end (and in many cases guys are going days without PT because there's too much work to do).
> 
> In fact, where I am people are releasing due to being way too overtasked (i.e. they and their families just can't keep up). Send some of your under-tasked people my way (especially people who can instruct), I'll find work for 'em.



Interesting,

Where do you work?

dileas

tess


----------



## Tow Tripod

This is the type of forum where everyone gets to bitch. If it wasn't almost comical it would be pathetic. Like I said earlier If you don't like it get the **ck out. Then get right back in because you miss the boys!! Believe me when I tell you that I have seen that alot in the last few years!!

Tow Tripod


----------



## LineJumper

hmmmm, I remember problems with utilizing PAT troops when I was posted to wx. Sadly, I had no idea there were nearly 1000  anywho, I  sadly had the opportunity to discuss with a few of them their release intent due to completing their initial contract while in PAT after completing basic. Terribly sad, many of those young kids had some serious dissallusions about the army yet due to lack of instructor base, they simply could not be processed. Hopefully that fiasco hasn't blackened the eye of IMHO a fine training system, for future recruiting rushes that may take place.


----------



## Occam

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> This is the type of forum where everyone gets to bitch. If it wasn't almost comical it would be pathetic. Like I said earlier If you don't like it get the **ck out. Then get right back in because you miss the boys!! Believe me when I tell you that I have seen that alot in the last few years!!
> 
> Tow Tripod



You can say that all you like, but the number of people re-enrolling has to be relatively low, otherwise we still wouldn't be having trouble maintaining our current numbers, never mind reaching the PML targets.  Mind you, the CDS has directed measures to make it easier for people to come back after a brief journey to civvie street if they wish to do so, so it remains to be seen if the number of re-enrollees becomes statistically significant.

Which leaves us back at the problem of:

_"If you don't like it, then get the fuck out".

"Why thank you, don't mind if I do"._


----------



## deh

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That's an over-simplification.  No doubt applicable in some cases, but the broader issue is the completely unregulated growth of administrative documents and resulting requirements at every command level in the past 10-15 years.  Much of it might have been avoided if a lot of commanders and senior staff had actually been working to create efficient systems rather than measuring staff work product by weight of paper produced.



Lets not restrict that to senior staff.  I am a section second in command and the amount and type of paperwork that comes to me to be filled out is borderline ridiculous.  For our individual soldiers we have, info sheets, pro formas, MPRR print outs, a qualification master list, monitor mass, UER's and the PER/PDR system.  Everytime a soldier completes a course it has to get entered into at least five different documents.  The majority of the information is copy and pasted from other documents, for example the med cat section of the info sheet is directly copied from the MPRR print out that is kept in the same folder.  The UER sheets fill out the qualification list. The performance section of the Pro Forma is a cut and paste of the PDR of the latest ex and so on.  It really is little wonder none of the documents are ever completely up to date.

The only thing all this mountain of paper seems to be used for is jacking up the MCpl's for not filling it in right.  When we need to know who is qualified HLVW Dvr we generally line everyone up and ask, I have yet to see anyone actually look at the documents we generate for anything other than a check of correctness.  Pointless interviews and stupidity always follow the inevitable crackdown that happens when one portion of the document is completed incorrectly.  Never mind that it is edited by the 35 NCO's of a coy, with varying computer skills.  The amount of time I spend fiddle-fucking with this pointless time vampire has to be my biggest source of stress at work.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

There seems to be a lot of belly aching and problems brought forward, but not many solutions? Perhaps instead of continuously  filling out mountains of paperwork, someone could take the initiative and find a way to amalgomate the UER, PDRs, Info sheets, etc into one document.  That's how we get around these things and who real leadership. This is one of my biggest pet peeves... when people just bitch about problems and how "out of it leadership is" instead of doing their jobs and making sure leadership is aware of the situation on the floor.  If you're going to say a problem, give the solution! The army now a days does a great deal to accomodate individuals, but leadership can't make these decisions of the lower ranks dont bring their ideas and put in the effort to alleviate the problem


----------



## Trooper Hale

Afternoon sporties is a big one. But on the topic of PT, fun PT sessions are something my unit is renowned for avoiding. Theres only so many times you can run up the hill before it starts getting a little boring (Halfway through the first time for me!). Blokes dont need to be smashed for PT every morning. Playing footy or touch football can change that frustration. 
As a young digger, consistancy is something that frustrates us. Theres plenty of new blokes where i am who cant deal with the red tape and the constant chopping and changing. When the SSM comes downstairs friday afternoon to stab someone for a job on the weekend or supporting a course the next week, it shows diggers that even upstairs they dont know whats going on.
At my old unit we had a pile of leave aps which we filled out in pen and handed to our troop corporals. It took 5 minutes. At my current everything has to be written on computer and is almost always red penned and returned to us. But the real kicker? Theres only 1 computer for the troopers and L/Cpls in the building! hilarious. "Hales, why didnt you reply to my email?" says my boss, "cos i cant check my emails Sir", "Well, it was important, go check it now". The bloke works a vertical 5m above me! Just come down and tell me!
In the Aus Army we call it the "AJ Fade away". It usually happens around 1 or 2 on the quite days, suddenly you realise that everyone has just snuck off. And for the most part, no one cares. Until the SSM gets an email telling him, at 1530, that the RSM wants a tent put up so the boys see how it looks. The practice of stabbing blokes to do things so that they're doing something is one reason i know blokes leave.
We work for 5 months of this year as dismounted Cav scouts, "You'll be cav scouts all year lads" says the OC. I get told at the start of last week, along with 30 others, "You blokes are manning vehicles for the 4week ex starting next tuesday, we're not using scouts". I get a weeks notice for a month long ex and get told the job i've been doing all year is irrelevent.
"Hales, why do you have a totenkopf on you helmet? People might find it offensive". I'm out bush! Who cares?
"Have these vehicles been monthly'd this month?" Its the 5th! Its the start of the month. why would they have been?
"How much fuel does this car have?". Let me think, it hasnt moved in 3 months, i reckons its got the same as it had last week and the week before and the week before! Quick, i better write down that it has 250lt deso, nil 25mm, nil 7.62mm, nil 5.56mm, nil rations, nil interest in all the bullshit!
Like my old troop corporal used to say, "When in doubt, hit something, it wont fix anything, but it'll make you feel better"


----------



## deh

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> There seems to be a lot of belly aching and problems brought forward, but not many solutions? Perhaps instead of *continuously  filling * out mountains of paperwork, someone could take the initiative and find a way to *amalgomate* the UER, PDRs, Info sheets, etc into one document.  That's how we get around these *things and who real leadership*. This is one of my biggest pet *peeves... * when people just bitch about problems and how "out of it leadership is" instead of doing their jobs and making sure leadership is aware of the situation on the floor.  If you're *going to say a problem*, give the solution! The army now a days does a great deal to *accomodate* individuals, but leadership can't make these *decisions of the lower ranks* dont bring their ideas and put in the effort to alleviate the problem



The problem is we are duplicating the UER, MPRR and PDR systems with reams of useless junk.  We have put forward to use the documents we are nationally mandated to use and got shot down.  Thanks tips for letting us know we should find a solution to the problem though.  That was helpful.

You think that I as a sect 2 I/C could come up with a new system that supercedes or amalgamates the nationally mandated, forces' wide system that is in place kind of tells me you don't understand what any of those things are.

Maybe one day when I learn your method of how to "get around these things and who real leadership" I will understand.  Until then I will just continue to just "say a problem".

Army.ca I am on strike.  I will never post again until there is some sort of literacy test that goes along with membership and the ability to post.  Spell check should be mandatory when you hit the post button as well.  Spelling and grammar errors in bold, for shits and giggles.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Don't you have some rocks to paint  ;D


----------



## Trooper Hale

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Don't you have some rocks to paint ;D


Haha, thanks for that. You've just broken my bad mood.
To quote my SQ, "What are you blokes doing painting that door? Dont waste that blue paint! We might need it for something"
Sarge, what are you going to need bright blue paint for? I bloody hope its not for the vehicles...


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Interesting,
> 
> Where do you work?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



He could be working here --- unbeknownst to me!!  8)

If all of you 'without enough work' want to come here and give us a hand ... I'll take you; and, I'll treat you good, but please don't bitch when I've got to have you in on weekends and evenings too. It happens a lot around here. But, like I said, I will treat you well - I don't "make work" for people - I HAVE work for people ... and I'll back you up totally if you can give me a common sense reason as to why "you did what you did" or "why you did it this way".

As someone already stated --- it's all dependant upon your Unit. Anybody wishes to infer it's all "sitting around everywhere" and is "happening without our seeing it" ... guess again. Some of us in some locations could gainfully employ shitloads more people. That's what happens in Pri 6 Units at 70% manning and purple.

And guess what my troops bitch about? The fact that the Cpls accross the street at that big 1st line Pri 2 Unit are going home early every day yet collect the same Taxpayer of Canada paycheck and seeing _that_ occur is bad for MY troops' morale ... while we struggle to keep our heads above water.

Point is: No matter where you are, what trade, or what Unit --- the troops and their staff will ALWAYS bitch about the grass being greener. That's the nature of this beast.


----------



## GAP

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And guess what my troops bitch about? The fact that the Cpls accross the street at that big 1st line Pri 2 Unit are going home early every day yet collect the same Taxpayer of Canada paycheck and seeing _that_ occur is bad for MY troops' morale ... while we struggle to keep our heads above water.



Now wouldn't it be ever so efficient if CO's, et al put their scriptures and egos in their back pockets, and simply pointed out to those Cpls across the street that if there is nothing  for them to constructively do, go help out across the street...I'm sure there is some basic work that would free up your people to do something else.....


----------



## Another Mom

Yossarian is alive and well.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> There seems to be a lot of belly aching and problems brought forward, but not many solutions?



Let me describe one example of the system's entrenched failure to identify and adopt user-generated solutions.

At the Army's Staff College (CLFCSC, Kingston), successive generations of students have developed staff tools to reduce the sheer labour requirements of staff planning tasks.  Some of these tools were robust enough to survive for years, but only through being passed from student to student.  Some improved over time as they came into the hands of new student innovators who tweaked and polished them to meet new requirements or simply to improve efficiency.  Some of these electronic tools would cease to be further developed only through conflicts with operating system upgrades (a particular weakness for MS Access utilities).

Despite this, there has never been a system in place at the Staff College to identify useful staff tools developed by the student body, and to formally adopt the best of these.  The Staff College offered a closed environment with stable test conditions against which improvements could be tested and measured.  Something as a simple as building a library of student developed tools, that could be taken away as desired, would have capitalized on the effort made by a few for the benefit of their peers on their courses and later courses.

If this had been done effectively, it may have also contributed to a better data-handling baseline of knowledge for the ongoing development of tactical planning computer systems. However, in a closed environment, with 12 LCols closely monitoring the activities of 72 students, we still couldn't identify and capture the worthwhile efforts of the few who developed solutions.

At a time when the College was repeatedly praising a LCol for developing MS Word staff formats, it was ignoring the work of students with MS Access, web development and other initiatives that were creating significant task time savings in more than a few instances.


----------



## Dog

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And guess what my troops bitch about? The fact that the Cpls accross the street at that big 1st line Pri 2 Unit are going home early every day yet collect the same Taxpayer of Canada paycheck and seeing _that_ occur is bad for MY troops' morale ... while we struggle to keep our heads above water.
> 
> Point is: No matter where you are, what trade, or what Unit --- the troops and their staff will ALWAYS bitch about the grass being greener. That's the nature of this beast.



That's comparing apples to oranges, and you damn well know it.

"That's the nature of the beast" I'm so sick of hearing that as a cop-out excuse. It's the phrase people use when the can't explain why something doesn't make sense.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Dog said:
			
		

> "That's the nature of the beast" I'm so sick of hearing that as a cop-out excuse. It's the phrase people use when the can't explain why something doesn't make sense.



And that's the sort of comment that comes from those who have never dealt with formation or base level resource planning and management, unit budgets, or the many requirements to plan for and execute all of the "army stuff" things they would like to do every day.  Yet, even when they see their own unit robbed of NCOs and officers for the Army summer tasking cycle, they still expect all of their own administration support done in a timely manner and they want to be kept busy doing things that take more staff and resources than the unit has.

The core of the problem is not a lack of individual capability or desire among unit or even formation staffs.  And, despite what any Corporal, Sergeant or Captain desires at the unit level, there are no simple solutions.


----------



## Long in the tooth

Family is indeed one of the major reasons for my release after 25+ years.  When deployed overseas or on real ops there was no problem.  Too many of my kids birthdays I've missed for no good reasons.  As both my parents and in laws were getting older I pleaded for a posting nearer them.  Being reimbursed (taxable) a trip home doesn't go far when you need to buy five flights to go for a funeral.
Now, I read over the article and some of the predictable comments in The Star.  I don't think that military members have a problem with civilian oversight - in fact it's critical.  I personally do have a big problem with the integration of CR3 s and the like.  Most of the civvies I work with are great, but I've been known to say "if you want a rank/title put on a uniform."


----------



## armyvern

Dog said:
			
		

> That's comparing apples to oranges, and you damn well know it.
> 
> "That's the nature of the beast" I'm so sick of hearing that as a cop-out excuse. It's the phrase people use when the can't explain why something doesn't make sense.



Really, it is the same paycheque is it not?

I'm sick of hearing bitching and whining about "not having work", yet I offer some up ... and they are quick to STFU or toss it back as "that's different" or "that's a cop out" --- you want work or don't you? I've got some; you don't want it, then don't whine because you don't have any. Get it?


----------



## chris_log

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> He could be working here --- unbeknownst to me!!  8)
> 
> If all of you 'without enough work' want to come here and give us a hand ... I'll take you; and, I'll treat you good, but please don't ***** when I've got to have you in on weekends and evenings too. It happens a lot around here. But, like I said, I will treat you well - I don't "make work" for people - I HAVE work for people ... and I'll back you up totally if you can give me a common sense reason as to why "you did what you did" or "why you did it this way".
> 
> As someone already stated --- it's all dependant upon your Unit. Anybody wishes to infer it's all "sitting around everywhere" and is "happening without our seeing it" ... guess again. Some of us in some locations could gainfully employ shitloads more people. That's what happens in Pri 6 Units at 70% manning and purple.
> 
> And guess what my troops ***** about? The fact that the Cpls accross the street at that big 1st line Pri 2 Unit are going home early every day yet collect the same Taxpayer of Canada paycheck and seeing _that_ occur is bad for MY troops' morale ... while we struggle to keep our heads above water.
> 
> Point is: No matter where you are, what trade, or what Unit --- the troops and their staff will ALWAYS ***** about the grass being greener. That's the nature of this beast.



Not with you I'm afraid, although through the grapevine I hear you folks (if you are where I think you are) are overworked to the breaking point. 

Thanks for making the point I was trying to make. Maybe those who are long retired and don't know the situation on the ground RIGHT NOW will get the point from you, as they obviously decided to redicule mine. 

If people are sitting around twiddling their thumbs, there exists a leadership failure from the CO down. There is no reason why troops should not be gainfully employed (trg resource limitations or not).


----------



## the 48th regulator

Piper said:
			
		

> Thanks for making the point I was trying to make. Maybe those who are long retired and don't know the situation on the ground RIGHT NOW will get the point from you, as they obviously decided to redicule mine.




And maybe you should reign in your sanctimonious neck in, as some of us retired folks still work within the system.

You can cast your line all you want, we all have seen the trolling that you once again have shown you are only good for.

AS you stated, and I echo your post, you have yet to tell us what unit you work for.

dileas

tess


----------



## Dog

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Really, it is the same paycheque is it not?
> 
> I'm sick of hearing bitching and whining about "not having work", yet I offer some up ... and they are quick to STFU or toss it back as "that's different" or "that's a cop out" --- you want work or don't you? I've got some; you don't want it, then don't whine because you don't have any. Get it?



Whose talking about the paycheque? I'm not debating that, but you're saying being a combat engineer is the same as being a supply tech is ignorant.

This isn't a question of wanting work, so much as it's wanting to do something, anything related to my trade. This goes for everyone in every trade.
I didn't sign up to be a supply tech, so no, I'm not going to go count triwalls of stuff at the local Clothing Stores. Just like I don't ask supply techs to come dig the footings of an NSB in the pouring rain. It's not what you signed up to do, so I wouldn't expect you to want/know/care/be qualified to do it.

As for being sick of hearing "it's the nature of the beast" I hear it everyday... as I'm sitting around doing nothing on days when I could be going home early, if they aren't going to train me. I'll be earning that time back when I'm rolling around in afghanistan waiting to be blown up.

If it's truly "the nature of the beast" then, getting back to the original point of the thread, the nature of the beast needs to be changed somehow... because the facts are that retention is a serious problem. Just because some of you are satisfied with the status quo, doesn't mean things are ok. They aren't, and when we no longer have a serious mission to train for, there's going to be an exodus of troops.


----------



## MJP

Piper dude I think your inexperience is colouring your comments.  Troops sitting around in a combat arms type unit is fairly common at certain times.  You have to remember we are talking about a larger number of troops in each sub-unit then what you deal with at a Svc Bn.  Not everyone has a job to do all the time.  Sometimes troops have to sit while their leaderships sorts out stuff.  Second don't think for one second that no one sits around at your unit.  I just asked one of the NCOs in your unit if they find that troops sometimes sit around without much to do and the reply was yes.  Granted this was one company out of four and the caveat to it was that for the most part it is people without specific jobs (Pte-Cpl level) but don't make it sound like your all going balls to wall all the time.

The last thing I'll add is I know your unit very very well and if think that the only thing driving people out is Op tempo, your people are not telling you the whole truth.  Ask them about the constant talk of "out in fantrying the infantry" in reference to their training.  Not to mention horrible administrative procedures that hinder timely processing of basic memo requests etc etc.  I just watched a member have their posting message delayed for a good three weeks(combined with it being issued very late for the APS as well) because of the way admin works in your unit and the utter lack of care of subordinates by several levels of command.


----------



## GDawg

Well said Dog.

Now that we're back on the original track, I feel from my personal experience that retention is so far off the radar screen it isn't even funny. 

I recently CT/OT'ed from reserve to reg force and its been nothing but heart ache and hassle, and I am getting sick of hearing the old "nature of the beast" line. I was given 8 days notice to get to Kingston and was informed during the drive that the course I was loaded on was canceled. I'm told it will take 2-12 months to go from the reserve to regular force pay system. I've been in better part of 9 years, and I'm going on my 3rd trade and I'm getting an enormous amount of grief (only from the orderly room) over a request to vacate single quarters even though the school standing orders strongly support my case, as does my actual chain of command. While a college educated PLQ qualified combat veteran with 9 years service in multiple trades has to hang around ancient communal shacks for up to 2 years to "acclimatize to military life", anybody straight out of basic can shack up common law and get their own place straight away without demonstrating any responsibility.

The base is swarmed with recruits, as a PAT I have it better than most, I'm busy as hell teaching reservists for the summer. Again, its funny that I can be trusted to train soldiers, but I'm can't bloody well be trusted to get my own grown up house and sleep in my own big boy room...

The goal should be getting reservists into the reg force, and if someone in the reg force wants a new trade they should be fairly accommodated. How many of the swarm of new recruits will leave the forces out of disgust from being stuck in a PAT Pl for YEARS? How many seasoned Cpls are leaving the forces because of all the reasons mentioned above? How many reservists are sneering at the ludicrous idea of going to the Reg force only to have their military experience and civilian credentials ignored?

Morale is dropping, at least at the lower end of the ladder.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Dog said:
			
		

> They aren't, and when we no longer have a serious mission to train for, there's going to be an exodus of troops.



Every time someone tries to identify "the big dis-satisfier of the moment", it always ends with the forecast of the mass exodus.  I have yet to see that doom and gloom projection come through in my 30 years in the CF.  (The only mass exodus we've had was forcefully engineered through the Force Reduction Plan.)  I think if you dig a little deeper you'll find that most people are actually in it for more than just the mission pay or the adrenalin rush - and those who are here just for those reasons really aren't committed to a long career or helping to sustain the establishment, and they'll leave anyway.

When you figure out how to fix the tasking requirement, and then how to afford issuing every CO a blank cheque for training - then we can talk about taking you to the range every day just to keep you entertained doing army-stuff.


----------



## Michael OLeary

For Dog and the others who feel the “nature of the beast” is wasting their lives:

What are you personally doing to make use of this abundance of idle time you report?  What courses (university, community college, night classes or correspondence, etc.) are you taking so that you can use free Army time to study?  What papers are you writing for regimental, corps or army journals about the problems you deal with and solutions you can offer from within your lanes?

What are you doing for personal professional development?

Or are you just using the time to sit around and bitch?


----------



## Towards_the_gap

What a can of worms this thread is......


The course I am on at the moment is a VERY good example of what we are saying is wrong with the system.

It is 4 1/2 months long, sometimes longer when you add Christmas/Summer leave in. Now when you are first told that, you think, wow, that sucks, but hey, I'm learning to be a section commander in a technical combat arms trade. Fair one.

Until you start the course, and realise that the majority of it is paperwork. How, I ask, does the PO 'LEAD INFANTRY OPERATIONS' translate into me doing a site sketch for the PC? As a sect commander, I would expect them to at least organise a troop level attack, with us occupying various command positions. I realise resources are short across the army, but what's a few hundred rounds of 5.56 blank?? Instead we draw a little picture, where the majority of your marks come from the actual format of your sketch (north arrow, legend, centre grid), not the tactical set up itself. And I can pretty much guess what an infantry WO would say if I, tasked to site my sections trenches, ran back up to him with a pretty little picture, and no trenches dug. Basically, the course itself is more about staffing then actual leadership, and the majority of canidates actually wonder 'what the * does this have to do with leading a section in battle???? and why I am here for so long?' We accept that  engr recce does require alot of paperwork and repetition, however, leading an engr section is not all about recce, or how well you write a proforma, or how well you can line up all your little paragraphs in a handwritten report.

Reference Mr. O'leary's comment, the problem with the 'nature of the beast' is not so much that my life is being wasted (far from it), but more so that some higher-ups in the CofC think it is acceptable to screw the troops around, for no reason, and think that excuse will cut it. In spite of the recession, we are still going to compete with the civilian labour market, both in terms of recruiting AND retention, and gone are the days when all us little soldiers think the army sure does beat digging ditches, and we are happy for what we have. I could walk out of the army today into a well paid surveying job, but the fact, as mentioned earlier, is that I do enjoy pure soldiering, working hard in the field on operations, and if I'm not going to be doing that every day, well fine, but give me a good reason why I am sat around in a cage until 4 for no apparent reason, other than 'something might come up'. 

Yes, dog, myself and others, may be b*tching. But this is the internet, it is a forum for discussion, and we are suggesting some solutions, and trying to help identify problems. But as with anything, we do not have all the answers. Whilst I agree with Mr O'leary that there may not be the big exodus of troops , if things remain unchanged, that trickle will keep going, and probably get slightly bigger, and you will lose the good guys who won't put up with the crap, and be left with more boneheads than switched on troops. DISCLAIMER: That does not mean everyone with +10 years in the forces is a bonehead. It's just we've all seen the 'promoted through attrition' cases.

Oh and I'm getting my high school via correspondence in all this spare time I get. Without going through the PSO's office, filling out paperwork again. *shock/horror*.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> It is 4 1/2 months long, sometimes longer when you add Christmas/Summer leave in. Now when you are first told that, you think, wow, that sucks, but hey, I'm learning to be a section commander in a technical combat arms trade. Fair one.
> 
> Until you start the course, and realise that the majority of it is paperwork. How, I ask, does the PO 'LEAD INFANTRY OPERATIONS' translate into me doing a site sketch for the PC? As a sect commander, I would expect them to at least organise a troop level attack, with us occupying various command positions. I realise resources are short across the army, but what's a few hundred rounds of 5.56 blank?? Instead we draw a little picture, where the majority of your marks come from the actual format of your sketch (north arrow, legend, centre grid), not the tactical set up itself. And I can pretty much guess what an infantry WO would say if I, tasked to site my sections trenches, ran back up to him with a pretty little picture, and no trenches dug. Basically, the course itself is more about staffing then actual leadership, and the majority of canidates actually wonder 'what the * does this have to do with leading a section in battle???? and why I am here for so long?' We accept that  engr recce does require alot of paperwork and repetition, however, leading an engr section is not all about recce, or how well you write a proforma, or how well you can line up all your little paragraphs in a handwritten report.



The content and resource bill for the course you are on was developed by your own trade.  NCOs and officers who had experience with the course, and/or will be employing its graduates had to make the hard decisions of what would be included and where the emphasis would be placed.  

For the example you note, imagine if the PC standard was "lead an infantry section during a defensive infantry platoon exercise, to include siting of trenches and occupation".  How many times would you have to go through it with a platoon sized course, so that each student was assessed on and passed the PC by that description?  Would it be worth lengthening the course by another week for that one PC?  How many other PCs are similarly abbreviated such that a live exercise test would require significant time and resource allocations?



			
				Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Reference Mr. O'leary's comment, the problem with the 'nature of the beast' is not so much that my life is being wasted (far from it), but more so* that some higher-ups in the CofC think it is acceptable to screw the troops around, for no reason, and think that excuse will cut it.* In spite of the recession, we are still going to compete with the civilian labour market, both in terms of recruiting AND retention, and gone are the days when all us little soldiers think the army sure does beat digging ditches, and we are happy for what we have. I could walk out of the army today into a well paid surveying job, but the fact, as mentioned earlier, is that I do enjoy pure soldiering, working hard in the field on operations, and if I'm not going to be doing that every day, well fine, but give me a good reason why I am sat around in a cage until 4 for no apparent reason, other than 'something might come up'.



Have you any specific proof that someone in the chain of command actually decided that _"today, lets make the troops do nothing, just to fuck them over."_?


----------



## Towards_the_gap

I agree with you ref: the course content, but you have to admit, at first glance it seems ludicrous. From my experience, having had friends take the British Army engr section commander course, it is both shorter by 6 weeks, and also focused more on section level tasks, and the planning and execution of such tasks. Which is all validated by a week long exercise at the very end. If it can be done there, why not here? And what was most illuminating is when we asked one of our staff how our course critiques could influence the next course, we quickly lost all hope when told of all the bureaucratic hoops the army goes through to change a course. If a school is a CofE in something, let it be the CofE, and let it create the courses the field army needs, and let it modify said courses to the needs of the field army. Not overbearing oversight by various staff officers. I will freely admit that I could be way off the mark here but that's how it looks from down here at the coal face.

As for the second point, I didn't phrase that well, and agree that the CofC do not actively pursue our being dicked around. Having said that, what is so intensely wrong about dismissing the troops to go to the gym, as suggested earlier. Put GYM-1400hrs onward into the regt'l time table, unless there is something else going on, and worst case, keep a few volunteers behind, should something come up. Basically, think outside the box, rather than just say 'it's the nature of the beast, suck it up or get out'. 

We don't do No 2 field punishment (Clicky) these days because someone said, 'hey, I don't think this is working very well, let's try something different'. Leadership is about getting the best out of your troops, and we will not do so if we simply shrug our shoulders whenever something is wrong, or not working well.


----------



## Michael OLeary

The problem with course evolution is that everyone has a different idea of what needs to be changed, added, taken away, get more emphasis, get less emphasis, whether it should be longer, shorter, modular, trained at CoE or at unit etc., etc., etc.  And no "solution" developed by any CTP writing board has been satisfactory because there are always critics.  What you end up with is the best compromise at the time, and that's all it can ever be.

And if your unit decides that releasing the troops at 1400 will be the norm, will you expect that every section commander and above will stay in the office to work on necessary admin so the troops memos can be answered?  If it becomes the norm, what happens when the order gets changed to "everyone wait, we've been told something might happen" and it doesn't?  Like I said, there are no simple solutions, what you think will work for you personally may end up creating serious grief for someone else - but I guess that doesn't matter if it's just some asshole up the chain, right?

Go ask to work in your unit Ops cell for a few weeks to see how many of these events are outside the unit's control.

Unfortunately those last minute tasks when you do need to nail down some troops for that day or the next do happen.  Often they happen because a unit "no filled" tasks to reduce the tasking load on the unit, and, at the last minute, it came back as an ordered requirement.  Try being the receiving unit of one of those tasks for a variety of specific trade/rank requirements having to call units directly two days before the start date because Area after Area "no filled" the tasks within hours of them being assigned.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> What a can of worms this thread is......
> 
> 
> The course I am on at the moment is a VERY good example of what we are saying is wrong with the system.
> 
> It is 4 1/2 months long, sometimes longer when you add Christmas/Summer leave in. Now when you are first told that, you think, wow, that sucks, but hey, I'm learning to be a section commander in a technical combat arms trade. Fair one.
> 
> Until you start the course, and realise that the majority of it is paperwork. How, I ask, does the PO 'LEAD INFANTRY OPERATIONS' translate into me doing a site sketch for the PC? As a sect commander, I would expect them to at least organise a troop level attack, with us occupying various command positions. I realise resources are short across the army, but what's a few hundred rounds of 5.56 blank?? Instead we draw a little picture, where the majority of your marks come from the actual format of your sketch (north arrow, legend, centre grid), not the tactical set up itself. And I can pretty much guess what an infantry WO would say if I, tasked to site my sections trenches, ran back up to him with a pretty little picture, and no trenches dug. Basically, the course itself is more about staffing then actual leadership, and the majority of canidates actually wonder 'what the * does this have to do with leading a section in battle???? and why I am here for so long?' We accept that  engr recce does require alot of paperwork and repetition, however, leading an engr section is not all about recce, or how well you write a proforma, or how well you can line up all your little paragraphs in a handwritten report.
> 
> Reference Mr. O'leary's comment, the problem with the 'nature of the beast' is not so much that my life is being wasted (far from it), but more so that some higher-ups in the CofC think it is acceptable to screw the troops around, for no reason, and think that excuse will cut it. In spite of the recession, we are still going to compete with the civilian labour market, both in terms of recruiting AND retention, and gone are the days when all us little soldiers think the army sure does beat digging ditches, and we are happy for what we have. I could walk out of the army today into a well paid surveying job, but the fact, as mentioned earlier, is that I do enjoy pure soldiering, working hard in the field on operations, and if I'm not going to be doing that every day, well fine, but give me a good reason why I am sat around in a cage until 4 for no apparent reason, other than 'something might come up'.
> 
> Yes, dog, myself and others, may be b*tching. But this is the internet, it is a forum for discussion, and we are suggesting some solutions, and trying to help identify problems. But as with anything, we do not have all the answers. Whilst I agree with Mr O'leary that there may not be the big exodus of troops , if things remain unchanged, that trickle will keep going, and probably get slightly bigger, and you will lose the good guys who won't put up with the crap, and be left with more boneheads than switched on troops. DISCLAIMER: That does not mean everyone with +10 years in the forces is a bonehead. It's just we've all seen the 'promoted through attrition' cases.
> 
> Oh and I'm getting my high school via correspondence in all this spare time I get. Without going through the PSO's office, filling out paperwork again. *shock/horror*.



TTG all I can say is welcome to the Center of Excellence for Military Engineering  ;D You think yours is bad, I'm on the Reserve Course and things are even more fu*ked up, and my course is 2 months long.


----------



## armyvern

Dog said:
			
		

> Whose talking about the paycheque? I'm not debating that, but you're saying being a combat engineer is the same as being a supply tech is ignorant.
> 
> This isn't a question of wanting work, so much as it's wanting to do something, anything related to my trade. This goes for everyone in every trade.
> I didn't sign up to be a supply tech, so no, I'm not going to go count triwalls of stuff at the local Clothing Stores. Just like I don't ask supply techs to come dig the footings of an NSB in the pouring rain. It's not what you signed up to do, so I wouldn't expect you to want/know/care/be qualified to do it.
> 
> As for being sick of hearing "it's the nature of the beast" I hear it everyday... as I'm sitting around doing nothing on days when I could be going home early, if they aren't going to train me. I'll be earning that time back when I'm rolling around in afghanistan waiting to be blown up.
> 
> If it's truly "the nature of the beast" then, getting back to the original point of the thread, the nature of the beast needs to be changed somehow... because the facts are that retention is a serious problem. Just because some of you are satisfied with the status quo, doesn't mean things are ok. They aren't, and when we no longer have a serious mission to train for, there's going to be an exodus of troops.



I didn't say being a Sup Tech was the same as being an Engineer. So please do not put words into my mouth. As for "doing our work" - THAT work that's taking so long to get done ... is work that will allow parts to get placed on those vehicles, that will allow stuff to get out to your Units - that when it eventually gets done by us mere overworked Suppies will alow YOU to do trade related tasks and training. I've got 49 subordinates - 49. Of which 13 were tasked running ranges two weeks ago, 2 are deployed, and 3 are working up to deploy, and two are still on post-deployment leave. Why don't YOU run the ranges tasking (apples - Army "common tasks") so that my 13 suppies can be at work getting that stuff out to you quicker (oranges - Army "trades tasks")? Get it now? 

I've got plenty of non-Supply work you could do to assist us getting your shit out to your Unit, so that YOU can carry on.  It's not ALL apples & oranges. You see, you help us get the apples looked after and we'll look after our own oranges. I've got work you could do, apparently - you've got the same old tired arguement as for why you don't want it. If you think this is something new to this generation of soldiers - guess again. The CF grows in times of war. When troops are in Canada ... they are not in that war - thus the extras that were recruited in for that purpose have much less to do precisely because there's an excess of them. It happened after both Great wars, followed up by mass exodus or force reductions. This generation is not special.

As for me using cop-outs or enjoying the staus quo. You obviously don't know me very well at all. 

My first kick at "the status quo" of which you speak occured in Field Supply, Petawawa, circa 1990. I was a young (and back then HOT - I'd like to point out  >) one-hooked Pte. Friday afternoon - as usual - all the Cpls and above fucked off leaving all of us Ptes to 'man the fort' until quitting time. Those were also days when we had shitloads of Ptes hanging around with nothing to do (you know, before those mid-90s rounds of force reductions that WILL come again after 2011 [they only need to keep troops around for TFA & Podium now]). Vern decides that this is el toro poo poo; she tells all the other Ptes to fuck off and go home too - that she will stay and 'man the fort'. The Pl WO J.J. happens in (after leaving the Mess) to pick something up that he left at work.

He finds me. "Where the &^% is everyone?" he screams. He knew the Cpls and above were gone .... they left at the same time he did. "I sent them home she says". "You can't do that" he says. "Well, I did do that" says I.

Monday morning, after PT, into his office goes Vern and the MCpl so that Vern can bear the wrath of both. After the usual yeling and screaming I say, "Well, if you all don't need to be here any Friday afternoon, neither does every one of the Ptes, taking turns is much fairer." "You have no authority to do that!!" "Well, I says, where were you guys? On military related work somewhere else?" "Don't you question us as to our whereabouts - they are none of your business". It cost me 3 extras.

Next Friday afternoon comes around and guess what? Same thing occurs (that was the staus quo). Again, I send all the Ptes home again except me (hell, I was pulling the extras anyway!). That cost me 5 more extras (if I were them, I'd have charged me). The next week - another of the Ptes said, "I'll stay this week - you all go".

After that, they got the picture that I just didn't care - that if they wanted morale to be good they had better fix the situation because we'd just keep doing what we did with me remarking "you'll have a fun time charging us for going home early when you were all already at home early - that'll look real good." The rules changed ... and we took turns staying - even the Cpls and MCpls. 

I've been kicking "the status quo"in the teeth ever since.

I may have some of my quotes wrong, but you get the picture. I had spit on me they were yelling so badly. BinRat55 may be able to add more - he was one of those Ptes that I kept sending home and who gathered outside the office that first Monday to overhear the yelling that was occuring between me/MCpl/WO.

A girl or supervisor of the status quo I certainly am not, nor have I ever been. 

Your remark that "I'm not doing your job" is actually the "status quo". The us vs them attitude that is prevelant. There are plenty of things that you could do to help us that are not supply (ie you don't have to be a Suptech to do them), things that would get your stuff to your Unit faster so that your Unit can carry on with it's trg. What would actually be "NOT stauts quo", would be you actually helping us get them to you faster. And, it seems to me - that that would solve both problems ... you'd not be sitting around bored until 1600hrs (and drawing a huge paycheck for doing that) and my troops might get home on time. And THAT folks is a suggested solution to the problem.

Who'd have thunk it? Actual teamwork in this huge outfit that's supposed to be about teamwork actually solving problems. Wow.

As for your Afghanistan comment. Hmmmm, why do you think us purple trades in Pri 6 Units are at 70% manning levels continually? Precisely because we've got Suppies on every roto to TFA (and on every other tour that the CF is currently involved in too --- there's LOTS of them too --- just look it up, vice just when our Unit deploys. Only the Army (or the CF) hasn't recruited any increased numbers for us like it has your zero trades - that means we do without at home. That maes us busy trying to do Afghanistan, all those other Ops, and our domestic jobs with the same manning levels from the year 2000. We haven't grown a single Sup tech since then and we've got a war to support too. In actuality - all us purple trades are red and understrength of even those pre-war Y2K levels. We've still got the same amount of work (and a whole bunch more) work to do though. 

Guess what!!?? Retention is a serious problem for us too!! Surprise!! Being OVERWORKED and underappreciated is the main reason that I hear around here for those of us purple folks pulling the pin. And that will just serve to make the situation even worse. 

Status quo my ass.


----------



## X-mo-1979

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Being OVERWORKED and underappreciated is the main reason that I hear around here for those of us purple folks pulling the pin. And that will just serve to make the situation even worse.
> Status quo my ***.



I like my rain jacket.


----------



## armyvern

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I like my rain jacket.



I had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Jammer

...not even the MOBs???


----------



## armyvern

Jammer said:
			
		

> ...not even the MOBs???



Certainly NOT the MOBs!! They SUCK.   >


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The problem with course evolution is that everyone has a different idea of what needs to be changed, added, taken away, get more emphasis, get less emphasis, whether it should be longer, shorter, modular, trained at CoE or at unit etc., etc., etc.  And no "solution" developed by any CTP writing board has been satisfactory because there are always critics.  What you end up with is the best compromise at the time, and that's all it can ever be.



I must, disappointingly, agree. Disappointing in that I cannot see the perfect solution (if in fact there is one). That is one thing one of the instructors said in fact, that if we see so many problems with the CTP, ask to partake in the CTP writing board. I think I will bang the memo in on that one. To what end, who knows.




			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And if your unit decides that releasing the troops at 1400 will be the norm, will you expect that every section commander and above will stay in the office to work on necessary admin so the troops memos can be answered?  If it becomes the norm, what happens when the order gets changed to "everyone wait, we've been told something might happen" and it doesn't?  Like I said, there are no simple solutions, what you think will work for you personally may end up creating serious grief for someone else - but I guess that doesn't matter if it's just some asshole up the chain, right?



I will not presume to speak for everyone, but if I, as section commander, have work to do that does not involve the troops, then yes, I will let them go, and stay to do the admin. RMA Sandhurst has a great motto 'Serve to lead'. 



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Go ask to work in your unit Ops cell for a few weeks to see how many of these events are outside the unit's control.
> 
> Unfortunately those last minute tasks when you do need to nail down some troops for that day or the next do happen.  Often they happen because a unit "no filled" tasks to reduce the tasking load on the unit, and, at the last minute, it came back as an ordered requirement.  Try being the receiving unit of one of those tasks for a variety of specific trade/rank requirements having to call units directly two days before the start date because Area after Area "no filled" the tasks within hours of them being assigned.



Agreed, I have been on the receiving end of one of those tasks. The problem was, I turned up on that task and spent a week and a half doing nothing, apart from taking the course for PT, because there simply wasn't anything for me to do. The problem perhaps doesn't lie with the unit ops cell so much, as the CFTPO system itself, or rather those who generate the CFTPO requests. Luckily the 6A's came up, relieving me of a few months trying to find things to do. That being said, I do not know enough about the CFTPO system to comment authoritatively, and so will gladly listen to those who know it better than I.

In regards to Armyvern's comments, whilst we all like to b*tch about sup techs and the 'stores are for storing, not issuing!!!' mentality, I'm sure we all know sup techs who DO go above and beyond, and sort out the troops. If for example, vern's suggestion to come work in the warehouse helping them out came to myself back in pet, I am _reasonably_ confident that if I explained to the troops why we are helping them out (ie to get parts/stores down to us in the field units), they would gladly help out, rather than sit around the cage, watching paint fade. I am saying this from the comfort of my 6a's course, perhaps Dog could refute or back up that statement? However, give them the option of stacking pallets/sorting kit or a breaching range, well we can all guess the answer to that one.

I guess we are all feeling the crunch of both post-FRP manning, and that wonderful 'transformation' idea, transformation we have yet to see at the coal face. The best we can hope for is that priorities are realigned to reflect the realities both of the operations we will undertake, and soldiers, sailors and airmen who will undertake those operations, and that the culture of the army transforms along with all the nice new shiny equipment and nice new shiny sprogs coming through the system.


----------



## c_canuk

being overworked is just as bad as doing menial make work projects.

A lot of it is caused by red tape overhead... as Vern pointed out, the Supply system is almost broke... I don't know about other places but Sigs here is almost as bad... to illustrate, when I started working in PC Maint in 06 there was a shop with 19 positions all filled, when I was posted for my CT I there were 7 left including myself. 

Monitor Mass is supposed to help remove a lot of the Red tape by being a one stop shop for all pers data, and automating all the fiddle farting parade states and tasking management, but if your unit won't use it or doesn't trust it enough to let go of the old paper systems, it's just duplication of work.

if you don't have enough to do, and/or you keep getting your time filled with busy work, it's most likely that your superiors are too busy dealing with all the red tape. Try taking the initiative and when you meet your Supervisor in the morning perhaps suggest another task and volunteer to do the coord... ie ask if you can book the soccer field etc 

look for things that need doing, ie you know of a store room that needs reorg, if the vehicles haven't moved in a week, propose a road move exercise to the timmy’s parking lot the next town over and back. Have you done a comms check with all the kit lately?

Have the weapons been cleaned lately, nothing better than having the guys sitting around some tables shooting the S**t while cleaning C7s, possibly with some Pizza and pop off to the side. Maybe run through IAs and stoppages on the LMG/GPMG... or have who can disassemble reassemble the fastest blindfolded contests.

Speaking from my limited experience... when I'm overloaded from red tape from above, I'm relieved when my people take the initiative and find things to occupy themselves with and booking the resources themselves... it shows leadership growth, and it takes load off me so I can spend more time on other issues.

If I don't have anything pressing, as long as they tell me where they are going to be, and how I can reach them, I don't care what they are doing as long as there is trg value or it's something that needs doing, and is legal and low profile.


----------



## dimsum

...I have to remember this thread when people start getting posted to the proposed new UAV squadron, wherever it may be.   :


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ...I have to remember this thread when people start getting posted to the proposed new UAV squadron, wherever it may be.   :



Tooo late.  They started posting people there in 2007.    ;D


----------



## dimsum

???  Crystal Palace?


----------



## aesop081

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ???  Crystal Palace?



George was making, i beleive, a remark that is funny and that refers to the CHUD in Kandahar.


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ???  Crystal Palace?



???  Crystal Palace?

Where did this come from?  That was in Visoko.

If you are replying to my previous answer in Reply # 66; then I was thinking of someplace in The Valley.

Meanwhile I am just having a gander at the large ammo compound at 24°55'35.05"N   66°54'20.36"E


----------



## birdgunnnersrule

Wow.  This is a really good thread.  I understand where the initial post is coming from regarding a spouse with a good income.  I am facing the same issue presently, but will not state that I will get out if you post me.  Instead people have three options: Put up and move (three years in a row was not fun, but I managed to get three years at the same place this time), do the IR thing (did not enjoy it, but could be good for others), or get the H*** out.   Its a personal decision and as my boss states at every PDR interview, you are your own career manager.  Stagnation is not good for any organization and change brings experience.


----------



## armyvern

AirForce said:
			
		

> *I have now been overseas 3 times this year alone *  and have a very lengthy end-year “brag sheet” on my activities, as I have been very meticulous in documenting everything I have done.
> 
> Some issues that lead me to believe there may be some upcoming discrepancies in my PER are as follows;
> 
> - I have worked all year in my current position and I did not receive my Part 1 (job description) until November.


Technically, if you were attached out to serve overseas 3 times (as you said above), then you've only actually been serving "in your current position" since you last started work there. Was that in November/late October? Or how long until you began working there again last time until you recd that Part 1?



> - I did not receive a single part 5 (performance review) until yesterday (January 19th)



Depends upon when you "last" started working there again as per my query in last part. If you just started working there again in Oct/Nov ... getting a feedback session part 5 after 3 months (ie in January) is perfectly acceptable. CFPAS calls for two feedback sessions per year - did you not receive any feedback sessions (ie write-ups) on the work you did during your three deployments this year? If you did, they count and if you have at least two of those ... there is really no "requirement" for any part 5 at all technically.



> - I am receiving my PER by January 22nd as I will be deploying to Afghanistan (3 months earlier than my CFTPO Date)
> 
> - I had to actually remind my Supervisor (last week) that a PER will need to be written since I will be in theatre during the normal PER season



When did this change of deployment date occur? Recently? Additionally, discussion as to whether or not a PER is required before a deployment always occurs and direction usually comes down from higher every roto on how to proceed ... some members receive "Theatre-PERs" (depending upon the Unit to whom they belong and with whom the will deploy). A theatre PER will negate the requirement for an "annual PER". More info is required to address this bit.

What were the circumstances of your "3" deployments this year? When in the year did they occur? Did you receive write-ups on your performance for those ... did you receive a theatre PER for any etc etc ...


----------



## captloadie

WRT to the theatre PER questions, I believe the current policy is only the odd's and sod's who are attached to a formed deploying unit receive theatre PERs. I thought a change occurred last year (?)  because most Army and Navy units deploy as a whole, it dind't make sense writing a theatre PER and a "Canadian" PER for the same reporting year. However, as you have indicated, for short stints like TAV's or even the old 56 day rotations, PERs were not written. 
If you did get a theatre PER, both it, and the home unit PER would be submitted and considered at the board. 
At the end of the day, even if you have to grieve the PER, you can only grieve how it describes your performance and potential, not where you ranked.


----------



## AirForce

Captloadie;

Thank you for your reply;

WRT the information on Theatre PER's, if they both go to the board and one asses you higher than the other, how does that pan out? Or are both just read by the board and all the information is compiled together or does the higher / lower one carry more weight?

I wont be grieving the Ranking I will recieve from the PER, only the potential / performance it describes, but thanks for the heads up.

I'm glad these forums are here - they are great for asking those admin questions that you don't really want to claim ignorance for!!


----------



## armyvern

AirForce said:
			
		

> I wont be grieving the Ranking I will recieve from the PER, only the potential / performance it describes, but thanks for the heads up.



Yet, you don't even know what the performance/potential reads yet ...  ???


----------



## AirForce

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yet, you don't even know what the performance/potential reads yet ...  ???



I am only preparing for what could be the "worst case scenario" and learning what my options are. For all I know I could recieve a positive out-come, but I'd rather make sure I have all my bases covered just in-case.


----------



## meni0n

I can`t any info on this situation so I`ll ask here. Is it mandatory that your immediate supervisor writes your PER? I work in the same area as my Mcpl but we came under OPS a couple of months ago and a new Sgt, who is based on a different base. I`ve just been told that the Sgt will be writing everyones PERs, with the help of the Mcpls notes ( mostly just the PDRs ). I am a bit uneasy with this as the Sgt is based at another base and came over to visit the section only once. On top of that I just had to resign my PDR as the Sgt judged that not having any negative points is not good and as the Mcpl put it "Have to put something there", hence making me even more suspicious on getting a fair assessment.


----------



## McG

If your PDR is all positive without constructive criticism, it is doing you a disservice as it is not providing guidance for you to better yourself.  The Sgt is correct, unless you are perfect the PDR should reflect good and bad.


----------



## PMedMoe

Not to mention, the area for improvement doesn't necessarily have to be "negative" as a former supervisor of mine told me.  On one of my PDRs he put "MCpl XXXX should be sent on a French course to enable her to serve clients in either official language."


----------



## meni0n

I actually had something similar there in the first copy and then it got changed to something completely different, just to fill the space as the Mcpl put it.


----------



## AirForce

An unrelated questions;

I overheard conversation stating that only 10% of the mbrs. within the TF that I am employed within will recieve immediate PER's, I found this interesting and attempted to locate some type of doctrine within CFPAS that allows for such limits, which I was unable to find.

I've heard of this before but was under the assumption that the new CFPAS process replaced that form of rating. Is there differences in theatre WRT the CFPAS rating process? I was under the belief that the current form was universal


----------



## armyvern

AirForce said:
			
		

> An unrelated questions;
> 
> I overheard conversation stating that only 10% of the mbrs. within the TF that I am employed within will recieve immediate PER's, I found this interesting and attempted to locate some type of doctrine within CFPAS that allows for such limits, which I was unable to find.
> 
> I've heard of this before but was under the assumption that the new CFPAS process replaced that form of rating. Is there differences in theatre WRT the CFPAS rating process? I was under the belief that the current form was universal



Are you sure that you 'overheard' the conversation correctly? 

"Only the top 10 persons can be scored" (ie "ranked". 1 of # through 10 of #, for example) is normal; Or the top 50% of each rank should there be less than ten pers at that trade/rank level being written.

I've never been posted to a Unit where "limits" were placed on actual ratings being assessed for individuals though.

I've served with Units where the first 13 were assessed as "immediate" (because 13 earned that rating), but only the top 10 of them could be numbered 1 of X etc. I've also served at Units where the top ten recd their 1 of X through 10 of X ratings ... but only 1 through 3 actually recd "Immediates" because that's all that earned them.


----------



## AirForce

Well regardless of the conversation it seems you answered my question, units can have differing standards as to how they gauge thier assessments. Tnks!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It's all moot. This years should be handed in by now. Signed, sealed and delivered. 

Wait til next year now. :


----------



## AirForce

hehe, well not in my case, the original still hasn't left the filing cabinet at work - I'm faxing a copy to the CoC tommorrow to be used IAW mediation (where they hopefully decide to create a replacement PER) since they don't have any copies... 

Which brings me back to my original question - now that 60 days has passed since the PER was signed, is it now required to staff my memorandum of greivance IAW Sec. 119, or does mediation put that limit on hold? (I've not been able to find anything stating that)


----------



## armyvern

AirForce said:
			
		

> hehe, well not in my case, the original still hasn't left the filing cabinet at work - I'm faxing a copy to the CoC tommorrow to be used IAW mediation (where they hopefully decide to create a replacement PER) since they don't have any copies...
> 
> Which brings me back to my original question - now that 60 days has passed since the PER was signed, is it now required to staff my memorandum of greivance IAW Sec. 119, or does mediation put that limit on hold? (I've not been able to find anything stating that)



Regarding your earlier bit about "differing standards". That's not what I posted.

What I said was (to paraphrase): Everyone, at both Units I spoke of, who deserved an "immediate dot" got their immediate dot. But, no matter how many of those "deserved" that dot, only the top ten people could be given a numbered rank 1 of 52, 10 of 52 etc. IAW CFPAS Regulations. The pers who ended up being 11 of 52 ... got an NA of NA in that section of the PER. 

If you open up CFPAS on your computer - it clearly lays out that "only the top ten performers" can be 'scored' OR the top 50% of performers if less than 10 pers in that rank and trade at Unit. An "outstanding Cpl" will know where to find that on their baseline  because they will have "always particpates actively in the PDR/PER process" (IE: electronically fills in their 'I love me sheet' on the actual CFPAS sheet and hands in to their supervisor as CFPAS directs).

For example, if there's only 10 Sup tech Cpls at Location X, then only 5 will be ranked. IE 1 of 10, 2 of 10, 3 of 10, 4 of 10, 5 of 10. The rest will get PERs that say "NA of NA". BUT ... there may very well be 9 or 10 or even just 1 who receive "Immediate" promotion recommendations ... but I HIGHLY doubt it. <--- although, many years of experience have taught me that ALL of them believe they should receive that "Immediate" recommendation.

While you are in CFPAS, I highly recommend that you also print off the word picture booklet for your rank. Ensure that you carefully read the wording for the "score" description in each and every factor assessed for your rank. ou'll note that "Mastered" uses words like "always", "unhesitantingly", "extreme", "absolutely", "without fail" to describe what someone needs to do performance wise to receive that particular "score" in whatever assessment factor.

If you believe that you have "met that description" in the applicable assement factor, then gather up your proof for each one you believe you were unjustly scored in ... and send in IAW Greivance process. That's fair and that's why the process exists. Just remember though, if a "mastered" for "reliability" says that "always shows up for work on time and fully prepared" and you think you earned that but didn't get it ... that if your supervisor has a single incident of you being late for a briefing, work, task, appointment, meeting etc throughout the year ... that you didn't "meet" the "always" definition required IAW the CFPAS word picture standards. (Been there, actually dealt with this one).

Good luck to you however it turns out.


----------



## BernDawg

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's all moot. This years should be handed in by now. Signed, sealed and delivered.
> 
> Wait til next year now. :



That's funny.  I haven't even seen mine yet.  You're not on an Airforce base are you?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

BernDawg said:
			
		

> That's funny.  I haven't even seen mine yet.  You're not on an Airforce base are you?



And neither have my troops.... sent them into the TC early april and they have yet to re-emerge from that office.......


----------



## PMedMoe

Yep, ours went to the Adj a few weeks ago, as well.


----------



## bigabe

This is definitely a post I have to be careful of what I say.    I'm not exactly concealing my identity to those who know me.  

Questions / Food for thought.  Although the PER system isn't perfect, its actually pretty good.  As people have said, you're not going to make everyone happy in an organization as large as the CF by any stretch.  I also don't believe any promotion-into-position system could really work unless the whole remar and manning pool numbers were a lot more adhered to.  Seriously, does anyone (especially in tech trades) actually work in the position their job code describes?  Few people I know do.  So, on paper, people could fight for my position, then get into my shop and learn their 'Real position'. 

Secondly, I read that a LOT of people gripe about honesty, or even universal honesty as far as the scoring process goes - but I believe there are a lot more 'big machine' issues that come out long before honesty.  For starters, its abstract, so each individual PER is unique by universal law (butterfly effect) -- those who wrote mine were taught how to by different people than those who write yours.  In passing conversations about PLQs, there is a HUGE variance on emphasis and even skills taught about PER writing.  That, and emphatically, damn near nobody reads anymore.  Consequently, writing skills are becoming atrocious as a whole.  Before someone gets defensive, look in your house and tell me if your TV is bigger than your bookshelf.  (52" doesn't hold many books anyways)  Then there's also the things mentioned under the guise of honesty in this forum, which are just human nature.  Like being scored based on non-confrontational supervisors, or mea culpa, etc.

Bringing me (windedly) to my example scenarios.  

Cpl Flange Bulatron is an LCIS tech in a combat arms unit (No, not necessarily personal experience  ).  He frequently disappears into the coffee area / smoke pit with combat arms members who came into the shop for various bits of work.  It is rarely the same person coming each time, often a different person every time.  His peers however, very rarely have something negative to say about him personally or professionally. 

Supervisor A - an "At arms length" Sgt who doesn't socialize with the troops very often (for whatever reason), likes to keep discipline and expects his junior NCOs to take charge of their own careers by simply grinding out the boring tasks until it is your time to be promoted.  Thats how he did it, and his Sgt, and his Sgt and it works.    
Attitude: Work at work.  Play at home.  
Peer review: Fantastic Sergeant.

Supervisor B - "One of the boys" Sgt who is always just as keen to do 'PT at your own *place*', go for a beer, or try to keep his troops 'tasked' during ridiculous parades.
Attitude: We're all just dudes at work.  Ptes and BGens alike.
Peer review: Fantastic Sergeant.

Super A is going to write Bulatron up as a slacker.  He's always in the smoke pit, rarely grinding out the 522's on the 'Broken' shelf.  Doesn't go above and beyond.  When he's not there, he's slacking away in some corner hiding, while someone else does the work.  His brag sheet isn't even that spectacular.  

Super B is going to write him as a star.  He's going to take the time to notice that Cpl Bulatron is actually helping the members learn the equipment they're using, how not to break it again, and how to avoid the fecal floods from their own CoC with the maintenance of the eqpt.  Also, he'd notice that our good Cpl here is generally out helping the boys on weekends fix cars, pick people up from the airport etc - none of which is brag sheet material, but still good stuff.  When work is slow, he's trying to make it through the ungodly boring demon that is OPME reading materials. 

Now, is it a lack of honesty on anyones part?  Not at all.  Is it something wrong with the PER system?  Hardly.  Some people will relate to Sgt A, some to Sgt B, or to any other of the infinite combinations of personalities.  

Are there flaws?  Absolutely.  Is there any black & white changes that can be made?  Not in my opinion.  I think the closest to dealing with these differences is the potential column.  Those are a long way away from a "standard", though.  A psychology student would say your marks in the potential column are a projection of the markers ability to see himself, or the traits he admires in you.  (Not necessarily traits that motivate or "lead" everyone.)

Like I said, merely food for thought.  I'm clicking Post before I think of something else to write.

Lastly, I'm well aware of the majority of literary rules I'm breaking (_Edited after reading post, got about 3 lines in and started noticing a lot of sentences beginning with conjuctions_).  Feel free to point them out anyways.


----------



## dangerboy

Just to point out even though every one like you said has a different writing style here is one point to consider.  When you turn in a PER it goes through several reviews to make sure that the writing style is consistent with a unit.   I will use myself and the PERs I wrote as an example.  Before we even wrote them the Adj had a professional development afternoon in which he discussed writing PERs and all Sgts and above unless teaching were there.  Once I wrote my PERs I turned them into my Coy 2IC who reviewed the whole companies and made sure the writing was proper and the narratives matched the bubbles.  Once the 2IC was satisfied with them they were sent to the OC to see if he liked them and some were sent back for corrections. After my Coy was happy with them they went to the Adj who checked the whole units PERs and he sent some back for corrections then finally they went to the chief clerk for his checking for any administrative errors.

So as you can see even if your supervisors have different writing styles they will all balance out and your narrative is reflective of how you stood in the merit boards.


----------



## MP 811

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> On two separate occasions I have written PER's for people that work directly for me and are not seen in any way by the higher ranks in their daily duties. I wrote the PER's with plenty of substantiated evidence and when the PER's were completed, I was told "that's very nice but we had an ogroup and decided this would be the scores for those people."
> 
> So in effect you have an ogroup consisting of senior NCO's and officers that never spend more than 5 minutes a day (during a smoke break) with these soldiers and they determine what the soldiers performance for the year has been. Makes me sick.



I quoted SHELLDRAKE!!'s post from many moons ago to comment on this whole issue.  My opinion is that the PER system should work just fine, provided that the people writing them are fair, and unbiased.  Case in point.  Immediate supervisors here used to sit in the O Group with the senior ranks and everyone would bash on about who and why they felt their guy or gal should be ranked.  Very fair in my opinion as everyone gets a say.  This year, however, all immediate supervisors were left out and the decision was left to a couple senior ranks.  One guy who gets ranked, has one of the said senior supervisor's over to his house on an almost daily basis for beer, hot tubbing and bbqs and is generally quite chummy.  The other guy is the golden boy of another senior member and can do no wrong.

So unfortunately, you have loads of guys and gals bitching about how unfair this was, nepotism, boot licking and other comments.  Getting a ready on your second PER since joining the Forces is sending the wrong message IMHO.  Sure, you may be a superstar in everything you do, but whatever happened to doing SOME time in rank?  Cant help feel bad for others who have their boots in the sand day in and day out busting their asses, only to hear of this scenario.  Im a pretty laid back guy and dont let alot of crap bug me, but even I cant help but feel like we all got the shaft.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I despise the PER system.  One is either over rated or under rated never accurately rated.  How many times does one have to see the bell curve used to pick the pecking order.  Guys who should have had some KUDOS kicked in the teeth because they can't give that many outstanding write ups.  Or slugs who rose up because they are the commsumate bag lickers of the unit.  I see each year amongst my peers the "what did you get?  who is where on the merit list?" and seeing the infighting and morale dumping that follows.  I am sick of it.

Yes, I know I am bitching and honestly cannot offer a total better solution to this yearly disaster.


----------



## elecgitarguy

I have to write my first pdrs also...does anyone have a template or example of one that i might use?

I'm on a tasking away from my home unit so i dont have access to my own to kinda get a feel for one.


----------



## Good2Golf

elecgitarguy said:
			
		

> I have to write my first pdrs also...does anyone have a template or example of one that i might use?
> 
> I'm on a tasking away from my home unit so i dont have access to my own to kinda get a feel for one.



EGG, there should be some examples of representative text within the CFPAS PDR/PER software help function.  There is also the wordbook for PER rating various rank brackets, and you can use similar wording in the PDR.  Also, you'll want a copy of the TORs for the specific (or generic) position that the member is in.

The overall flavour of the PDR should be setting expectations of conduct/performance, as well as addressing activities that will also help the member improve their competencies within their specific career stream.  Subsequent PDRs prior to the PER can refine and help shape the progress of your subordinate.  There should be nothing substantively shocking show up on a PER that wasn't at least mentioned as needing additional effort in a preceding PDR.

Regards
G2G


----------



## anonymousjrofficer

I've been appointed to fill the position of Coy 2IC at my small reserve unit. Can anyone slide me a link to something describing my duties and responsibilities, as I was never issued a PDR part one for this position and do not expect one anytime soon.

thanks


----------



## PuckChaser

This pub may help: armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/pubs/B-GL-331-002-FP-001.pdf


----------



## 2 Cdo

Maybe try asking your OC first rather than some random posters on an internet site.


----------



## dangerboy

I think it has to do more with the fact that some people don't want to ask their chain of command for advice or information.  While this site is very useful for getting information it should not replace your chain of command.  This is just my belief but if you are unsure about something about how to do you job or what is expect of you ask your supervisor.  That is their job to mentor you.


----------



## 392

dangerboy said:
			
		

> ....This is just my belief but if you are unsure about something about how to do you job or what is expect of you ask your supervisor.  That is their job to mentor you.



It's not just your belief. It's quite amazing how often I hear people saying that their subordinates are all f**ked up, but yet make no attempt to mentor them and teach them their job. It's as if they forgot the whole idea quite clearly explained to them in whatever leadership course they took, that part of a leader's job is to train their subordinates to replace them - you know, the whole "know what the job of the one up is" theory.


----------



## The_Falcon

Mel Gibson as Lt-Col Hal Moore: You* learn the job of the man above you*, and you* teach your job to the man below you in rank*. That goes for every man in this outfit. Understood?


----------



## Captsapper@gmail.com

As 2IC, you must be prepared to assume the duties of the OC at any time.  In the field the 2IC will usually operate the unit's main CP and/or supervise overall logistical support.  In garrison the role of the 2IC is one of training and administration, you are responsible for booking courses, training areas, resources, ranges etc. Also ensuring all pay and admin issues are taken care of in a timely manner, basically the OC should be able to ask you for the current administrative state of the company at any time.

Don't be afraid to ask your OC what their expectations are.  If he/she is worth their salt they will give you definite arcs of fire and help you get on your feet in your new position.  Sometimes when subordinates are quiet it is assumed that they understand what is expected.  Once you have a good feel for the job you can begin to mentor the platoon commanders.  You can act as a sounding board before they approach the OC with their idea's/plans, sometimes having the opportunity to bounce an idea off the 2IC before going to the OC can save a young platoon commander some grief.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I am pretty discouraged that a J.O. out from Basic not so long ago needs to ask.

I have been out for a while (and now happily retired) but last time I checked, it was right there, in Q.R.&O.'s vol. 1 - Administration, in the first general section (I believe para 1.03 if not mistaken) "Duties and responsibilities of an Officer".

If memory serves, other than keeping your charge in good order and discipline and obeying lawful orders of superiors, Lt-col Moore's quote covers the rest.


----------



## jewalsh

Memorandum 


5225-2 (XXX XXX XXX) 


4 May 10 


Dist List 


A RECOMMENDATION, REVIEW 

AND CHANGE TO OUR CURRENT 

CFPAS SYSTEM IN THE NAVAL RESERVES 


Ref: A. Canadian Forces College Paper by Commander Scott Hausberg - The 360 Degree Performance Evaluation Report: A Means Towards The Development and Selection of Transformational Leaders 

B. Canadian Forces College Paper by LCdr Derek Cann – Applying 360 Degree Feedback to the CF Personnel Appraisal and Development Systems 

C. Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS) 2009.0.6 last updated: 10 Jun 2009 

D. Department of National Defence. Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Doctrine. (Ottawa: DND Canada, 2005), 

E. Naval Reserves Selection Boards Guidance Manual 

F. Source: 2002 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada 


INTRODUCTION 


1. PDR and PER honesty and evaluations are completely non-standard across the CF. The lack of a well-known and transparent strategic leader evaluation system can promote careerism, arbitrary selection, disappointment and dissatisfaction. Although the CFPAS system is a very good assessment tool, it has been incorrectly used over the years. This has resulted in wild inflation of most PERs and makes supervisors afraid of telling our future leaders what their areas for development are for fear of harassment complaints. 


2. The CF’s promotion policy, like that found in most western militaries, is proudly based on merit instead of seniority. The CFPAS system when implemented properly by all parties (e.g. NRDs, MCDVs etc.) is a fair and well thought out system. However it depends upon fair and accurate individual reporting. Unfortunately this is not the case as PERs suffer from score inflation which tends to increase with higher ranks. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to identify the strongest candidates based upon reported performance and potential. Truly average members can thank PER inflation for scores that are roughly equal to those of their outstanding colleagues and peers for their promotions. Therefore, the promotion board ranking is skewed towards which supervisors have the best writing skills and not actually on merit. 


3. Those that simply cruise their way safely through their careers can rise to the highest ranks. Effectively, they “make up in tact and conformity what they lack in 

enterprise and initiative.” While PER inflation tends to lump the good in with the better and the best, it provides no protection for mistakes. In such a competitive environment even an isolated incident or minor failure can result in a career killing average (or worse) PER. This leads to a zero-defects mentality, which in turn discourages initiative and trains people to not become transformational leaders. Quality of life Feedback Surveys have identified that improvements are needed in the PER and promotion systems. 


AUTHORS OBSERVATIONS OF CFPAS IN NAVRES 


4. Since I do not have access to any statistics but my own, I will be referencing my PERs in the examples provided. I have provided my last three merit board standings and PER scores for the previous 5 years. These stats helped me reached assumed conclusions of the Naval Reserve CFPAS system. 


Figure 1 - PER statistics 


Year # of promotions for NCIOP MS-PO2 Merit List Standings PER scores from previous year (Potential in Order PF 1-6) 

2006 Not Applicable Promoted to MS 8M 7ES 1 S, O O AA O AA O (LS PER) 

2007 Unknown to author Not Ranked 10 ES 6 S, N AA N AA N O 

2008 15 (with a quality line) 22/47 2M 11ES 3S AA O AA O AA AA 

2009 10 25/46 4M 9ES 3S, AA AA AA AA O O 

2010 4 20/44 4M 8ES 4S, AA AA AA O O O (First PER received in a new unit) 


5. By looking at these stats, almost half of the people in my trade and rank level are receiving immediate promotion recommendations. My marks indicate that I am well above average in performance and potential yet when it comes down to the merit board I am only average despite me having 3 PERs in a row bordering on immediate promotion recommendation. So if an average Master Seaman has to get top student on their QL3 course and has to be a senior NCIOP C-OJT instructor with 50 subordinates (by the way I got promoted 4 months before to Master Seaman) to become “average,” then imagine what those people above me in the merit board standings are doing. This includes my last PER from a new unit PSS. The ranking received proves that the merit boards are not looking at the box “1st PER by this unit” when determining scores. So in essence, my last PER should have been treated as an immediate especially since both of my assessors only saw and observed me for 3 months. 


6. Also by studying the unit strength reports on the NAVRES site over the past few years, I have noticed that the number of PO2s has remained the same despite there being lots of promotions in 2008 and 2009. This shows that the individuals who are getting the highest marks are those who are class A and do not have time to go away for training since they do not have their QL3 completed. Then for the next year, these so called “top performers get another great (and undeserving PER most likely) PER and sit near the top of the merit list robbing another individual an opportunity at promotion who is probably 

much more deserving, driven and motivated for promotion and looks out for the well being of the organization. 


7. Another thing that I noticed is that my merit board dropped despite improving PERs. This is the result of even more inflation being injected into PERs over the past few years or that when a Master Seaman enters the promotion zone; their last Leading Seaman PER (Mastered and/or Immediate) is not scaled down properly. I went from an immediate and mastered as a LS to a developing and exceeded standard PER which should be expected for all personnel entering a new rank. A recommendation that I would make is that a Master Seaman should not be able to enter the promotion zone until they have 3 PERs in rank. It is frustrating watching people get promoted to PO2 just two years after they make MS because their LS PER plays a significant role into the promotion. As well, their assessors rate their performance at a Leading Seaman level when the individual gets promoted to MS on 1 Jan of the reporting period for their first PER in their new rank. 


8. Some interesting discussions came up with my career manager. One of the things brought up was how does one compare a class A reservist from a class C reservist? You can’t according to my career manager. There must be a better answer than this. Class A personnel are getting extra credits at merit boards for their civilian accomplishments (and of course much less Naval accomplishments for which they are not penalized for this) Meanwhile the class C person who has a hectic schedule cannot engage in the same activities in their civilian side due to inconsistent and tiring work hours thus giving them a disadvantage. This definitely proves that our current version of CFPAS is flawed. It shows that the boards are favouring the class A individual since they get to count all of their civilian qualifications as dedication to the CF while the class C member. 


9. In ref E, the merit board is supposed to evaluate as many PERs as deemed necessary to get a complete picture of the member’s performance. When I asked the career manager about how getting top student for QL3 in 2004 (1 of 8) affected my PER score, he replied “It does not count. We only look at the last 3 PERs and that’s it”. It is good to know that all of the exceptional effort and potential displayed in 2006 as senior NCIOP C-OJT instructor (with 50 subordinates) does not mean anything come the 2009-2010 reporting period and beyond. Obviously this statement is a contradiction to ref E. 


10. Mentorship is lacking in our current PDR system. I have seen many initial and mid term PDRs. Some are good, but most are not so good. I have seen very short initial PDR expectations stating that dress and deportment should be maintained to a high standard and a brief outline of the job. However, the PDR talks very little about objectives to achieve so that the subordinate will have a very good guideline to help develop themselves to prepare for the next rank. I have seen 3-4 lines on a PDR for many hard and effective workers who have been working at their job for a while which only covers a small portion of their actual performance. It frustrates me to see this since I treat PDRs almost the same as a PER. There must be a better and more defined standard for all supervisors to follow. 


11. Looking back at my career since Mar. 2006, I have received an initial PDR about 70% of the time. However, my supervisors (except one) were like “just read it and sign!” and did not provide an initial divisional interview. The alarming fact though is not receiving any mid term PDRs during most of the reporting periods contrary to The Guide to the Divisional System. I did receive PDRs from C-OJT but they were plain, bland and covered very little of what I actually did and rarely did it cover my strengths. Due to consistent poor or no divisional note taking from DIS, PSS and C-OJT, I received PERs that did not accurately reflect my performance and potential. As a result, many hours were spent in PER redresses within my units. Out of the 9 supervisors that I have had since 2006, only one supervisor applied (an air force member) the CFPAS correctly and gave honest evaluations and div interviews about my strengths and few weaknesses. I have never missed any deadlines, always gave clear and detailed initial div interviews outlining my expectation while referring to the CFPAS word picture book and always gave detailed midterm PDR and PER briefs. 


CLASSES OF RESERVISTS 


12. There are three types of Reservists: 


a. Class A (very rarely goes away for training / work experience) These types of people can offer a different set of skills to the CF due to civilian jobs and commitments. Some of these types of people offer invaluable advice and perception to the Naval Reserve organization. However, major disgust is experienced when these type of people who hold the higher ranks come to the ships and are clueless about what to do or how to supervise the daily operations of an operational unit. Unfortunately, there are a lot of dead weight C&POs and officers at the Naval Reserve units since they are unmotivated to adapt to the ever changing Naval Reserves. 


b. Class A/B – Those who spend several months per year training and spend the rest of their time at the home NRD. They are a mixture of both Class A and Class C and are generally well rounded. However, their excessive movement makes it hard for assessors to get an accurate appreciation of their performance. 


c. Full time class B/Class C – Work 365 day a year. Can work anytime during a 24/7 period so it is a bit harder for these type of people to adopt outside activities. These types of individuals adopt a poor attitude thinking that they are the ones who deserve the promotions since they are the ones who are sailing all the time and that they are better than everyone else in the Naval Reserve. 


13. Is it really beneficial to promote the Class A reservist over the Class C reservist as it pertains to the need of the organization? This is a very interesting question. Class A personnel have a wide range of skills and generally adapt easier than their Class C counterparts. However, Class C personnel are far more knowledgeable about the 

organization and produce the majority of the results. We need to develop a system that treats both classes fairly and allows both classes to rate their personnel accurately and efficiently. 


CFPAS 


14. In CFPAS ch.5 leadership is quote as “emphasize leadership capabilities demonstrated in working with superiors, peers and subordinates.” So why is it that out of those three groups that only the supervisor gets a say in your evaluation reports? How can leadership and potential be effectively reflected on a PER if only the superior gets a say in how you have done in leadership. Leadership is best observed from subordinates. 


15. The negative aspects of using the top-down system (our current CFPAS system) are: 


a. Places individual interests (those of the boss and subordinate) over the organization. The “buddy help buddy get promoted system.” Also personal biases come into play here keeping potentially very good candidates from seeing a promotion; 


b. Presents an incomplete picture of leadership abilities and potential. There is no feedback from others, only your immediate supervisor. The immediate supervisor is too afraid to counsel personnel on areas for improvement as this is deemed as harassment; 


c. Discourages counselling, accountability and organizational skills; 


d. Compromises integrity by circumventing honest, face-to-face assessments; 


e. Deters tough, long-term organizational development or team-building processes. Personnel come to their new jobs for a year or so and try to impress their supervisor to get a great PER. Then they move on to their next posting; 


f. Fosters a zero-defect mentality. One minor mistake in a reporting period can be catastrophic to a member and career advancement. This leads to people afraid of taking risks and using their initiative which in turn churns out poor problem solving leaders; and 


g. This system strongly discounts knowledge. A knowledge test should be written each year that covers topics of in trade knowledge, administrative procedures applicable to the members rank etc. 


LEADERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY 


16. CF leadership doctrine (e.g. ref D) defines effective leadership in terms of five major dimensions: “Mission success, internal integration, member well-being and 

commitment, external adaptability, and the military ethos.” The CF defines effective leadership as, “directing, motivating, and enabling others to accomplish the mission professionally and ethically, while developing or improving capabilities that contribute to mission success.” Poor leadership and decision making ruins careers and compromises NAVRES effectiveness. 


17. The Canadian Forces wants to change our direction of leadership. The CF wants to produce transformational leaders. My current perception of our leadership in NavRes is it is very good but of a reactionary nature. People work hard to maintain the status quo, keeping their old set of rules and maintaining the “Old Boys Club.” For example, onboard the MCDVs in the early 2000’s many issues were raised wrt quality of life and OJPRs (where OJPRs were not getting signed off since the supervisor is suppressing the subordinate from advancing in the trade in fear of losing their own job to them which in turn causes people to quit). 


18. Although the concept of C-OJT and D-OJT was good, it was poorly executed and not well thought out since our leadership was not transformational enough and personnel on ships were resistive on executing the program and signing off OJPRs unless they established the same standard as their class C counterparts who have been sailing for years. The duty watch system on the MCDVs was horrendous and poorly thought-out. It was a lot of fun having two minor warships with small crews each standing up their own duty watches at a home port duty watch. Despite NAVRES and MARPAC/MARLANT knowing this, they did not implement any changes for the better for many years. I guess the mass exodus of personnel on the ships proved to be a great motivator and change was finally done in 2008 by only having one nest duty watch and now adopting the 1 man duty watch in late 2009. 

**SN removed by Loachman to protect the poster.**


----------



## jewalsh

19. Careerism motivates a subordinate to keep the boss happy which in turn gives the subordinate a great report. PERs should be used more as an assessment tool rather than just a mechanism for rewarding work which is termed well by a superior (sometimes 2 superiors). A 360 degree approach will help careerists out and they will receive honest feedback rather than exaggerated and untrue great PERs which in turn helps to better the organization. 


20. Right now, there is very little accountability in our CFPAS system. Many people poorly implement this system. I will define Accountability (from ref D) and how it can be applied to us. 


Figure 2 – Principles of Effective Accountability 


Clear roles and responsibilities The roles and responsibilities of the parties in the accountability relationship should be well understood and agreed upon. 

Clear 

performance 

expectations The objectives pursued, the accomplishments expected, and the operating constraints to be respected (including means used) should be explicit, understood, and agreed upon. 

Balanced expectations and capacities Performance expectations should be clearly linked to and balanced with each party's capacity (authorities, skills, and resources) to deliver. 

Credible 

reporting Credible and timely information should be reported to demonstrate what has been achieved, whether the means used were appropriate, and what has been learned. 

Reasonable 

review and 

adjustment Fair and informed review and feedback on performance should be carried out by the parties, achievements and difficulties recognized, appropriate corrections made, and appropriate consequences for individuals carried out. 


21. This sounds like it could be applied to the CFPAS system. It would make supervisors credible to the organizational needs rather than the needs of their subordinate buddies. Although the current CFPAS system tries to accomplish some of these, it is lacking since the supervisors are not accepting the responsibility of training effective subordinates (in fear of losing their jobs perhaps) 


PROPOSAL 


22. Everybody gives varying degrees of effort. What the figures down below show are how the effort is distributed between a careerist and a professionalist. The careerist puts all of their efforts to the supervisor. They never take risks and show little effort for their subordinates. Teamwork is not there between peers as all of the effort is pointed toward pleasing the chain of command. 


23. The professionalist spreads their efforts out to all of their subordinates. They also spread out their efforts to the other peers which promote teamwork. Notice how there is a very small vector pointed at the chain of command. This means that the professionalist is not all about amusing and pleasing the chain of command. They spread their efforts out to the subordinates. The one thing that is bad about being a professionalist is that if you have a bad supervisor, they do not notice your accomplishments hence the PER is not reflective of their performance and potential (happened to me 06/07 and 07/08). 


Figure 3 - The careerist effort plot 



Figure 4 - The professionalist effort plot 



24. At the start of every year, more detailed PDRs must be given outlining not only the goals of the supervisor, but outlining the organizational goals and how the member can be prepared to assume the next rank. I have provided an example PDR to help get us started. 


25. The method that I am proposing is the 360 degree approach to providing feedback. This includes ratings from self, peers, subordinates and supervisors. Research has found that more accurate assessments come from peers and subordinates instead of the supervisor. Many civilian companies use this system and have huge successes and increased productivity. Subordinates have a lot of trust and confidence in this evaluation system and feel more empowered and dedicated to team success. A great PER should result from hard work and looking after your peers and subordinates rather than brown nosing, blading your peers and ignoring the requests of subordinates (tact and conformity). Looking at the figure below, our current system does not allow a complete assessment as different people observe different traits. 


















Figure 5- Observations of performance (modified from ref B) 


Performance Dimensions Likely to be Observed by Different Rating Sources 

Performance 

Dimensions Subordinates Peers Supervisors Related PFs and AFs 

Administrative √ AF 14, PF 4 

Leadership √ AF 1,2,4, PF 1 

Communication √ √ AF 10-11, PF3 

Interpersonal √ √ AF 3,5 

Decision 

making √ √ AF 6,7 PF 5 

Technical √ √ AF 12 

Accountability √ AF 8,9,14,1516 PF 2 

Personal 

motivation √ √ PF 2,6 


26. The whole process of administering the process should follow these steps: 


a. The individual should know about the system, why the data is collected, 

and what the data is used for. This is an excellent opportunity to educate all subordinates on the PER system. Educated people are less likely to put in grievances over issues such as my “merit boars standing dropped” or “my marks are lower than last years”; 


b. Distribution of the questionnaires to the individuals and their superiors, peers, and subordinates at the same time. Information that is collected from peers and subordinates will be anonymous; 


c. The completed questionnaires are returned back to a central station (internal or external) to be processed (e.g. processed at MOG 4/5 or NRCC for full time reservists); and 


d. Individuals review their report with a coach to analyze the results and determine the best solutions based on what they have learned about themselves. 


27. The questionnaires will consist of each member selected as an assessor to grade the assessee on each of the 16 AF factors giving each section a score out of ten and giving reasons for why they scored the criteria the way they did. Training will be provided before hand on Performance Factors and there will be a cheat sheet present during the assessment phase to each assessor to know what is expected for each AF. A brief outline for what is expected for each AF and PF can be found on the calculator from 

ref C. After the scores are tallied there will be a check for score variance. I recommend a 5% difference between the lowest score and the highest score but may make more sense to give a tolerance of up to 10% for performance. This will be done as follows: 


a. For performance, a variance of 3 will be tolerated from all parties. This will not include to EXPRES test score out of two. Scores out of 58 should be within 5% of each other. If they are not, all assesses need to go back and re-evaluate the individual in question. This will ensure that individuals who are marking people have to be fair, reasonable and non-biased; and 


b. For potential, a variance of 2 will be tolerated from the supervisor and reviewing officer. What I would recommend is try to get at least 3 people for scoring potential if possible. This will not include the immediate promotion recommendation score out of three. Scores out of 37 should within 5% of each other. If they are not, All assesses need to go back and re-evaluate the individual in question. This will ensure that individuals who are marking people have to be fair, reasonable and non-biased. Please note that in my calculator, that I have involved a 20% of the potential score derived from the performance section to give your peers and subordinates a small say in your potential score. 


28. This method of evaluation can also be very beneficial to the assessee. Self awareness is key to the development of an individual. That is why I allowed the assessee to rate themselves in their proposal. It also gives areas for development in which the supervisor was too afraid to comment on that other peers and subordinates. 


29. However, there are some potential drawbacks to implementing a new and different evaluation system. Please read ref A and ref B for more details on this: 


a. Resource costs will incur. There will be some initial costs to produce software to calculate scores but this can be easily integrated onto the DIN afterwards for easy dissemination; 


b. This will take some time to implement. Yes this is true, but at the same time, you get to train everyone on CFPAS and personal assessments thereby increasing PD awareness; 


c. Long term commitment is needed for this. Running this for only a few years will not produce results needed to assess who is most deserving of promotion. We need to have this running for three years. At least we will see realistic scores at the merits boards. Besides we are already committed to CFPAS for the long haul and long term commitment equals long term results; 


d. There may be retribution sought by assesses on their assessors. That is why scores are tallied up confidentially and subordinate and peer scores are all lumped in together; and 


e. The overall “resistive to change idea” that the CF and NAVRES has developed will be the largest obstacle. 


30. Flaws that I have noticed about the merit board procedures are: 


a. That points are awarded for immediate promotion recommendations. The merit board should stop giving up to 3 extra points to personnel who receive immediate promotion recommendations. This puts the person who gets high readies at a huge disadvantage at the merit boards. These 3 extra points only serve the purpose of rewarding most individuals who had supervisors that have solid writing skills. Put one extra point into leadership, and two in to PD. For my calculator, I have left in these three points for immediate promotion recommendation to be as compliant as possible with ref E until a change of scoring is changed; and 


b. The merit boards and ref E constantly mention that this should not be a dot scoring process. However looking at Annex C, a member can only get a certain amount of points based on their overall performance (Mastered, Exceeded Standard, Skilled and Developing). The performance table should be abolished throughout all Annexes in ref E. The scoring should have the board members look at all 16 AFs, assign a score out of ten for each AF (based on the text of the PERs and on dots since the dots on PERs will be much fairer with a 360 degree approach), average the scores and then it scales down to a score out of 58 for performance. 


31. It is recognized that future success depends on the development of tomorrow’s leaders. For this reason it is in the CF’s best interest to invest heavily in future leaders because they will be at the centre of all future successes and failures. A system like this will give subordinates a voice in the development of their leaders and empowers them to perform to a higher standard. Non empowerment of subordinates could result in release. This in turn creates additional costs to NAVRES at it will cost the organization thousands of dollars to recruit, train and replace years of experience (I predict this cost to be $200000 per person). 


32. In summary, my recommendations are as follows: 


a. Implement a 360-degree feedback process or something similar; 


b. Use a calculator tool similar to my own (with slight modifications if needed) at unit merit boards. When the unit merit boards sit down, they will already have an overall picture of the each members performance and potential scores. Scores should not be used as the sole source of 

information for determining merit but should be a general guideline to help separate top performers from the average Joe or the slug; 


c. Implement better templates for initial PDR interviews making reference to the word picture book in the areas of Leadership, Personal Attributes, Communication skills and Professional Attributes. I have provided an example; 


d. For supervisors failing to provide PDRs should automatically be rated as Unacceptable. This alone should motivate supervisors to a better job looking after their people and actually follow CFPAS; 


e. Communicate with Canadian Forces College on different feedback processes; 


f. Implement a more rigorous CFPAS training program for supervisors and superiors; 


g. Ensure merit boards are following procedures as set out in ref E; 


h. Set the minimal promotion time for LS and MS to 3 years in rank; 


i. A threshold knowledge test should be written every year to ensure that our supervisors are current with policies and in trade skills; and 


j. Stop giving up to 3 extra points to personnel who receive immediate promotion recommendations and change the performance tables in ref E for all of the annexes. 


CONCLUSION 


33. 360-degree feedback provides a more complete assessment of an individual’s performance and potential than the CFPAS currently used by Naval Reserve personnel. An honest and complete evaluation of leadership helps to address any shortfalls and raises their level of self awareness. Leadership weaknesses will be addressed using the feedback from all coworkers. Issues that may not have otherwise been addressed have a way to be resolved. This proposal may take a lot of initial work but long term benefits will definitely come as a result and save retraining costs from personnel who quit as a result of disgust for the current method of promotion. 


34. A performance evaluation system is known to be a powerful modifier of behaviour. Many people at this time are somewhat dissatisfied to very disappointed with our current systems implementation. Another change to the system is definitely to help empower our subordinates to perform well and for the right reasons. 


35. If the CF does not get the best possible strategic leaders, then it cannot optimize its accomplishments. It is recognized that future success depends on the development of tomorrow’s leaders. For this reason it is in the CF’s best interest to invest heavily in future leaders because they will be at the centre of all future successes and failures. A modified CFPAS system will help us move toward the goals of HR 2020 and simulate better leadership growth. 


36. We are obliged as leaders to develop those that follow. In the Naval Reserves, we must work harder to ensure that people are being developed properly and that the best person is getting promoted to meet the needs of the organization rather than of the individual member and supervisor. I want to have supervisors who are geared toward professionalism rather than the self centred careerism. We must be as flexible as possible in the Naval Reserve unit since most of our members have changing and dynamic schedules. We, as an organization need to move on to the 21st century and change our transactional (or as I put it reactional leadership) ways into transformational leadership. We, as an organization of highly educated people, can take a lead in changing the entire appraisal system for the entire CF. 


37. My career has already been destroyed thinking too much about this unjust unfairness in CFPAS. Don’t let it happen to others. 



XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX







DIST LIST 


Action 


NAVRESHQ/N11 

OFFICE OF THE OMBUSMAN 

OFFICE OF THE VETERANS OMBUSMAN 


Info 


YEL CO 

DIS CO 


**Name, Rank, Address, and Phone Number removed by Loachman to protect the poster.**


----------



## jewalsh

For my complete document email me at XXX @ XXX . XXX. I can give you the complete document with all diagrams and my Merit board Calulator example.

**E-mail address removed by Loachman to protect the poster. Anyone wishing the info can PM him instead.**


----------



## PMedMoe

???


----------



## George Wallace

Re: CFPAS the creul sexist and unfair system

Re: CFPAS the cruel sexist and unfair system  [Corrected that for you.]

jewalsh


I haven't read and broken down your topic into fine detail, but it would appear to me that you do not understand how CFPAS works or have not been using it correctly. 

 You are coming across as a disgruntled person who may feel that the world is out to get you.


----------



## Swingline1984

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> ???



I'm right there with you.  I for one would have liked to see some real statistics vice the "it happened to me, don't let it happen to you".  There is a vetting process, supervisors don't normally write/score these documents in isolation.


----------



## dangerboy

You said in your thread title that the CFPAS is sexist.  How is it sexist?  We do not have a box in which we check off Male/Female and if the writer of the PDR/PER choeses not to use terms such as he/she and constently refer to you as Pte Bloggins, the reader would not have any indication what sex you are.


----------



## George Wallace

> Year # of promotions for NCIOP MS-PO2  Merit List Standings  PER scores from previous year (Potential in Order PF 1-6)
> 
> 2006 Not Applicable  Promoted to MS  8M 7ES 1 S, O O AA O AA O (LS PER)
> 
> 2007 Unknown to author  Not Ranked  10 ES 6 S, N AA N AA N O
> 
> 2008 15 (with a quality line) 22/47  2M 11ES 3S AA O AA O AA AA
> 
> 2009 10 25/46  4M 9ES 3S, AA AA AA AA O O
> 
> 2010 4 20/44  4M 8ES 4S, AA AA AA O O O (First PER received in a new unit)




It would appear that you did not merit well enough for promotion or courses.    Other people merited higher than you, and you have to live with that.


----------



## Journeyman

jewalsh said:
			
		

> 13. Is it really beneficial to promote the Class A reservist over the Class C reservist as it pertains to the need of the organization? .......We need to develop a system that treats both classes fairly and allows both classes to rate their personnel accurately and efficiently.


How do suggest this be done? Either no Class A reservists get promoted, or their ranks differentiate them from "real" full-time reservists -- _a la_ wartime-vintage 'wavy navy' rank insignia? Either way, I suspect you will see the recurring RegF vs ResF schism appear as a Full-time Res vs Part-time Res divide. 



> How can leadership and potential be effectively reflected on a PER if only the superior gets a say in how you have done in leadership. *Leadership is best observed from subordinates*.


 I would suggest your vision would change the PER system into a mere personality contest. While leadership can be judged by subordinates, and happens routinely in the Mess, I suspect the quality of the judgements may not be well informed, particularly at the junior levels where experience and a view to the "big picture" are more likely to be lacking.


----------



## Cdnleaf

Posting this 5 months after written - I hope your Thanksgiving was better than this morning.  I agree with the first two nuggets in Para 2 - promotion based on merit; and CFPAS being a fair system.  The rest, well not so much.  Good luck with whatever it is you are trying to accomplish and please -  :dontfeedmods:


----------



## Jungle

jewalsh said:
			
		

> 37. My career has already been destroyed thinking too much about this unjust unfairness in CFPAS. Don’t let it happen to others.



When reading this kind of message (especially considering the length of it...), I like to go to the conclusion first; it usually gives an idea of the flavour of the message.

I was not wrong here; after reading the quote above, there is no need to spend 20 minutes to read about someone who suffers from victim syndrome.

Good luck...  :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

..and here I thought I was doing OK leaving as a M/Cpl.

Now I have this gnawing desire to call victim services.  :bla-bla:


----------



## Greymatters

Some thoughts on the original post:

While some of the points are valid (i.e. not all evaluations done to the same standard, score inflation, favortism), some of them are not.  

Just about every point you have made, and many you havent mentioned at all, have been discussed ad nauseum by serving members at one time or another and in the end it works out to one thing - its the best system we've got so far.  

Most of your suggestions dont fix the process - they merely add extra levels of effort and beauracracy.

Check your theories before you suggest them.  '360 feedback' was touted as the solution to all problems for about ten years and still resurges once in a while, but so far has flopped on its back like a dying fish.  It only works in specific occupations and work areas, and the military isnt one of them.  

I dont agree with laying out the arguments in an official looking message format. It can be mistaken by non-CF members as a legitimate message.

You fail to outline your expectations here - basically it sounds like you are asking for a 100% perfect system, which is impossible to achieve.    

If any CF member fails to get their PDRs as guidelines require, its up to each member to fix the problem.  If someone tosses a PER at you and says 'just read it and sign it', its up to each member to stand up and say something.  If you dont feel you are getting a fair assessment, its still the same - use the redress of grievance process.


----------



## medicineman

I find it interesting you use the word "sexist" in this - as someone else noted - as I have been required to write gender neutral PER's for a number of years now, so that when the merit board sits to read them, there is no bias as to who this person may be.

This "memorandum" is way too long to be a memorandum...it is formatted like a message but it isn't one...I would hazard to guess it should be drafted as a service paper and shuffled up the CoC, if this is how you really think.

There is one thing I do agree with - ever since the high score controls were tossed out of the mix, alot of PER's do get inflated, especially from certain units (I won't point fingers - just an observation from within my own branch over the years).  However, the system is alot better than it used to be.  One of the first PER boards I sat was probably the fairest thing I'd seen...we had a scoring system set up by the Clinic SM based on actual work performance, knowledge, experience, leadership potential, and work in the outside community/for the Base/Unit (the old X factor as it were).  We went in prepared for who we rated as our highest performers, then, based on those criterium, gave a numerical score for each, which ended up as the PER grade we worked off of.  This went down the line from the angelic ones to Satan's spawn.  And most often, a similar rating scale was done at other units.  This, coupled with actually having the PDR guidelines in place to ensure there are no surprises, has actually made the system much better than it was when I joined.  In fact, it is far from cruel - if you find you're the object of cruelty, there is a redress system in place.  You basically write your own PER these days.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## navymich

jewalsh said:
			
		

> 13. Is it really beneficial to promote the Class A reservist over the Class C reservist as it pertains to the need of the organization? This is a very interesting question. Class A personnel have a wide range of skills and generally adapt easier than their Class C counterparts. However, Class C personnel are far more knowledgeable about the organization and produce the majority of the results. We need to develop a system that treats both classes fairly and allows both classes to rate their personnel accurately and efficiently.



I am a former Naval Reservist.  I had a variety of contracts and have been employed on Class A, B and C.  I spent the first 10 years employed as Class A and B.  At the end, I was employed Class C for almost 6 years.  When I began my Class C contract, I was appalled to find the full time pers on the ship talking down about the "NRD people" and it regularly turned into a huge discussion about PERs and merit boards.

Class A reserves are doing the job that a reserve is supposed to do:  1 night a week, a weekend here and there, courses and sailing during the summers, maybe an exercise over March Break.  They are therefore rated on their job based on the time spent.  So if you have a Class A that has attended all parade nights, extracurricular activities, is current on trade courses, and has done an outstanding job doing this, then they have earned themselves a high PER.

No, that doesn't compare to the Class B/C who is being paid 24/7.  But at the same time, the Class B/C must be outstanding during that whole 365 days of work time vice the allocated time for A.  It's not easy finding common ground between the classes, but neither should lose out based on when they are working.

You can't devise separate rating systems either because how does that work for the member that is at his home unit as Class A for half a year then starts a Class C contract?  He shouldn't lose out on a year because of a different ranking system or merit board.  I agree, that Class A member might have some catching up to do when they are all of a sudden put on a watch on their own, but we are all part of the same team and therefore rated the same.

Everyone else has stated what you can do about this problem, and commented on your other points.  But this is my  :2c: worth, from someone else that has been in the same system that you were and lived to tell about it.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

jewalsh said:
			
		

> DIST LIST
> 
> 
> Action
> 
> 
> NAVRESHQ/N11
> 
> OFFICE OF THE OMBUSMAN
> 
> OFFICE OF THE VETERANS OMBUSMAN


First off, it's Ombudsman not Ombusman.  Your opinion piece is filled with spelling mistakes and typos - it really makes it hard to take the message seriously.  Secondly, what are you expecting the VA Ombudsman to do about the CF PER system???


----------



## xena

The OP signed up, made these three posts, and hasn't been back since.

Don't feed the trolls.

Just my opinion, of course...


----------



## jewalsh

I probably shouldn't have used "sexist" in my title.

I handed in detailed list of accomplishments to my superviors and redressed 3 different PERs with very little luck. If your supervisor does not care or that they do not provide adequate div notes, you cannot win your redresses.

A 360 degree approach is much better than our inflated and "immediate supervisor biased" system. THe quality of our supervisors will become better and in return encourage higher retention and stop some top people from leaving the CF to pursue another career.


----------



## jewalsh

As well I pass this up the chain of Command and mailed several copies to NAVRESHQ.


----------



## medicineman

jewalsh said:
			
		

> I handed in detailed list of accomplishments to my superviors and redressed 3 different PERs with very little luck. If your supervisor does not care or that they do not provide adequate div notes, you cannot win your redresses.



I would actually think that not providing adequate Div notes would be grounds for winning a redress as there is nothing to base the PER on...if that's the case, fire your AO who's helping your redress, because they suck.   I've known people that have won not only redresses, but promotions with 2 years of backpay as a result of redresses that have landed on the CDS's desk - and they were based on sorry excuses for backing up the narrative in the PER.   From my experience on both sides of the fence, as a general rule, if you've felt the need to redress 3 PER's, that's usually indicative of a pattern not with your supervisor, but with you.  If you don't like to hear that - sorry, it's an observation I've made over the years...and believe me, I've had some negative reports in my day I felt were not deserved, but in retrospect, were dead on.

MM


----------



## aesop081

jewalsh said:
			
		

> There is no feedback from others, only your immediate supervisor.



Nope, far from it. My last 2 PERs were reviewed and signed by my flight commander ( my bosse's boss), my commanding officer and my Wing commander. During the writting process, my PER was reviewed, feedback was provided by other supervisors along the chain and changes were  made as required.




> The immediate supervisor is too afraid to counsel personnel on areas for improvement as this is deemed as harassment;



I'm sorry but i have no such fears. If what is written is backed up by specific, concrete examples, there is nothing to worry about. I write my PDRs and PERs in that way and have had no problems.




> c. Discourages counselling, accountability and organizational skills;



I do not see how it does any of this.




> d. Compromises integrity by circumventing honest, face-to-face assessments;



Again, reality is far from your comments. I just went through a round of PDRs and i can assure you that the assesment in all cases was done face-to-face and was honest. 



> Personnel come to their new jobs for a year or so and try to impress their supervisor to get a great PER. Then they move on to their next posting;



 Do you think it is dramaticaly different anywhere else ? 



> This leads to people afraid of taking risks and using their initiative which in turn churns out poor problem solving leaders; and



Maybe in some circles. I have seen people make honest mistakes, get written up for it on a PDR and still get a great PER in the end because they sorted themselves out. That being said, in the end, this is a competitive process. 2 members having identical evaluations have to be differentiated somehow.......



> g. This system strongly discounts knowledge. A knowledge test should be written each year that covers topics of in trade knowledge, administrative procedures applicable to the members rank etc.



That leads to widely available study guides that everyone has access to. A couple of nights of craming and...voila....you have a pass and everything is flushed right after. I served a breif exchange with the US Army and have seen this exam thing work first hand.




> (where OJPRs were not getting signed off since the supervisor is suppressing the subordinate from advancing in the trade in fear of losing their own job to them which in turn causes people to quit).



This is your opinion and nothing more. My job is to guide subordinates through a similar training program and i pride myself on their succees and getting them trough it. I am not worried that their success somehow is a threat to me. Quite the oposite, if they succeed, i succeed.

While CFPAS is not perfect, it is not all that bad compared to what we had prior. While you have done a good ammount of research, you also demonstrate flawed understanding of merit boards and selection process. I also detect a bit of "sour grapes" in your attitude and the fact that you had to redress 3 PERs is also, to me, an indication that alot of your problems are self-inflicted.


----------



## jewalsh

CDN Aviator, thanks for reading the document and taking time to comment. Obviously you pride yourself on your solid leadership skills. If I was rated at your wing, my evaluations were have reflected the effort, and my true performance and potential.

I also thank everyone else who took the time to read and comment.

I too pride myself on following CFPAS as it was meant to be and take great pride in helping about 100 people complete their OJPRs.

It would be nice to hear from supervisors who failed to follow CFPAS properly and see what their comments would be.

Overall, most superiors are too afraid to counsel their personnel for their flaws or give lower marks to people. Hence one of the reasons that PERs are over inflated. "Immediates" are handed out like candy for nearly every rank as a result. Then there are supervisors who are pricks and score their people lower than they should. Hence some of our truly top performers get the shaft get pissed off and quit for civilian jobs where their efforts would be appreciated


----------



## Towards_the_gap

As imperfect a system that CFPAS is, it still does work. As others have stated, your typo-ridden rant, err I mean memo, does nothing to further your cause, and stinks of sour grapes. The flaws in the CFPAS system are only those which you will find everywhere else in life - human flaws. Unless we create a super race of military cyborg robots a la Universal Soldier, there will always be cases of favouritism, dislikes, and unfairness. CFPAS, if used properly at all levels, minimises this as much as possible. 

Also, a yearly exam in trade knowledge and administration would only produce a bunch of study guides and people who care more about said tick test than actually performing their jobs on operations. I am a combat engineer, and in no way would I want my sappers knowledge tested yearly on a written test, because you cannot study for what we do, and alot of our job involves massive amounts of innovation, ingenuity, and thinking outside the box, all of which cannot be taught by book. 

Finally, if I am correct, only officers of field rank (Major and above) are entitled to use their rank when retired i.e. Maj (ret'd) so and so. Putting MCpl (Ret'd) makes you look a bit sad. Move on with your life, and accept that the military perhaps wasn't for you.


----------



## Occam

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Finally, if I am correct, only officers of field rank (Major and above) are entitled to use their rank when retired i.e. Maj (ret'd) so and so. Putting MCpl (Ret'd) makes you look a bit sad. Move on with your life, and accept that the military perhaps wasn't for you.



You're incorrect.  See "QR&O 15.09, Use of Rank Title and Wearing of Uniform after release" and A-AD-200-000/AG-000 - The Heritage Structure of The Canadian Forces, page 11-4.


----------



## PuckChaser

Don't like your PER? Redress of Grievance. I've had a supervisor redress his PER and win. It took a year, but he won because he had the documentation to back it up. Promoted with backpay. Yes, people with supervisors who don't care will always right justify excrement pumps. Easiest way to not get spun up is to just do the best job you can do and not worry about everyone else's PERs.

Towards_the_gap: I really find your comment about MCpl (Ret'd) offensive. My father spent 40 years in the CF, and was only able to transfer to the RegF after 10 years of being told he was "too old" because he was 30 when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came out. He went from MWO (qualified to be CWO) to Cpl who had to redo his QL5 and JLC/JNCO. The system screwed him for 12 years, because in the 90s, supervisors were afraid of subordinates with more knowledge than them. My father was proud of his time in the service, and is proud to have MCpl (Ret'd) after his name.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

I stand corrected! 

Puckchaser - My apologies for any offence taken. Being under the mistaken impression stated above is why I made that comment. Remainder of my post stands of course, however I retract the bit about being sad for using ret'd rank at the JNCO level.

That being said, I would not use it myself, however that's a personal choice.


----------



## jewalsh

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Don't like your PER? Redress of Grievance. I've had a supervisor redress his PER and win. It took a year, but he won because he had the documentation to back it up. Promoted with backpay. Yes, people with supervisors who don't care will always right justify excrement pumps. Easiest way to not get spun up is to just do the best job you can do and not worry about everyone else's PERs.



Tried the redress route and lost despite my documentation. How can I not get spun up if I see crappy "dummies" getting promotions cause they planned a class A party and are awarded as the god of a Naval Reserve Division. Or see full time member supervisors who are well hated by all but continue to get promoted despite the fact that they have no real leadership skills and promote the release of many members. I have done the best job possible (maybe ever) when I backed a PO1 position as a senior OJT instructor in 2006 when I was the supervisor of the largest department for that summer. Also my people got the best training out of all sections by quite a bit. Unfortunitly for me, I ran into some of "NAVRES finest" who don't give a crap about nothing but themselves or pleasing their supervisors who have low expectations and leadership skills.


----------



## jewalsh

Any other MS or MCpl who was thrown into a PO1 / WO position with only four months in rank who had to supervise 33 people at one time and was responsible for 50 people want to respond to my thread.

Oh wait there is not another MS/MCpl who had to do that.

My initiative, intelligence and ingenuity ensured that my trade was the highest trained trade with the highest percentage of completed packages.

I accomplished great things but was stuck with an intelligence officer ( ??? :-[ :-X :boring: :rage who did not care for myself or another member who was the the mess president of a mess of 100 people. We both received PERs below our capabilities.


----------



## aesop081

jewalsh said:
			
		

> Any other MS or MCpl who was thrown into a PO1 / WO position with only four months in rank who had to supervise 33 people at one time and was responsible for 50 people want to respond to my thread.
> 
> Oh wait there is not another MS/MCpl who had to do that.



You think you are the only one who's ever had to do a job that is much higher than his/her rank and experience ?

wow.


----------



## Davionn

jewalsh,

"Any other MS or MCpl who was thrown into a PO1 / WO position with only four months in rank who had to supervise 33 people at one time and was responsible for 50 people want to respond to my thread.

Oh wait there is not another MS/MCpl who had to do that.

"


Been there, done that (MCpl doing WO job), as have many others!


Assumptions like that are not helping you here, nor will they in your career. life in general.



Appologies to all re the quote, the quote function is not working for me right now...


Davionn



(modified to reflect that I was not aware jewalsh was retired on my original post)


----------



## Kat Stevens

jewalsh said:
			
		

> Any other MS or MCpl who was thrown into a PO1 / WO position with only four months in rank who had to supervise 33 people at one time and was responsible for 50 people want to respond to my thread.
> 
> Oh wait there is not another MS/MCpl who had to do that.
> 
> My initiative, intelligence and ingenuity ensured that my trade was the highest trained trade with the highest percentage of completed packages.
> 
> I accomplished great things but was stuck with an intelligence officer ( ??? :-[ :-X :boring: :rage who did not care for myself or another member who was the the mess president of a mess of 100 people. We both received PERs below our capabilities.



Sorry to pop your ego bubble, but I retired as a Cpl 8 years ago.  In my 23 year career I did almost every  job an NCM can do in an Engineer Squadron, including Sqn Sgt Maj for 72 or so pretty crazy hours.  I hated the PER system, but it's what you've got.  Why wait till you're retired to bring this up?  It's not going to do you any good now.


----------



## jewalsh

All I hear was been there done that but no evidence that you had to endure a situation greater than mine. What I have done was unparalled in the NAVRES by an Nautical Mile and 98% of you never expereinced such intensity as a MS/MCpl. I feel happy that your supervisor was not a complete douchbag.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Ummmm, NAVRES, got it.  Try getting ahead in a Combat Engineer Regiment of 400 plus with more than it's fair share of nozzles in charge with sharp pens and long memories.  I have PLENTY I could be bitter over, but it's past now, and being angry all the time is just too damn tiring.  Build a bridge and get over yourself, your situation isn't unique, just the frequency of the high pitched whine.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Folks, I agree with Kat.

Most all of us have done things above our pay grade but we are not going to convince jewalsh that her's wasn't the mostest...........so, if possible, lets concentrate on her original diatribe.

Thanks,
Bruce


----------



## jewalsh

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Ummmm, NAVRES, got it.



A discriminator against NAVRES eh? A discriminator against NAVRES, got it!!!


----------



## Kat Stevens

Holy fuck you're dense.  I now suspect the real reason you aren't CDS by now.  I don't like country music, yellow beer, or small cars, either.  Better get me a trip to the Museum of Tollerance, stat.  Talking to you is like trying to talk to my autistic son when he's got his mind set on something;  frustrating and pointless.


----------



## PMedMoe

jewalsh said:
			
		

> All I hear was been there done that but *no evidence* that you had to endure a situation greater than mine.



So, where's yours?


----------



## Gramps

jewalsh said:
			
		

> Any other MS or MCpl who was thrown into a PO1 / WO position with only four months in rank who had to supervise 33 people at one time and was responsible for 50 people want to respond to my thread.



Ok, maybe I had a little more than a few months (not much more) but how is 117 personnel? And my next question is, who cares? I can say with certainty that not one person cares whether I managed that many prople for any length of time. I did it, it got mentioned on my PER and I moved on and got back to my job.


----------



## xena

jewalsh said:
			
		

> Any other MS or MCpl who was thrown into a PO1 / WO position with only four months in rank who had to supervise 33 people at one time and was responsible for 50 people want to respond to my thread.
> 
> Oh wait there is not another MS/MCpl who had to do that.



...Oh, I dunno.  Seems to me you're making one heck of an assumption that you're alone in that position.  How about being thrown into a WO position as successively both a Cpl and a MCpl?

Methinks thine assessment of thine own skills and accomplishments are furiously inflated.


----------



## Jungle

jewalsh: I would leave the ego at the door; it may very well have something to do with your situation. You are not getting any sympathy here, as apparently you did not get from your supervisors; must be a case of "you're the only one in step".

I don't know how things are in NAVRES, but what you describe is very common in Army units, and we have our fair share of intelligent, competent and dedicated people; you are not unique.

But just in case you really think you are, check this out:







Good luck with whatever you are trying to accomplish, but I wouldn't hold my breath... I know a guy who did a similar thing after releasing a few years ago, and he is bitter, depressed and burned out since. It wasn't worth it, especially considering he was not nearly half as good as he thought he was.


----------



## xena

jewalsh said:
			
		

> I accomplished great things



According to no one but you.  I'm sorry if that comes as a shock to you, but there's reality for you...



> We both received PERs below our capabilities.



You know, I think we may have hit the nail on the head here.  One doesn't get PERs to match one's capabilities.  One gets PERs that reflect one's performance.

Any chance that you were a bitter, cranky, and perhaps a bit dense, JNCO who didn't perform as well as he could because he was too busy projecting his faults onto his supervisors?


----------



## medicineman

jewalsh said:
			
		

> All I hear was been there done that but no evidence that you had to endure a situation greater than mine. What I have done was unparalled in the NAVRES by an Nautical Mile and 98% of you never expereinced such intensity as a MS/MCpl. I feel happy that your supervisor was not a complete douchbag.



The "I'm more special than everyone else" line is over there - and several Statute Miles long.  Most of the people on this board have had to deal with things well above their rank, pay and trade levels, and some under considerably more extreme and adverse conditions than you.  Get over yourself and reign in the hystrionics.  You have a beef, redress it; if your AO sucks, fire them; if you don't like the answers you're getting in the process, push it higher; if you're still not hearing what you want to hear either from the process OR from here, well, and I know I might be going out on a limb here, but the lowest common denominator is probably something that everyone but you can see.

And BTW, I've been employed in positions that were pay grades and trade levels well above what I was at the time.

MM


----------



## Cdnleaf

jewalsh said:
			
		

> All I hear was been there done that but no evidence that you had to endure a situation greater than mine. What I have done was unparalled in the NAVRES by an Nautical Mile and 98% of you never expereinced such intensity as a MS/MCpl. I feel happy that your supervisor was not a complete douchbag.


----------



## krustyrl

At the risk of sounding "high-school-ish"... that was ....... PRICELESS.!!


----------



## Monsoon

jewalsh said:
			
		

> Any other MS or MCpl who was thrown into a PO1 / WO position with only four months in rank who had to supervise 33 people at one time and was responsible for 50 people want to respond to my thread.



I have a LS supervising 40 people that might be interested in sharing some words with you. In NAVRES.

The problem you identify isn't one with CFPAS (after all, you were actually given very good PERs judging by your scores - especially for your first and second year as MS). The problem is that the establishment is smaller than our talent pool, meaning people stay longer at ranks beneath which they're capable of performing at. You've just freed up an MS billet by releasing, and a LS NCIOP somewhere is cheering. 360 evaluations won't change that.

Enjoy your retirement. If you want to pursue your thesis you might consider graduate-level study in organizational behaviour or management, but you'll be required to substantiate your assertions with facts and data.


----------



## navymich

jewalsh said:
			
		

> All I hear was been there done that but no evidence that you had to endure a situation greater than mine. What I have done was unparalleled in the NAVRES by an Nautical Mile and 98% of you never experienced such intensity as a MS/MCpl. I feel happy that your supervisor was not a complete douchbag.



Have you actually read ALL of the replies within this thread?  Have you realized that there is a reply from a former member of Navres? I will assume that you have and you have classified me within the 2% that may have experienced something similar to you.  But I can tell you right now that I had the privilege to work with many personnel that were in a similar position.  

What type of evidence do you want?  Do you want us to post copies of our PERs and MPRRs?  Would you like signed affidavits from our peers and supervisors? Reading peoples profiles here on line, until someone gives me reason NOT to believe them, I will believe what they say.  Therefore, their word saying that yes, they have been there done that is good enough for me.  How come it isn't for you?


----------



## donaldk

@jewalsh

As said with many of the other replies, your Memo has way to much personal conjecture added to it -- its a blubber fest.  Granted you may have evidence left offline for good reasons, but even if you did have substantiation behind your memo the language in it just screams cry baby making a river.  Before I went REGF Officer last year, I was a ResF MS  on Class C and often was stuck with supervisory duties involving a fair bit of personal and pulling long hours at work.  My first year in that rank the PER was only put to a developing level, but being first year in rank I expected this, although I did not like it, the PER narrative and dots matched the divnotes written and the PDR guidelines were clear.  The next year on the same ship I worked on my flaws with the same subordinates / supervisor and got a Ready as expected.  If anything I look back at being an MS as a good experience that now helps me as an MSEng officer.  If your PERs were that bad and your redresses kept getting bounced back... then either you did not push them high enough (although it takes time you can push them right to the CDS)... or you just truly were shit and good thing you left the Forces.

As a supervisor and also a subordinate, my major beef is not necessarily with CFPAS but with the training system and how CFPAS is loosely explained at the CFPLQ level for the NCMs and before that nothing is mentioned.    AB/Pte's should be exposed to CFPAS so when it comes time they know what is expected of them and what to expect from the supervisor when the PER comes -- this would also help makes them MUCH better followers!  This is where I find the root of the problem with the system exists, in that the members do not know what to expect from the process.  Even scarier, talking to my colleagues in the officer world, the DEO/ROTP types do not even get a handle on CFPAS on their BMOQ but shortly after they could wind up being the signing authority for a sections PERs.  He he, this is one thing that makes Phase VI a wake up call.

Now flip over to my twin brother and he got a developing PER as a Class A reservist -- his was a case to redress (he got nailed for things that were outside the scope of his PDRs)--- but because he did not know the CFPAS system at the time how it worked he just signed it.   I was on contract away from home so I did not get to review his PER... fast forward 3 years later and that is what held him up for his MS promotion when he finished his CFPLQ.  His beef with the system was if he had known CFPAS beforehand he could have quickly dealt with it in unit.  He would have written a redress if needed in his sleep but now 3 years later it is way to late to grieve.  He just said "Life goes on", it barely makes a difference on pay/pension and his CT/OT was executing within a couple months of the merit results coming out anyways.  His lesson... learn the system and how to play with it.

Good Luck on your Memo / upcoming redress... but do us a favour and take out the personal whiny bits that have no substantiation out of it.

K12 D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I think she gets the point by now. No need to carry this on any further.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## jewalsh

Here are some excellent documents on the CFPAS system.

http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc30/mds/cann.pdf
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc31/exnh/hausberg.pdf


----------



## dogger1936

One thing that really bugged me during the last PER season was being FORCED to write a guy up with a certain score given to me by higher. While this guy was maybe a supersoldier the previous year; he was under par during his time under my command. Being told he will get x number of far right bubbles annoyed me; and I would have had to flat out lie about his work. Not being the lying type I handed it to my officer and told him to do it if they dont want honest feedback/ a reflection of his poor PDR's and work ethic.

This person is now promoted.


----------



## Infanteer

Interesting thread that I had to go through again.  It was pointed out that no system is ideal and the CFPAS isn't, but it ain't bad and it could definately be worse.  A few observations on PERs:

1.  There could probably be less bubbles and less PF/AFs.  As it stands now, the system is almost overwhelming.  Fewer bubbles and PF/AFs allow a rough, quantitative picture to be formed while a narrative gives the qualitative goods to merit/promotion boards;

2.  I don't know about other branches, but where I was the language of the PER system is byzantine.  "Skilled" was the baseline and was given to soldiers upon entering that rank level.  Less than skilled usually meant something bad.  So essentially we only used three of the six bubbles (S, ES, M), with anything to the left (U, L, D) being reserved for special cases and all essentially meaning the same thing.  Not Assessed  (NA) was never used despite the fact that 90% of my Corporals were not in leadership positions.  To me, this supports my reasoning behind the above pointof simplifying bubbles.  Recommendations of "Ready" for promotion are meaningless, and "Immediate" recommendations get one's foot in the door - for some ranks 3 successive years of "immediate recommendations" are required before even being looked at.  There is nothing wrong with the way the scores are used, but the language should be altered to give a realistic understanding to the score - ie, the far right bubble for promotion recommendation should be ready because it tells you you are being looked at; 

3.  One of the biggest problems with the system is that we tie the concepts of "performance" and "experience" together within the Performance scoring.  At least in our branch, when meriting the performance of individauls, consideration is given to previous appointments held, qualifications, etc, etc.  So, in an Infantry Battalion platoon commanders will be at the "SND" level while senior Captains like the Adjutant, on the basis of having successful platoon command, ERE experience, and Army Staff College, will be at the "MOI" level.  This makes sense in the grand scheme of things, but also acts to restrict the performance narrative's utility as performance is rated for one's rank and not their position.  So, you will not have any "Mastered" platoon commanders (despite the fact that some have mastered that specific position); likewise a "Skilled" Adjutant is likely looking for a new career.  This does not allow a rater to show dramatic variation between subordinates in his assessment, thus a less accurate assessment as he is hamstrung by being forced to score his subordinates to fit their level of experience; and

4.  PERs are a powerful tool with which to effect cultural change within the organization.  For instance, a "Pass/Fail" PT rating on the PER means that only the minimum is encouraged whereas a scored system gives powerful incentive for all to improve their fitness.  Want to encourage good soldiers to certain positions like recruiting or highlight acomplishments and contributions to the profession (such as articles, PD, etc, etc)?  Than give it more points at boards.  A simple tool like this can have powerful effects on organizational standard as they do set the bar.  An interesting study would be to look at what sort of behaviours are current system promotes (any PSELs out there need a thesis?). 

5.  The "So What" in this?  If these alterations were made to the PER, you would have a one page PER:

a.    with 3 boxes - "Performance" (ie: how do I rate in my job, especially when compared to my peers), "Experience" (how does my depth of experience rate against the ideal candidate for promotion at my rank level) and "Potential" (ie:  how does my chain-of-command feel I would do at the next rank level"); 

b.     with fewer PFs (8?) and AFs (4) along with "EFs" (2-4) which speak to experience and 4 bubbles with accurate, unambiguous adjectives; and

c.     a slightly larger and more developed narrative for each box, as this should be the "heavier" portion of the PER.

Thus, a soldiers Performance rating is highly fluid and can move up or down while his "Experience" and "Potential" factor creep to the right if the soldier develops.  Merit boards would focus more upon the qualitative narrative and worry less about "bubble politics".


----------



## pbi

anonymousjrofficer: I have to heartily second the advice of the folks here telling you to have a sit-down with your boss. The very first thing you should do when asssuming any new position is to have that chat. Find out your commander's expectations, requirements, and methods of operation. Just because there is a list of duties published in a manual somewhere does not mean that by reading it you will know what your job is. Every unit, sub-unit and every leader is slightly different: find out the "lay of the land".

Once you've had that session with the OC, have a very honest, straightforward talk with the CSM. He is a very important figure in the company: arguably the most important after the OC, in terms of having a happy, well-run "tight ship". Get to know him.

Then, once you've done that, and you've had a chance to absorb all that you've been told, turn around and have the same talk with your key immediate subordinates (probably the CQMS, the Coy Clerk, the Coy Sig NCO and maybe the Coy Tpt NCO if you have one), only this time the topic will be your relationship with them: the same sorts of things your boss told you.

That should be a good start.

Cheers


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> One of the biggest problems with the system is that we tie the concepts of "performance" and "experience" together within the Performance scoring.


That should not be the case.  The section should be written & scored on performance alone.  One would expect that those with more experience are able to leverage that into bettering their performance, but that experience is not supposed to be measured on the PER.  And, if someone is failing to leverage their experience they should not be getting the unwarranted credit on the PER.

At the merit boards the information needed to weight experience is available.  Boards look at current and past PERs, and points are allocated for experience in positions of different seniority.  Certain qualifications can also grant points at given rank levels.  All of this to say that there is no need for units to be handing out candies on the PERs just because someone is in a position considered more senior.


----------



## jewalsh

MCG said:
			
		

> That should not be the case.  The section should be written & scored on performance alone.  One would expect that those with more experience are able to leverage that into bettering their performance, but that experience is not supposed to be measured on the PER.  And, if someone is failing to leverage their experience they should not be getting the unwarranted credit on the PER.



In my personal opinion, the merit boards spend too little time reviewing each person's file. Thus they may not get an accurate sense of experience of a person. It would be nice if there was some was to incorporate experience into the PER but since one PER only focuses on a single year it is not practical to put experience into the PER.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> At the merit boards the information needed to weight experience is available.  Boards look at current and past PERs, and points are allocated for experience in positions of different seniority.


   

Also they only only go back three years and that's it! Agreed the information is there but with the boards spending so little time on a file, most of a persons experience does not come into play.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> All of this to say that there is no need for units to be handing out candies on the PERs just because someone is in a position considered more senior.



Agreed it should be best person for the job, and not based on who's been around longer or is more buddy buddy with the supervisor.


----------



## aesop081

jewalsh said:
			
		

> Also they only only go back three years and that's it!



The boards only go back 3 years in terms of PERs. PERs are not the only information input into the boards. All your career information that is summed up on your MPRR is available to the board for evaluation, thus all your courses and relevant positions are there ( your experience).


----------



## jewalsh

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The boards only go back 3 years in terms of PERs. PERs are not the only information input into the boards. All your career information that is summed up on your MPRR is available to the board for evaluation, thus all your courses and relevant positions are there ( your experience).



Too bad my ex-career manager did not know that when he told me everything I did 4 years ago and my top student in my QL3 reserve course (in 2004) counts for nothing. In my opinion, a MPRR is about as reliable as a tabloid horoscope.


----------



## PuckChaser

jewalsh said:
			
		

> Too bad my ex-career manager did not know that when he told me everything I did 4 years ago and my top student in my QL3 reserve course (in 2004) counts for nothing. In my opinion, a MPRR is about as reliable as a tabloid horoscope.



Unless you were dropped a rank in your CT, none of your PERs/course reports from the reserves count. If you were rank protected when you transferred, you start at the bottom of the pile and need 2 PERs to get to the boards, regardless of the seniority you were given on transfer.


----------



## aesop081

jewalsh said:
			
		

> In my opinion, a MPRR is about as reliable as a tabloid horoscope.



Mine is just fine. Maybe you should make sure yours is too.


----------



## PuckChaser

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Mine is just fine. Maybe you should make sure yours is too.



I'd have to agree here, MPRRs are pretty well kept, considering everything is digital and linked. MITE had a course on my MPRR 2 days after I finished it.


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd have to agree here, MPRRs are pretty well kept, considering everything is digital and linked. MITE had a course on my MPRR 2 days after I finished it.



For the most part this is true.  There are, however, a few tiny flaws in the MPRR that, unlike the UER, are regulated by "Posn Numbers".  One may for instance be on OP CADANCE at LFCA/JTFC in Toronto, but show up on a MPRR as filling a Posn Number for a SOFCOM posn in another unit elsewhere.   In the digital age some things do not reflect reality.  The UER is at times more accurate as a hardcopy employment history (if maintained by a diligent supervisor) than a MPRR printout.

This is also why, one should regularly check their MPRR making corrections as necessary before signing and returning it to the OR staff.


----------



## McG

jewalsh said:
			
		

> Also they only only go back three years and that's it!


The boards only go back three years for the PER score calculation, but the older PERs are available to be pulled up, and I have listened to CMs comment on those older PER also being reviewed in some casese where boards needed/wanted more information on an individual's experience.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> The boards only go back three years for the PER score calculation, but the older PERs are available to be pulled up, and I have listened to CMs comment on those older PER also being reviewed in some casese where boards needed/wanted more information on an individual's experience.



I can personally vouch for this - indeed I am sitting on a board right now, and we routinely look deeper than three years - I looked at PERs from the 90s.  We also consider Reserve PERS.  In a general sense, every board member tries their hardest to find as many points as they can for each file, and in the event of discrepancies, the benefit always goes to the member.


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> That should not be the case.  The section should be written & scored on performance alone.  One would expect that those with more experience are able to leverage that into bettering their performance, but that experience is not supposed to be measured on the PER.  And, if someone is failing to leverage their experience they should not be getting the unwarranted credit on the PER.



Agreed, but it is the case - I've heard of more than one case of "I couldn't give you a higher ranking as you're too junior".  This all falls out when members are merited and bubbles assigned.

I've never heard of really good platoon commanders getting MOIs and only mediocre to poor senior captains earn less than an MOI.


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I've heard of more than one case of "I couldn't give you a higher ranking as you're too junior".


Anyone being told as much would have the ammunition they need to greive the PER.

Rather than adding another element to be scored (that of experience) in the PER, I think the issue to address is how to stop the practice of _handing-out candy_ for seniority in rank.


----------



## Infanteer

Is it better to form the administrative measures to our institutional method of assessing our subordinates or try to bend the institution to our administrivia?  It may be easier to simply make another box.


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is it better to form the administrative measures to our institutional method of assessing our subordinates or try to bend the institution to our administrivia?  It may be easier to simply make another box.


If we do not address the problem of people setting scores based on factors outside the scope of assessment, then adding a new box for experience will just provide another location to abuse and give out free candy to the annointed (or the unusually long-in-rank).  If the problem is addressed, then there is no need to include a new box for something the merit boards will just calculate seperately from information already available to them.


----------



## Dice

Not sure if I am posting this message in the right place or not. I apologize if I am. (I know some forums are sensitive about this.)

Tis the season for PER's. I have started them but ran into a computer issue.
My question is; is there a program for MAC OS that will recognize the CFPAS program? My PC laptop monitor has packed it in and it needs to be replaced. It costs just as much to get a newer laptop than to replace the monitor. If I am going to do this, I am going to purchase an IMAC notebook.
In addition, my desktop is also a MAC. I have searched everywhere and cannot find a program that will allow CFPAS to open on the MAC. 
I need to ensure that the program is compatible on both MAC and PC as I need to transfer some information from the PC computers at the workplace.
Thanks in advance for the help.


----------



## dapaterson

CFPAS is PC only.  You can look at apps like Parallels for the Mac that will let you run a virtual PC on your mac.

Alternatively, open the old PERs on a PC and cut and paste what you need, saving in a text file.


----------



## Dice

I heard horror stories about parallels, but if it works, it may be my only option. How well does it work? Can I edit and email to my Forces.gc account?
Thanks for the help.


----------



## dapaterson

Dice said:
			
		

> I heard horror stories about parallels, but if it works, it may be my only option. How well does it work? Can I edit and email to my Forces.gc account?
> Thanks for the help.



As a Windows XP/ Win7/ Linux user, I'm afraid I have no hands on experience.  One previous subordinate is a member of the Cult of the Mac, but he had an old windows laptop he used for PERs.

What you may want to do is write the narratives using any text editor, save in RTF , DOC or TXT format, then paste them in to CFPAS when you're on a DND machine. Not the best solution, but not the worst, either.


----------



## GAP

Dice said:
			
		

> Not sure if I am posting this message in the right place or not. I apologize if I am. (I know some forums are sensitive about this.)
> 
> Tis the season for PER's. I have started them but ran into a computer issue.
> My question is; is there a program for MAC OS that will recognize the CFPAS program? My PC laptop monitor has packed it in and it needs to be replaced. It costs just as much to get a newer laptop than to replace the monitor. If I am going to do this, I am going to purchase an IMAC notebook.
> In addition, my desktop is also a MAC. I have searched everywhere and cannot find a program that will allow CFPAS to open on the MAC.
> I need to ensure that the program is compatible on both MAC and PC as I need to transfer some information from the PC computers at the workplace.
> Thanks in advance for the help.



Or....you could snag an old style monitor, not the flat screen type (this is simply to save $$) and just plug it into the laptop...that will work for doing up pers.....


----------



## Dice

Thanks for the help guys.
 As of now, I have the laptop running into my 50 inch flat screen T.V. It works awesome, but not the best for privacy, and very inconvenient when the wife wants to watch her Desperate Housewives...lol.
I will experiment with the parallels program, however I heard the latest MAC OS is supposed to run any windows program. If I do get an IMAC, I will make sure I have the lastest OS.
Thanks again for the help.
Cheers.


----------



## Occam

Dice said:
			
		

> I heard horror stories about parallels, but if it works, it may be my only option. How well does it work? Can I edit and email to my Forces.gc account?
> Thanks for the help.



Edit and e-mail _what_ to your forces.gc account?  Certainly not narrative from someone's PER, I hope.


----------



## Spring_bok

Mac has a program called Boot Camp.  It will let you run a windows partition on a mac.  You require an intel based processor( all the MacBooks use intel processors, and you need a copy of windows.  Do a wikipedia search to find out more.


----------



## PanaEng

BootCamp Parallels or VMware will work.

On your Mac or Linux you can open the files in a plain text editor; the narrative and description are all in plain text. If you modify only the plain text part and not the unprintable elements, you should be able to load the updated PER back into CFPAS, finish and print.

and yes, you are not supposed to email those files around...

cheers,
Frank


----------



## AmmoTech90

Here's a programme that will let you run PC software by freeing up resources currently used by your mac.


----------



## aesop081

Dice said:
			
		

> Tis the season for PER's.



Is it Feb 2011 already ?

A tad bit early methinks.....even for Wing-ranked ones.......


----------



## Dice

Occam said:
			
		

> Edit and e-mail _what_ to your forces.gc account?  Certainly not narrative from someone's PER, I hope.



LOL.. Absolutely not. I tried to email a the cfpas program (empty of course) to my home from work so I could do PER's and PDR's from home. The attachment would not open on my MAC. I also tried to email some Office based docs and though I have Office for MAC, some files still would not open such as ACCESS and Power Point.

Thanks for all the help.
Cheers.


----------



## Occam

Dice said:
			
		

> LOL.. Absolutely not. I tried to email a the cfpas program to my home from work so I could do PER's and PDR's from home. The attachment would not open on my MAC.
> I am going to try the parallels program for now. Hopefully it works.
> Thanks for all the help.
> Cheers.



Normally, you'd be able to download CFPAS from a static URL, but someone hasn't updated the CFPAS internet site to the latest CLF flavour of the week, so the link is broken.  That URL is www.forces.gc.ca/CFPAS.

If you wanted to download it via the internet at this time, the URL to use would be http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/ps/download-telechar-eng.asp.

Good luck with getting it to run on a virtual machine.   ;D


----------



## Dice

Thanks OCCAM.
Good to know. I have a blank one on my laptop. I just need to get it to work on the MAC somehow. I may have to just get a new PC laptop if I can't figure it out.
You have all been real helpful. I am new to the site and I have to say, I will be visiting often. Thanks for everything.


----------



## Occam

Dice said:
			
		

> Thanks OCCAM.
> Good to know. I have a blank one on my laptop. I just need to get it to work on the MAC somehow. I may have to just get a new PC laptop if I can't figure it out.
> You have all been real helpful. I am new to the site and I have to say, I will be visiting often. Thanks for everything.



Knowing where you are, I can also assure you that if you visit your friendly neighbourhood TIS personnel, you'll be able to sign out a DWAN laptop on temporary loan, complete with CFPAS and DVPNI (for using the internet to access the DWAN).  They have a pool of laptops specifically for that very purpose.


----------



## top4u20

Does anyone know how to fix that annoying issue with CFPAS when you are filling in the text say section 5a on a PDR and if you go on to a line already typed and hit space bar it overwrites that line? Not sure if anyone has had  this problem but I do remember a while ago and cant for the life of me remember what to do. My only other way is to type text out on word and paste it. 
Thanks


----------



## Michael OLeary

Click the "Insert" button on your keyboard, it will change the cursor from _typeover_ to _insert_ (or vice versa).


----------



## top4u20

Thanks..I just figured it out.


----------



## Occam

By the way, that's a Windows thing, not a CFPAS thing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Or you can do all your writing and editing in Word then cut and paste it into the narrative sections.


----------



## medicineman

recceguy said:
			
		

> Or you can do all your writing and editing in Word then cut and paste it into the narrative sections.



What he said.

MM


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Or you can get promoted to CPO1 (CWO) and have some 25 year old Lt(N) (Capt) do your own!
As for the problem, I do remember that and the CFPAS form filler defaults to 'not insert'.


----------



## NCRCrow

I always back up the PER/PDR text in a word document. (on a Protected B Stick)

I have learned my lessons in the past from corrupted files that wouldn't open.


----------



## murrdawg

Hi all,

Just wondered if there is a process (besides compassionate posting) for a way a member can be delayed their posting by a bit. I'm on a course right now, but due to my fiancee's medical condition and in the process of being treated, we were wondering if there was any form to fill out, or request made that instead of being posted right after course, it could be up to a year still staying in our current location. If anyone can help out, that would be superb!


----------



## dangerboy

Write a memo explaining all your reasons and address it to your chain of command. A posting can be moved 30 days either way, if you want more than that they have to cancel your posting message and then cut a new one.  Chances are unless you have real good reasons you will not have much luck but it does not hurt to try.


----------



## murrdawg

What's the likelihood of it happening due to medical reasons? As well as family support network?


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> 
> Just wondered if there is a process (besides compassionate posting) for a way a member can be delayed their posting by a bit. I'm on a course right now, but due to my fiancee's medical condition and in the process of being treated, we were wondering if there was any form to fill out, or request made that instead of being posted right after course, it could be up to a year still staying in our current location. If anyone can help out, that would be superb!


You can't "delay" a posting by a year.  Your only choice is to have the posting cancelled.  Talk to your CoC.  Meanwhile, you might want to review DAOD 5003-6, Contingency Cost Moves for Personal Reasons, Compassionate Status and Compassionate Posting


----------



## Drag

Being CELE you can always ask to stay in Kingston, the school or JSR..


----------



## CountDC

There are 2 ways that a posting can be delayed:

1.  change of Report for Duty (RFD) - arranged between the losing and gaining CO's.  The date can be moved a max of 30 days either way - early RFD or late RFD.

2. amend Change of Strength (COS) - done through chain of command to the Career Manager for any period over 30 days. Career Manager decides if they will do it or not.

As you are talking about a year neither one applies. 

Your first step is to request a posting in the local area giving family health issues as a reason (she is family right?)   If the CM does not accept that then you can go for a compassionate posting which requires jumping through a few hoops. 

If not done already, get your memo in.  What you want to happen takes time, affects more than you and the APS is starting.   Not moving you may mean the CM has to move someone else to fill the spot and may have to move someone else to have a spot for you there.

Good luck.


----------



## murrdawg

Well, I didn't want to use a compassionate posting, and I am only on course right now.... so we'll have to wait and see what happens.


----------



## MAT

Hello there, how did you Grievance go, I am currently trying to write one up and submit.  Mat


----------



## PMedMoe

MAT said:
			
		

> Hello there, how did you Grievance go, I am currently trying to write one up and submit.  Mat



It all depends on the Grievance.  Get yourself an Assisting Officer.


----------



## MAT

Need Help, cannot get a straight answer.  Am currently on the Merit list to be promoted, however this recent PER was nothing to talk about, mediocre. If I do not get promoted before this Aug,  can this PER knock me down when the boards seats in Sep for next year?,Or, do I have until Dec of this year before being knocked down?


----------



## aesop081

MAT said:
			
		

> can this PER knock me down when the boards seats in Sep for next year?



Yup.


----------



## PMedMoe

MAT said:
			
		

> Need Help, cannot get a straight answer.  Am currently on the Merit list to be promoted, however this recent PER was nothing to talk about, mediocre. If I do not get promoted before this Aug,  can this PER knock me down when the boards seats in Sep for next year?,Or, do I have until Dec of this year before being knocked down?



If you had an issue with it at the time, you should have discussed it with whoever wrote it before signing it.


----------



## MAT

It was sent to my new unit. Am considering taking action. Also am 2 away from being promoted this year, am wondering  when the boards sits in Sep will I be knocked down this year before Dec, Or does the new Merit list begin in 2012?


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

MAT said:
			
		

> It was sent to my new unit. Am considering taking action. Also am 2 away from being promoted this year, am wondering  when the boards sits in Sep will I be knocked down this year before Dec, Or does the new Merit list begin in 2012?


This year's promotion list is valid until 31 Dec 2011.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Your RW (that you referred to in another thread) may have some impact on the Boards in Dec.


----------



## MedCorps

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Your RW (that you referred to in another thread) may have some impact on the Boards in Dec.



What do you mean?  When I am sitting on a promotion board I just see IC's and RW's as someone having character.  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MedCorps said:
			
		

> What do you mean?  When I am sitting on a promotion board I just see IC's and RW's as someone having character.  ;D



Ah yes, for the old days, when getting charged was a sign of character and almost a prerequisite for promotion.

Hell, I should be a Field Marshal by now  : ;D


----------



## armywife78

Well I am an armywife just like my name says. I am very nervous about this and  need your help. My "husband" JUST got a posting message. Which is odd i think. Everybody had theirs a looong time ago. But anyways. When we realized that everyone was posted but not us we were ok with it until next summer. Will give us a year to do a few renos on the house and give us time to get pregnant. See, in quebec fertility ttreatment is free. So we really want to take advantage of this. BUT now that they deciede that we are going do you think that we can ask to push the move until January/ is this something doable??
Thanks for you answers!

_edit to fix spelling in title_


----------



## dangerboy

Anything is possible, have your husband talk to his chain of command and write up a memo asking for a change of report date.  In the memo state all the reasons why you are requesting a change of date.  The thing to remember is while the career managers try and look after the members quality of life, the needs of the CF come first.


----------



## armywife78

Thank you. This is helping me alot. Yes he said that he will be doing a memo on Monday...what is bad (I think) is that he have been bitching and moaning for us to leave. Then when we realize it is not our turn this year we were ok with it and figured its just perfecr for the fertility treatment. But now...he says that if he refuses it and wait for next summer he might be on the "black list" if there is such a thing. and that we might be stuck to stay here for years (we have been here for 3) because of budget..(cuts) i really dont know what to think. he told me that yes you can extend for 30 days but until January?!


----------



## dangerboy

You can do 30 days very easily, but for January his career manager would have to cancel his posting message and issue a new one for a report date of January.  That is harder to do but not impossible if there is good reason (I had my posting delayed for 6 months) but be prepared for them to say no.


----------



## aesop081

armywife78 said:
			
		

> Which is odd i think.



It is not.


----------



## Spring_bok

Actually I find it odd too.  When is a posting message ever a surprise?


----------



## dangerboy

My last one was a surprise, I had my interview with my career manager was not going anywhere staying in BN few at least another year then a few months later a message arrived posting me.  I found out later that the career manager had retired and the new career manager had different plans.


----------



## PuckChaser

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> Actually I find it odd too.  When is a posting message ever a surprise?



I just got a posting message.... I'm deployed til November and told the CM that in my interview (had me slated for a 2CMBG spot already). Posting message was a no-cost move this summer, not sure why I got it, but my Chief Comm Op was successful in having it cancelled.


----------



## eurowing

Career manager in 1987, "you're going to Lahr".  Posting message....  "Cold Lake"  (in Gomer Pyle voice - "Surprise Suprise Suprise"


----------



## Spring_bok

Message icon: 

25 years ago things were different.  that was before DWAN!


----------



## PuckChaser

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> Message icon:
> 
> 25 years ago things were different.  that was before DWAN!



And they walked up hill BOTH ways to every posting.


----------



## armywife78

well the memo is in! Now let the waiting game beggin! Thanks guys!!


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Have you considered looking into fertility treatment where you are to be posted?  It may be free there as well.


----------



## ttlbmg

Currently Quebec is the only province that offers fertility treatment that is funded by the province. It is SO expensive in other provinces! Could you possibly IR post for a few months if they can't move the posting message? Maybe you can stay there for a bit, while your husband goes ahead? I know that's not ideal, but might be solution if you still want to access IVF treatments, and you get posted before you can complete them. Anyone know if that would even be possible?


----------



## Bzzliteyr

armywife78 I noticed you put "husband" in quotations.  Does this mean you are not married or common law and he is your boyfriend?  If so, the chances of him using "girlfriend" on a memo and having success are slim. You might want to look into that.


----------



## armywife78

I am a common-law wife. So that was the term used in the memo...But thanks for the suggestion. In ontario IVF is 15000$ per shot. It is not covered... only here in Quebec. As for IR suggestion...yes Hubby did mention it. Except that I do need him to doing his "thing" for the procedure...so it sucks that he would have to drive up here 4 hour trip only to do a "deposit". Will see if the memo falls into a goodman's heart i guess. I am aware that CF comes first thou.


----------



## McG

For periods of not more than 6 months, an unaccompanied move is an option as opposed to IR.
It can be found under Section 11.2 of the IRP manual.


----------



## exgunnertdo

I recall reading at one point that Public Service Health Care covers treatments that are part of provincial plans in other provinces (ie equalizing the care our dependents get across the country).  Might be worth a read into the PSHC documents.  I can't log in right now to read the plan info on the Sun Life site myself, but that's where you'd find it.  Or call Sun Life.


----------



## ttlbmg

That's interesting, I would like to see if the insurance plan would cover that. The move to make IVF treatments free in Quebec is a relatively new one, and is somewhat controversal. (being that someone could do the whole "octomom" thing and abuse the system, ruining it for people who need it) I'd like to hear the result if you contact them armywife78.


----------



## PuckChaser

I read through the PSHCP benefits guide a few nights ago, as I was really curious if this was covered. I couldn't find anything in there to suggest that they will cover things in one province that are not covered in another. 

Seems like IR is best bet for this situation (and is hopefully approved), until the IVF is successful then you can follow your husband to his posting. Best of luck!


----------



## exgunnertdo

Found it!  Not sure of the interpretation, that's where Sun Life will have the answers, but on p.14 of the PSHCP Benefit Booklet, under Medical Practitioners benefit - 



> Eligible expenses are the reasonable and customary charges for:
> 
> 
> physician's services and laboratory services where such services are not eligible for reimbursement under the participant's provincial/territorial health insurance plan, but where such services would be eligible for reimbursement under one or more other provincial/territorial health insurance plans.



(more blah, blah in the book follows, but that's the gist of it).


----------



## Strike

If last year's publication of greivance results is any indication, IVF will NOT be covered for non-service women outside of those provinces that cover it (Ontario only covers it for women with dual tube blockages).

Best bet is to go unaccompanied until things take.


----------



## Good2Golf

MCG said:
			
		

> For periods of not more than 6 months, an unaccompanied move is an option as opposed to IR.
> It can be found under Section 11.2 of the IRP manual.



^ Consider this.


What it means is that your husband can move by himself to temporary accomodation at the new location for a period of six months, without question (it's built-in to the posting structure/policy), if the family/couple has not secured housing in the new location.  You would remain at the family's principal residence, in Quebec, covered under the Quebec Health Care Plan, and continue to be eligible for IVF. 

Yes, you would both be living in two separate locations during that six-month period, but your husband would receive a "separation allowance" (meaning some costs covered by being away from the spouse and his principal residence) which would cover a portion of the cost to travel home as duty/distance would permit.

As the end of the first six-month period approached, you both could either then: a) move to the new posting location (and cease being covered for IVF), or b) you hsuband could request from his chain of command for approval of an "imposed restriction" (IR - meaning the member's dependant(s) and household goods and effects remains in the original residence) to the posting...extending coverage of separation allowance until such time as a full posting and purchase of home at the new posting location was done.

What you will both have to consider and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of, is whether it is worth the physical separation of potentially 6 months or more, to gain the IVF coverage -- that is a decision that only you two can make, in the end.

Hopefully the distances are such that whatever duration of separation is required, still works for the both of you.

Good luck.


Regards
G2G


----------



## dogger1936

Bit of a revival of a topic but I believe this best fit's here.

Just got word that there are some "issues" with my PER from my JPSU staff. Last year as a Sgt at my regiment I was MOI. I got posted into a WO job as a Sgt and thought I done a pretty bang on Job. Filling in a capt position and taking on many of his previous roles; frankly everyone seemed very very pleased with my work.

After prodding my Capt and Maj for a PDR through out the year nothing ever materialized. 
There was a little disagreement between me and said Capt who attempted to charge me for insubordination. All charges were quickly dropped and I never recieved any warning charge or verbal anything IRT this situation.

Apparently my PER is very lacking compared to the year before. I am guessing I will now have to go through the grievance process. And very honestly with my illness and injury I am seriously stressed out pretty bad over this. Unfortunately an AO can't take my role as the griever which ends up adding a lot of unneeded unwarranted stress on my lap when I'm trying to recover. To me such an unwarranted non validated PER is close on harassment. However I could be wrong.

To note: I've never grieved anything in my career up till now. I have never been involved in any harassment complaints. Just figured I would add that as I am not "that" guy. I've always respected and learned from criticism and prided myself on always improving myself and my subordinates. 

To me this seems like yet another backhand slap from the CIC world.

Would I have grounds for harassment in this case? Due to the fact I am at my wit's end with these people who seem hell bent on making my life as difficult as possible as I'm going through a rough time in my life.

Any suggestions, help, thoughts would be appreciated.


----------



## aesop081

You should note 2 things:

1) Multiple grievance board decisions have reinforced that one year's PER is not related to the previous year. 

2) Multiple grievance board decisions have reinforced that a lack of initial PDRs or part 5 PDRs does not invalidate a PER.

I'm in the middle of dealing with an unhappy subordinate and I can say that, as a supervisor, it pays to read greivance case summaries on the board website.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

And to further add to what Cdn Aviator said, harassment is specifically defined in it's very own DAOD.  You would be well served to read that DAOD to see if it fits your particular situation.

If you feel that the PER is unfair, by all means- Grieve.  That is why the system exists.  Lay out your objections to your current PER logically and factually and you should have no issues.  Just make sure that you have read the CFPAS guidance first- that is what the Grievance Board will base it's decision on.


----------



## Pusser

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You should note 2 things:
> 
> 1) Multiple grievance board decisions have reinforced that one year's PER is not related to the previous year.
> 
> 2) Multiple grievance board decisions have reinforced that a lack of initial PDRs or part 5 PDRs does not invalidate a PER.
> 
> I'm in the middle of dealing with an unhappy subordinate and I can say that, as a supervisor, it pays to read greivance case summaries on the board website.



You're right of course.  However, a supervisor is not allowed to hide poor leadership with these facts either.  To consistently ignore a subordinate's requests for guidance, direction, feedback, etc is unacceptable.  In my experience, it has always been a well accepted tenet that there should be no surprises on a PER.  In fact, in any unit I've ever been with, none of my bosses would ever have accepted negative comments on any PERs without evidence that the member had been apprised of the situation and given a chance to correct him/herself.

Can Dogger grieve the PER he's anticipating?  Yes, but keep in mind that a CF member can grieve the fact that the sun rises in the east; it doesn't mean he/she has a chance of winning.  A grievance against a PER, solely because it's a significant drop in score from previous PERs will not be successful.  In order to win a grievance of this nature, one has to show how the PER is not a true reflection of one's performance and/or potential.  In order to do this, one needs to document everything and be able to deconstruct the PER point by point and use concrete evidence to show why it isn't correct.  It's a lot of work, but it can be succesful.  It is correct that an AO cannot grieve on one's behalf, but a good AO can help you present your argument in a clear and unemotional manner.  Keep in mind that the griever can choose his/her AO (within reason).  If you have a former platoon or company commander with whom you have a good relationship, that may be a good place to start.  With all our modern means of communication (e.g. email) the need for you to be co-located with your AO is almost non-existent.

An harrassment complaint for abuse of authority or mistreatment should be dealt with separately.


----------



## MJP

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Bit of a revival of a topic but I believe this best fit's here.
> 
> Just got word that there are some "issues" with my PER from my JPSU staff. Last year as a Sgt at my regiment I was MOI. I got posted into a WO job as a Sgt and thought I done a pretty bang on Job. Filling in a capt position and taking on many of his previous roles; frankly everyone seemed very very pleased with my work.
> 
> After prodding my Capt and Maj for a PDR through out the year nothing ever materialized.
> There was a little disagreement between me and said Capt who attempted to charge me for insubordination. All charges were quickly dropped and I never recieved any warning charge or verbal anything IRT this situation.
> 
> Apparently my PER is very lacking compared to the year before. I am guessing I will now have to go through the grievance process. And very honestly with my illness and injury I am seriously stressed out pretty bad over this. Unfortunately an AO can't take my role as the griever which ends up adding a lot of unneeded unwarranted stress on my lap when I'm trying to recover. To me such an unwarranted non validated PER is close on harassment. However I could be wrong.
> 
> To note: I've never grieved anything in my career up till now. I have never been involved in any harassment complaints. Just figured I would add that as I am not "that" guy. I've always respected and learned from criticism and prided myself on always improving myself and my subordinates.
> 
> To me this seems like yet another backhand slap from the CIC world.
> 
> Would I have grounds for harassment in this case? Due to the fact I am at my wit's end with these people who seem hell bent on making my life as difficult as possible as I'm going through a rough time in my life.
> 
> Any suggestions, help, thoughts would be appreciated.



You are talking about two seperate but related issues here as noted by Pusser.

One is a redress of grievance and the other is a possible case of harrassment.

For the first I would suggest asking your CoC for an assisting officer.  Before that read the grievance website http://vcds.mil.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=4689, QR&O Chap 7 and as CA has pointed out find similar cases via the grievance board.  You can always put in a grievance it is your right just make sure your case is on solid ground.

For the second request a meeting with a harassment advisor to discuss the issue of harassment.  Another excellent resource is a Workplace Relations Advisor who can assist you along the way.  

In both cases stay calm & document things as objectively as possible.  Going in unprofessionally erodes a case regardless of its merits.


----------



## aesop081

Pusser said:
			
		

> However, a supervisor is not allowed to hide poor leadership with these facts either.



I never said that.



> In my experience, it has always been a well accepted tenet that there should be no surprises on a PER.



I agree. However, the CF grievance board has consistently sided with "lack of PDR does not invalidate a PER".



> A grievance against a PER, solely because it's a significant drop in score from previous PERs will not be successful.



A fact that becomes quite evident if one were to read the case summaries on the grievance board's website. Hence why i pointed it out in my earlier post.



> An harrassment complaint for abuse of authority or mistreatment should be dealt with separately.



Another point where the grievance board has been consistent.


----------



## dogger1936

Thanks for the info guys.

My CoC are taking care of this mess and this has already gone very high up the CoC already. It seem's they agree with my thoughts of whats going on. A CIC member who attempted to charge me earlier in the year was dead wrong and proven so. Then he is not being resigned this year and tries to "ruin" my career (haha) with a developing PER. 

No charges no warnings no PDR's no issues brought up during the year. I went from a MOI PER to developing. In my eye's that's a issue.

The PER wasn't vetted or anything from the desk of the CIC Capt to my current boss. Spelling mistakes no mention of anything prior to being posted to the unit (april-July back at the regiment; that PDR was provided to them upon my posting with letter from CO)

I've been told to not worry about it. It will be sorted before a grievance.


----------



## aesop081

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I went from a MOI PER to developing. In my eye's that's a issue.



It certainly sounds like you are getting the short end of the deal. That being said, if whoever wrote the PER can justify the "developing", what you received the previous year has no bearing. If they cannot justify it, your PER deserves to be changed but, again, you previous MOI also has no bearing.

A PER relates to your performance and potential only for the reporting period it is written for. Your grievance, should there be one, needs to focus on that reporting period.

Good luck.


----------



## dogger1936

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It certainly sounds like you are getting the short end of the deal. That being said, if whoever wrote the PER can justify the "developing", what you received the previous year has no bearing. If they cannot justify it, your PER deserves to be changed but, again, you previous MOI also has no bearing.
> 
> A PER relates to your performance and potential only for the reporting period it is written for. Your grievance, should there be one, needs to focus on that reporting period.
> 
> Good luck.



Cheer's and understood reference the last year. Them finding justification is not gonna happen IMHO.

IRT the reporting period it should contain positions held at regiment for 4 months of that reporting period. BZ letter from the base commander being something that should be showing up there as well. 

It was a poorly written attempt by a bitter little person. In the end it will mean more work for him and hopefully ( by the looks of things) none for me.

I have full support of my CoC to the highest level even before this matter was discussed with me; which is making this much easier.


----------



## aesop081

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> IRT the reporting period it should contain positions held at regiment for 4 months of that reporting period. BZ letter from the base commander being something that should be showing up there as well.



Indeed it should.

I know you understand WRT "last year vs this year" but some people out there just can't grasp that. Sorry if i seemed to tell you how to suck eggs.


----------



## dogger1936

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Indeed it should.
> 
> I know you understand WRT "last year vs this year" but some people out there just can't grasp that. Sorry if i seemed to tell you how to suck eggs.



No not all brother. I'm new to this whole having issues IRT my reports. Usually there are never any surprises on PDR's or PER's for me. This one was mind blowing.

My platoon commander wasn't going to inform me and try to sort this out before I was brought into the picture; however some valid questions needed to be asked so my CO could have a fuller understanding of what the heck he was looking at.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> No not all brother. I'm new to this whole having issues IRT my reports. Usually there are never any surprises on PDR's or PER's for me. This one was mind blowing.
> 
> My platoon commander wasn't going to inform me and try to sort this out before I was brought into the picture; however some valid questions needed to be asked so my CO could have a fuller understanding of what the heck he was looking at.



rPM me if you do not get results.  I may know a few people.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Having the involvement of support of your higher CofC should (hopefully) sort this out for you before you need to engage the Grievance process and/or consider a formal harassment complaint.  But, in the event it doesn't, a few points and ref's that may help.

1.  Assisting Officers (AO) are related to Summary Proceeding.  (QR & O, Vol 2, Chap 108, Art 108.03 - Definitions and Art 108.14).

2.  Assisting Members (AM) are related to the CF Grievance Process.  (DGCFGA DIN and InterNet website)

3.  Assistants are related to the CF Harassment Prevention & Resolution system.  (A-PM-007-000/FP-001, CF Harassment Prevention & Resolution Guidelines, Part 3, Art 3.5 Assistants).

In the event the current COA doesn't resolve this for you and you go 'formal':

- Along with the DAOD on Harassment, the CA also uses LFCO 11-86 Workplace Conflict Prevention and Resolution along with the National directives and guidance.  If you engage a WRA/HA, this LFCO is something you should also review, as it is does a good job on amplifying the DAOD, Guidelines, etc.  It also provides the CA-specific processes.  

- If you do proceed with a formal complaint, I recommend your Assistant be WRA/HA trained (WRA/HA take the same trg).  They will be more familiar with the harassment process/system/practices and likely know where/how to access to your Formation level SOs/network, etc.

- If you do proceed with a formal grievance, you have the right to an Assisting Member.  However, remember that you are not limited to assistance just from that AM.  SMEs are invaluable and many are DND employees who are former serving mbrs with tons of knowledge.   Its easy to develop tunnel vision, they can help with 'seeing the bigger picture'.

- With either the grievance or harassment systems/processes, ADR is usually explored as a first step.  DAOD 5046-0 covers ADR, additionally there is a DIN ADR site, under the CMP org.  I think its worth reviewing and considering, as an ADR solution likely would involve FAR less time and 'drama' than either a formal grievance and/or harassment complaint.  You have lots on to go now it seems.  Early resolution is possible even after engaging the formal processes; processes which can be long, drawn out and involve significant investments in your time, emotions, etc.  

Really hope the current COA sorts this out, but if it doesn't and you need to proceed formally, hopefully those points and refs will help get you down the road with less effort & time.


----------



## dogger1936

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> rPM me if you do not get results.  I may know a few people.....



Thanks will do. Much appreciated.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Having the involvement of support of your higher CofC should (hopefully) sort this out for you before you need to engage the Grievance process and/or consider a formal harassment complaint.  But, in the event it doesn't, a few points and ref's that may help.
> 
> 1.  Assisting Officers (AO) are related to Summary Proceeding.  (QR & O, Vol 2, Chap 108, Art 108.03 - Definitions and Art 108.14).
> 
> 2.  Assisting Members (AM) are related to the CF Grievance Process.  (DGCFGA DIN and InterNet website)
> 
> 3.  Assistants are related to the CF Harassment Prevention & Resolution system.  (A-PM-007-000/FP-001, CF Harassment Prevention & Resolution Guidelines, Part 3, Art 3.5 Assistants).
> 
> In the event the current COA doesn't resolve this for you and you go 'formal':
> 
> - Along with the DAOD on Harassment, the CA also uses LFCO 11-86 Workplace Conflict Prevention and Resolution along with the National directives and guidance.  If you engage a WRA/HA, this LFCO is something you should also review, as it is does a good job on amplifying the DAOD, Guidelines, etc.  It also provides the CA-specific processes.
> 
> - If you do proceed with a formal complaint, I recommend your Assistant be WRA/HA trained (WRA/HA take the same trg).  They will be more familiar with the harassment process/system/practices and likely know where/how to access to your Formation level SOs/network, etc.
> 
> - If you do proceed with a formal grievance, you have the right to an Assisting Member.  However, remember that you are not limited to assistance just from that AM.  SMEs are invaluable and many are DND employees who are former serving mbrs with tons of knowledge.   Its easy to develop tunnel vision, they can help with 'seeing the bigger picture'.
> 
> - With either the grievance or harassment systems/processes, ADR is usually explored as a first step.  DAOD 5046-0 covers ADR, additionally there is a DIN ADR site, under the CMP org.  I think its worth reviewing and considering, as an ADR solution likely would involve FAR less time and 'drama' than either a formal grievance and/or harassment complaint.  You have lots on to go now it seems.  Early resolution is possible even after engaging the formal processes; processes which can be long, drawn out and involve significant investments in your time, emotions, etc.
> 
> Really hope the current COA sorts this out, but if it doesn't and you need to proceed formally, hopefully those points and refs will help get you down the road with less effort & time.



Thanks for the info. And your absolutely right; I don't have the energy or mindset to be dealing with this stuff right now. Which is the reason they are doing it IMHO. I'm at a bit of a undecided factor in regards to the harassment complaint. I really don't want to be stuck in the process; but I do really want to get this member labelled and recognized for what he is all the same. I've never been involved in any side of the harassment complaint; however it looks time and labour intensive from what I've seen from the sidelines back at the regiment.


----------



## Staff Weenie

There's an interesting quandary raised by PERs for personnel suffering from an OSI. I received my PER before I went on sick leave, and my supervisor told me it was one of the hardest he's ever written in 30 some-odd years. The scores went from walk on water to mostly mid-range, but the narrative was still very glowing. He said he found it extremely difficult to rate my actual performance. Sadly I actually agreed.... I've joked over the last year that I'd have fired my ass long ago. How do you objectively rate performance on somebody who can't remember what happened 10 minutes ago, and at times accomplishes only an hour's worth of work in a day? Or is on reduced work hours to two to three days per week?

I haven't read over the CFPAS manual since last year, but it is an area which I don't believe is touched upon, as I don't think it falls under the category for an outright PER exemption.

I'm not raising this for my sake, but because I know this is an issue that impacts many people every year, including some members of this site. The question is, accepting that your subordinate has an OSI, do you rate their performance within the spectrum of what they can realistically achieve at this time during their recovery and treatment? Would it still be fair to rank them against their peers?

I'm rather interested to hear what others have to say.

As for myself, I have a good relationship with my supervisor, and I'm not going to grieve my PER - I know it was a crappy year for me - instead, I'll just focus on the positive commentary. Maybe it'll let me show 'dramatic improvement' for next year.....


----------



## armyvern

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Thanks will do. Much appreciated.
> 
> Thanks for the info. And your absolutely right; I don't have the energy or mindset to be dealing with this stuff right now. Which is the reason they are doing it IMHO. I'm at a bit of a undecided factor in regards to the harassment complaint. I really don't want to be stuck in the process; but I do really want to get this member labelled and recognized for what he is all the same. I've never been involved in any side of the harassment complaint; however it looks time and labour intensive from what I've seen from the sidelines back at the regiment.



Interestingly, I recd a request today to act as an AM for a PER grievance happening in another Command. The request is supported by the CoC.

Good luck with your process; I wish you well.


----------



## armyvern

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> There's an interesting quandary raised by PERs for personnel suffering from an OSI....



I've told my supervisors to treat them as per normal. Much like a pers who is on MATA or PATA (ie away from the workplace for extended periods), I expect a honest assessment of their performance while they *were *at work.  As far as I'm concerned, being on 1/2 days due to OSI etc, or other means that you don't deduct for how they did not perform while excused from the workplace, but rather you assess them fairly on how they did perform while at work. 

If dude/dudette was at work for 1/2 days for the past year, but did an excellent job during those 1/2 days - they are to be assessed as having done that excellent job. So far, all of my supervisors seem to have gotten it and I haven't experienced any issues regarding submitted grievances or unfair write-ups. Knock, knock, knock.


----------



## dogger1936

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Interestingly, I recd a request today to act as an AM for a PER grievance happening in another Command. The request is supported by the CoC.
> 
> Good luck with your process; I wish you well.



Cheer's Vern.

I'll gladly take you as a AM; if so we will have a grand chuckle at this mess. However from what I heard as of late it will be re written reflecting truth and proper use of word picture (which we are certain wasn't used...it couldn't of been) to accurately reflect in the "bubbles". A Sgt excelling in a WO and Capt position deserving of more than Developing PER. There is no validation of the issues he presents. I basically had a disagreement over his misdirection on a policy, he became angry due to his incompetence and I had to leave the workplace to deescalate what turned into an argument. I did what was proper. I was never cautioned I was never charged I was never talked to about the incident as I had done the proper thing. I was also instructed by another officer to do as I did If this CIC officer went off his head again. This somehow makes it onto my PER when it was his unprofessional attitude that caused an unnecessary argument which he intended to escalate over and over until I under direction left.


Turns out this is what most of my PER states. A skewed idea of what happened by the same CIC officer. I have tons of witnesses if it comes to that. However I am assuming my CoC will get him to reign in his petty little digs.

At first...it bugged me and pushed me near over the top. Now it's honestly turning into a running joke.


As for the harassment I don't think I'll even bother.  I don't want to give him the satisfaction of attention and maybe a class A days pay. Luckly for the next ACA this CIC Capt has lost his job and has been replaced.


----------



## dogger1936

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I've told my supervisors to treat them as per normal. Much like a pers who is on MATA or PATA (ie away from the workplace for extended periods), I expect a honest assessment of their performance while they *were *at work.  As far as I'm concerned, being on 1/2 days due to OSI etc, or other means that you don't deduct for how they did not perform while excused from the workplace, but rather you assess them fairly on how they did perform while at work.
> 
> If dude/dudette was at work for 1/2 days for the past year, but did an excellent job during those 1/2 days - they are to be assessed as having done that excellent job. So far, all of my supervisors seem to have gotten it and I haven't experienced any issues regarding submitted grievances or unfair write-ups. Knock, knock, knock.



I fully agree. However I would add in taking into considerations his/her medical limitations. I made my CoC fully aware that I may have to leave during meetings, may come in late, but most of the time it wouldn't be a problem. I took it upon myself to get my Dr to draft a memo of sorts explaining things I should be able to work through but would need to be afforded some leeway in certain forms of employment. What I always done was made sure my co workers knew and were ready to take over during periods I would require them.

It was after a capt cornered me in my office not allowing me to leave as he accosted me like I was a pte in front of the whole office was the day I walked out. I told him he needed to provide clearer directions on money being spent and he ****ing lost it. 

Then this crap shows up on my developing PER.


----------



## ModlrMike

It's amazing what makes it into PERs sometimes. I once grieved an adverse PER that was written on the foundation of "he was rude to the troops once". This was the same year that as a PO2 I was Pl WO, acting CSM and acting RSM for most of the observation period.


----------



## dapaterson

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> A Sgt excelling in a WO and Capt position deserving of more than Developing PER.



This does highlight a fairly common problem - folks being in positions above their rank level, yet being assessed as the rank of the position.

It sometimes boils down to something like "As a Sgt, he's a developing WO."  Fine - but how does that developing WO translate into the Sgt rankings?


----------



## dogger1936

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This does highlight a fairly common problem - folks being in positions above their rank level, yet being assessed as the rank of the position.
> 
> It sometimes boils down to something like "As a Sgt, he's a developing WO."  Fine - but how does that developing WO translate into the Sgt rankings?



To me that would be a MOI PER. A Sgt working as a WO with little to no difficulty and filling in a Capt position over the course of the reporting period would be a pretty good definition of a MOI Sgt to me.


----------



## Teeps74

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> To me that would be a MOI PER. A Sgt working as a WO with little to no difficulty and filling in a Capt position over the course of the reporting period would be a pretty good definition of a MOI Sgt to me.



I agree. A Sgt filling a WO or Capt position, and displaying little difficulty in doing so, would indeed be an MOI Sgt. Not hard to justify that at all.


----------



## dogger1936

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I agree. A Sgt filling a WO or Capt position, and displaying little difficulty in doing so, would indeed be an MOI Sgt. Not hard to justify that at all.



One would think. Not to mention the narrative aside from this little mans attempt to add his disagreement with me as full fledged insubordination (sorry never charged never cautioned; and he was the instigator) is all good points....yet everything is developing? The guy has no clue what he is doing. I'm glad he is not resigned for this year; I dread to think what his demeanor is like with subordinates who are youth in the program.


Last time I checked you as a CIC Capt can't decide to make up charges and put on a PER....Unless something changed recently I'm not aware of? :nod:


----------



## armywife78

For you that followed my post...here is an update! We were able to get the move postponed! So we are very happy about this. AND another thing we are happy about is that IVF DID work. I am currently pregnant! So we are posted for December 10th (or November 10th or january 10th as you know it is possible to move the date 30 days pre/post the date.) Hopefuly our house will sale fast. We are putting it on the market next week...SO...if you know anyone in St Jean Area looking for something, we have one!
Thanks everyone for your help  :moose:


----------



## Occam

armywife78 said:
			
		

> Thanks everyone for your help  :moose:



I'm pretty sure your husband did it all on his own.   ;D

Oh wait, you mean.......never mind.

Congrats!


----------



## aesop081

armywife78 said:
			
		

> (or November 10th or january 10th as you know it is possible to move the date 30 days pre/post the date.)



Small detail but, 30 days beyond your COS is January 9th, not the 10th (theres 31 days in December). 30 Days prior to your COS date is indeed November 10th, but that is a Saturday and some units will not accept a week-end report date. That would make November 12th, the early limit of your window.

FYI.


----------



## ttlbmg

Congratulations, I am glad that everything worked in your favor. Good luck on selling your home, and the move!


----------



## KatFleming

Question
Joined in August of 09 and I received my first hook in Feb 2012 while on OP to Inuvik. I've just completed my 36 months. QL5 qualified. Have received top student and peer awards. Had a PER done and it was good. No charges, no complaints against me. Have most of my book done. Mech Eng before I joined up. WOndering if I can request an advanced Cpl's? and my chances of getting it. I'm an RM Tech, shop has one Pte no hook, myself, one Cpl, one MCpl etc


----------



## 211RadOp

No you can not request a promotion.  Your Chain of Command has to recommend it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

From CFA0 49-4 Career Policy NCM Reg Force

ANNEX B -- ACCELERATED PROMOTION

GENERAL

1. A CO may nominate for accelerated promotion members with outstanding ability, leadership, or supervisory potential. Accelerated promotion to Cpl must be in recognition of demonstrated outstanding performance as a tradesperson, whereas nomination for accelerated appointment to MCpl or above must also recognize leadership potential. A Pte may be nominated for accelerated promotion to Cpl or appointment to MCpl but a member of the rank of Cpl or above may be nominated for accelerated promotion only to the next higher rank, including appointment to MCpl.

3. Except as otherwise indicated, members governed by Tables 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of Annex A are not eligible for accelerated promotion.

5. To be eligible for nomination for accelerated promotion, a member must meet the prerequisites prescribed in Table 2 to Annex A and those in the appropriate tables to this Annex. A member may be nominated for accelerated promotion to MCpl without being MOC qualified but may not be promoted until all prerequisites are met. The CO shall negotiate priority coursing with the appropriate career manager (CM).

PROMOTION -- PTE -- CPL
7. A Pte's promotion may be accelerated to AL/Cpl who lacks QL5A qualification because of Service reasons provided the member meets all the other prerequisites in Table 1 to this Annex.

----------------------------------------------

That is some of the CFAO, you can get the full meal deal on the DIN.

I've never heard of someone 'requesting' it for themself before.  You're a Pte but got a PER?


----------



## aesop081

KatFleming said:
			
		

> Had a PER done and it was good.



A *PDR* maybe as Privates do not get PERs. There is no "word picture" section for Private and, in fact, the rank of Private is not even selectable in CFPAS for a PER.


----------



## 2 Cdo

X Royal said:
			
		

> That is the same standard as in the late 70's early 80's. I had to be ordered to put my first hook up.



Never did put my first hook up as it wasn't formally given to me. I was in the Airborne at the time and don't recall anyone putting up one hook.


----------



## Drag

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> A *PDR* maybe as Privates do not get PERs. There is no "word picture" section for Private and, in fact, the rank of Private is not even selectable in CFPAS for a PER.



Where I am we do a draft PER(narrative only, no scores), a form elaborating further on certain AFs and PF and a letter from the CO to the WComd.  I got a couple through in the last few months...


----------



## aesop081

D3 said:
			
		

> Where I am we do a draft PER(narrative only, no scores), a form elaborating further on certain AFs and PF and a letter from the CO to the WComd.  I got a couple through in the last few months...



Using the form a PER does not make.


----------



## MJP

D3 said:
			
		

> Where I am we do a draft PER(narrative only, no scores), a form elaborating further on certain AFs and PF and a letter from the CO to the WComd.  I got a couple through in the last few months...



So basically a PDR on a PER sheet.  Unusual way forward but at least you guys do some form of PDR.  I have several RCAF friends that only receive PERs and haven't seen a PDR unless they work for an outside unit/agency.


----------



## bridges

MJP said:
			
		

> I have several RCAF friends that only receive PERs and haven't seen a PDR unless they work for an outside unit/agency.



I never once got a PDR.  Most of my time after PDRs came out was spent at formation HQs or directorates in NDHQ, where I suspect they're not done as often as they're supposed to be, even now.


----------



## Pusser

211RadOp said:
			
		

> No you can not request a promotion.  Your Chain of Command has to recommend it.



Actually, in the Navy, you do request promotion to AB and LS.  Just one of those little quirks that's been carried over from the old RCN.  The Chain of Command still has to approve it.  If you don't request it, a request form will be placed in front of you to fill out and sign, so it happnes anyway.


----------



## DAA

:goodpost:

Just like when "Commissioned Officers" had to submit a "letter of request" to their CO to get married.........


----------



## Pusser

DAA said:
			
		

> Just like when "Commissioned Officers" had to submit a "letter of request" to their CO to get married.........



I did that!  A good chuckle was had by all.  I also hoisted a garland to the masthead of my ship on the day of my wedding.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

:sarcasm:
Why does none of this suprise me about the Navy?

In the Army, we know our troops and promote their welfare.

We don't wait for them to ask to be promoted. We just do it when they're ready.

I guess between wasting time on 'buttons and bows' the Navy still has more than enough time for useless paperwork and antiquated ideas.

You'd think they'd be trying to figure out how to stop hitting jetties and grounding submarines instead!  ;D

 :sarcasm:


----------



## bridges

recceguy said:
			
		

> In the Army, we know our troops and promote their welfare.
> 
> We don't wait for them to ask to be promoted. We just do it when they're ready.



Not to step into your army-navy thing with Pusser, but that's not _always_ true either...   when I was a Pte clerk in an infantry regiment, fully qualified to Cpl and with more than enough TIR, no promotion appeared for several months... meanwhile my infanteer buddies with the same TIR & quals were getting promoted with much fanfare on the armoury floor.   Finally I asked my CoC about it, and the reaction was like "oh - that's right, we hadn't thought about the clerks."  My promotion finally did come a few weeks later, with no back-dating, & was handed to me in the OR by the DCO with two other clerks in attendance, long after the rest of the regt had left for the day.

This was over 20 years ago; hopefully things aren't done that way anymore.  I never forgot it, though, and not in a good way.  On the bright side, as a good lesson in what _not_ to do, hopefully some of my own troops benefited from it over the years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

bridges said:
			
		

> Not to step into your army-navy thing with Pusser, but that's not _always_ true either...   when I was a Pte clerk in an infantry regiment, fully qualified to Cpl and with more than enough TIR, no promotion appeared for several months... meanwhile my infanteer buddies with the same TIR & quals were getting promoted with much fanfare on the armoury floor.   Finally I asked my CoC about it, and the reaction was like "oh - that's right, we hadn't thought about the clerks."  My promotion finally did come a few weeks later, with no back-dating, & was handed to me in the OR by the DCO with two other clerks in attendance, long after the rest of the regt had left for the day.
> 
> This was over 20 years ago; hopefully things aren't done that way anymore.  I never forgot it, though, and not in a good way.  On the bright side, as a good lesson in what _not_ to do, hopefully some of my own troops benefited from it over the years.



Guess we have to make these  :sarcasm: bigger so you won't miss them next time


----------



## bridges

recceguy said:
			
		

> Guess we have to make these  :sarcasm: bigger so you won't miss them next time



No, I saw them.   But what is this site for, if not venting?  

Edited to add this, just in case: 
:sarcasm:


I suspect it still happens that people are not promoted when they could be, simply because someone else doesn't think of it.   *Maybe* even in the army.


----------



## Pusser

recceguy said:
			
		

> :sarcasm:
> Why does none of this suprise me about the Navy?
> 
> In the Army, we know our troops and promote their welfare.
> 
> We don't wait for them to ask to be promoted. We just do it when they're ready.
> 
> I guess between wasting time on 'buttons and bows' the Navy still has more than enough time for useless paperwork and antiquated ideas.
> 
> You'd think they'd be trying to figure out how to stop hitting jetties and grounding submarines instead!  ;D
> 
> :sarcasm:



I guess you missed the part where I said it happens anyway, even if the member neglects to "request" it.  How can we do that if we don't "know our *sailors* and promote their welfare."  

However, i can't say that I'm surprised at your reaction.  I gather the Army has no antiquated traditions or useless paperwork - it being the pinnacle of modern efficiency and logic that we all aspire to emulate. :sarcasm:

To be brutally honest, the most egregious examples of *not* knowing their troops and *not*promoting their welfare, that I have ever seen in 30 years in the CF, have been comitted by army officers and NCOs.  This is not to say the Navy doesn't have it's issues in this area, but I saw what I saw.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I hope that everyone now has firmly established the lengths of their penis's and we can move on here............


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I hope that everyone now has firmly established the lengths of their penis's and we can move on here............



No problem. I'm very secure in my manhood anyway and some people just aren't worth the effort to put fingers to keyboards.

So I'm good.


----------



## McG

Since the government seems to own the ability to do it, I wonder what it would take to incorporate this into our appraisal process:  http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/ppc-cpp/360/fdbk-retro-eng.htm

Even if we only did it for MWO, CWO and Major +.


----------



## Infanteer

I think students of the JCSP program can use this while in Toronto; I think it is a great tool if incorporated properly.  If you search through staff college papers, incorporating such systems is a pretty popular topic - it would sure be useful in looking for toxic leadership.


----------



## Szczep

Would anyone know if it is allow to enter statement that indicates that member was dealing with medical issues during the reporting period? 
Something to the tune of: though the member was dealing with medical issues he ..... .
I thought it was not allowed.
Any light on the matter would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers


----------



## PuckChaser

Sounds like the rest of that sentence is a good thing? It shouldn't be specifying the medical issue, or docking you PER points because you blew your knee out, etc.


----------



## PAdm

it really depends on the context.  if it is being held against you, I would be inclined to say no.  if it was being used to segue into a positive statement, then maybe.  if you were my top performer last yr but had some med issues this yr that kept you from being your normal Exempt, parade commanding, kicking ass self, I would be tempted to say "though the mbr was dealing with some med issues, he continued to stand out as the true leader and mentor of this unit...."  I would use the ref to the med issue as a mitigating factor to hint as to why you could not excel in all areas but you remained a star nonetheless.  

So context is key.


----------



## 211RadOp

According to the CFPAS Help File art 117 para 1.a.



> compassionate, administrative, medical and/or disciplinary problems are to be commented on when they result in restricted employment and/or affect the individual's performance, deportment, behaviour and/or bearing;



Also, everywhere I have been, using words like despite, though, regarless, etc, have been scratched out by the CoC (and myself consequently).


----------



## schrodinger

Hey, I recently reformatted my computer and forgot to backup my copy of CFPAS. I was wondering if anyone has a copy that they could email to me or if someone could PM a password so I may download it from the website.

Thanks!


----------



## TwoTonShackle

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/en/index.asp

E-mail the admins with your particulars and they will provide you with an access code.


----------



## Help Desk

topo4u20 said:
			
		

> Does anyone know how to fix that annoying issue with CFPAS when you are filling in the text say section 5a on a PDR and if you go on to a line already typed and hit space bar it overwrites that line? Not sure if anyone has had  this problem but I do remember a while ago and cant for the life of me remember what to do. My only other way is to type text out on word and paste it.
> Thanks



Save yourself a lot of work, start using the PDR form within Monitor MASS, it automatically populates the form with Unit and Personal activities which are flagged show in the PDR and we will also add all your CFTPO tastings, MITE and HRMS 8.9 courses, eThar, currencies, Competencies , FMS drivers Quals, etc for the reporting period. Give it a try


----------



## PuckChaser

You're replying to a post from almost 3 years. We get it, monitor mass does PDRs now. 6 more necroposts won't help, especially since you've already made a topic for it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

And you can't access MM from home so I doubt CFPAS will disappear....


----------



## Armymedic

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> And you can't access MM from home so I doubt CFPAS will disappear....



And, you can't access MM if working on a standalone not hooked to DWAN....


----------



## Shamrock

Help Desk said:
			
		

> Save yourself a lot of work, start using the PDR form within Monitor MASS, it automatically populates the form with Unit and Personal activities which are flagged show in the PDR and we will also add all your CFTPO tastings, MITE and HRMS 8.9 courses, eThar, currencies, Competencies , FMS drivers Quals, etc for the reporting period. Give it a try



Have you tried using these PDR?  They are inadequate.

The critical tasks, formerly the domain of an entire page, are now reduced to 5 lines, and I must squeeze in the expected results into an equally teeny box.  While this portion has been abused in the past, I need at least 5 lines to tell my driver the expected results for his operating and maintaining our vehicle (to include completion of relevant paperwork, inspections, user maintenance, etc.)

Section 5, feedback, is apporopriate if and only if I am debriefing my subordinate on how he did leading in to coffee break.  6.5 lines per section is not nearly enough if I am going to give accurate and detailed feedback with substantiation.  Assuming I give feedback on 3 of his strengths, I've got 2 lines per factor.  A sentence; two at the most provided one is _done did good_.  I'm also not in the habit of giving sects 1-4 for each PDR; this means half of the two-page document I'm now forced to print is dead space cluttering up a UER.

I recommend this draft be removed from circulation until it meets the abilities of the existing system.


----------



## MJP

Reviving an old topic.  Saw an interesting email before I left work on Friday.  Seems like there are some significant changes coming to the PER process.  I don't remember them all but in short.

1)  Not everyone will need a PER.  LTs will now not receive one.  Cpls won't receive one for the first two years in rank.  I vaguely remember that holding true for other ranks but can't be certain.

2) Performance section will now be written in point form and only adverse or mastered will receive anything in potential.

There was more but alas my memory is short.  The focus seemed to be writing PERS on the people that have the potential to be promoted/seen by the merit board.  Other folks will receive PERs but are not the focus.  I think it is a good move.  Rather than bog down the CAF in a process that seems to never end, we focus our resources (time, effort) and get it over with. 

Thoughts?


----------



## PuckChaser

Anything that reduces the massive amount of man-hours that we dedicate to PER season every year is a good thing in my books.

I also saw that email, and noted they are recommending that appointments to MCpl in hard element trades be handled by the units/divs to reduce the burden at D Mil C. There should be a CANFORGEN released soon, the email said mid-Jan after all the L1As were consulted on wording.


----------



## MJP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Anything that reduces the massive amount of man-hours that we dedicate to PER season every year is a good thing in my books.
> 
> I also saw that email, and noted they are recommending that appointments to MCpl in hard element trades be handled by the units/divs to reduce the burden at D Mil C. There should be a CANFORGEN released soon, the email said mid-Jan after all the L1As were consulted on wording.



Ahh yes that was the other major point and it makes sense.  Controlling promotions at the highest level for hard element trades made little sense.  As long as they don't go over their establishment and promote in a manner consistent with the rest of the CAF it makes sense to delve it down to the folks that have a better handle on their particular slice of the world.


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Anything that reduces the massive amount of man-hours that we dedicate to PER season every year is a good thing in my books.
> 
> I also saw that email, and noted they are recommending that appointments to MCpl in hard element trades be handled by the units/divs to reduce the burden at D Mil C. There should be a CANFORGEN released soon, the email said mid-Jan after all the L1As were consulted on wording.



I assume you mean hard element trades to be non CS/CSS types ?  E.g. Bos'n, Inf and AVS ?  

Does this mean if you leave the unit/div that appointed you a MCpl/MS you could in theory be reverted back to Cpl/LS if the gaining org has its allotment of MCpl/MS already filled ?  Say for instance outside "hard element" postings.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I didn't attend the WCWO brief but a friend who did said there was also something in it about "you can request to not have a PER" for any given year, and there will be only 1 PDR review per cycle.  So, receive initial PDR, 1 review and PER.

We've shot ourselves in the foot with our own system, IMO.  CFPAS has all the requirements, yet I've been a part of units that have to 'add their own spin' to it.  If people followed what was written already, it wouldn't be such a clusterfuck.

I partially agree with the "first 2 years as a Cpl = no PER"; it makes sense when considered with CFAO 49-4, Annex A, Table 1 (timelines for promotion NCM) as a newly promoted Cpl needs 2 years to EPZ and be promoted MCpl.  It would *seem* to make sense to do the same for MCpl (2 years seniority to EPZ Sgt), etc.  But, I don't like the idea of people just not having any kind of assessment at all.  

It is great for say, 90% of newly promoted Cpls, but as we all know there are the keener who advance faster and show potential quickly.  These folks won't benefit from the "no PER for 2 years" change.


----------



## PuckChaser

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I assume you mean hard element trades to be non CS/CSS types ?  E.g. Bos'n, Inf and AVS ?
> 
> Does this mean if you leave the unit/div that appointed you a MCpl/MS you could in theory be reverted back to Cpl/LS if the gaining org has its allotment of MCpl/MS already filled ?  Say for instance outside "hard element" postings.



The email didn't specify Cmbt Arms or CS/CSS. I hope that's in the CANFORGEN as clarification.

I would hope that's not the case for reversion, as the CM shouldn't be posting someone appointed MCpl/MS into a Cpl/LS position.


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The email didn't specify Cmbt Arms or CS/CSS. I hope that's in the CANFORGEN as clarification.
> 
> I would hope that's not the case for reversion, as the CM shouldn't be posting someone appointed MCpl/MS into a Cpl/LS position.



The reason I ask is if your in geo posting you like and your a MS/MCpl why not say you dont want anymore PERs ?  It certainly would cut down on your ability to be posted where needed.  Where as if the CM could revert you back to Cpl/LS then that opens it back up again and provides incentive not to linger at MS/MCpl. 

Just a thought, I could just be high off of the fumes of my new Mossberg 500 3 barrel combo I just bought too lol


----------



## dapaterson

Environmental trades would be managed by the environments; purple trades would remain purple.  How the RCN, CA and RCAF mange their trades  may vary somewhat.  But no one once promoted would be reverted.  (Barring disciplinary or administrative action).


----------



## Old EO Tech

I'll have to wait and see what the final CANFORGEN to make an informed assessment, but  I agree that we put far too much time and effort into the PER process.  We do need to reward our subordinates for their performance honestly, but it should not take the huge amounts of time and effort that it does now.

I did hear about the point form part out in edmonton but not the rest.  For us CSS(Log/RCEME etc) I can't see national merit board going way, unless they put MCpl and below in the hands of the Div LCol/CWO.  But even then that could play havoc with the CM national posting plot.  We are not like the Combat Arms were we are limited to one Regt/Area for promotions/moves.

Will be interesting to see the final wording on the CANFORGEN


----------



## MJP

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It is great for say, 90% of newly promoted Cpls, but as we all know there are the keener who advance faster and show potential quickly.  These folks won't benefit from the "no PER for 2 years" change.



That was my first thought as I have seen a few Cpls promoted to MCpl on their first PER.  Mind you this was in a hard element trade as outlined in the email so that  part of no PER in the first two years could be ignored.



			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> .
> 
> I did hear about the point form part out in edmonton but not the rest.  For us CSS(Log/RCEME etc) I can't see national merit board going way, unless they put MCpl and below in the hands of the Div LCol/CWO.  But even then that could play havoc with the CM national posting plot.  We are not like the Combat Arms were we are limited to one Regt/Area for promotions/moves.



The email stated that purple trades would been governed much how they are now, except with the changes in writing PERs.


----------



## PuckChaser

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The reason I ask is if your in geo posting you like and your a MS/MCpl why not say you dont want anymore PERs ?  It certainly would cut down on your ability to be posted where needed.  Where as if the CM could revert you back to Cpl/LS then that opens it back up again and provides incentive not to linger at MS/MCpl.



The email specifically stated that not wanting anymore PERs doesn't remove the ability to be posted. Its just a simpler process than the current promotion refusal system, you can refuse all you want but you'll still get cost moved. My somewhat educated guess is that at the MCpl/MS rank in hard-element trades, there is either an abundance of positions all over the country, or you weren't moving very far anyway (PPCLI, RCR, R22eR as examples).

I would agree at the higher ranks you may run into this issue, but that's where pers that are refusing PERs and are refusing cost-moves need to go to through the AR process anyways to determine if they're still suitable for employment in the CF.


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The email specifically stated that not wanting anymore PERs doesn't remove the ability to be posted. Its just a simpler process than the current promotion refusal system, you can refuse all you want but you'll still get cost moved. My somewhat educated guess is that at the MCpl/MS rank in hard-element trades, there is either an abundance of positions all over the country, or you weren't moving very far anyway (PPCLI, RCR, R22eR as examples).
> 
> I would agree at the higher ranks you may run into this issue, but that's where pers that are refusing PERs and are refusing cost-moves need to go to through the AR process anyways to determine if they're still suitable for employment in the CF.



Awesome thanks PC!   I look forward to observing how this pans out


----------



## dangerboy

MJP said:
			
		

> Reviving an old topic.  Saw an interesting email before I left work on Friday.  Seems like there are some significant changes coming to the PER process.  I don't remember them all but in short.
> 
> 1)  Not everyone will need a PER.  LTs will now not receive one.  Cpls won't receive one for the first two years in rank.  I vaguely remember that holding true for other ranks but can't be certain.
> 
> 2) Performance section will now be written in point form and only adverse or mastered will receive anything in potential.
> 
> There was more but alas my memory is short.  The focus seemed to be writing PERS on the people that have the potential to be promoted/seen by the merit board.  Other folks will receive PERs but are not the focus.  I think it is a good move.  Rather than bog down the CAF in a process that seems to never end, we focus our resources (time, effort) and get it over with.
> 
> Thoughts?



I am scared that the units will still make it so everyone will receive points for potential and still insist on long narratives.  It will be interesting to see what happens when the CANFORGEN comes out and if we actually follow its intent or if the unit's misapply it.


----------



## MJP

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I am scared that the units will still make it so everyone will receive points for potential and still insist on long narratives.  It will be interesting to see what happens when the CANFORGEN comes out and if we actually follow its intent or if the unit's misapply it.



The email states that units that do not comply with the directives will have their PERs sent back.  I guess nothing stops a unit CoC from adding in their own stupid interpretation.  I imagine most people will be glad to not have to spend an inordinate amount of time writing prose for folks that are clearly not going to be promoted soon.

My first thought on the unintended consequences of this was if there will be a sharp rise in the number of MOIs.


----------



## Ostrozac

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I would agree at the higher ranks you may run into this issue, but that's where pers that are refusing PERs and are refusing cost-moves need to go to through the AR process anyways to determine if they're still suitable for employment in the CF.



Small tangent. I'm tracking the promotion refusal process, which is pretty straightforward. And actual refusal of promotion is a last resort, most people I know who don't want promotion are already gaming the PER system enough so their scores are mediocre enough that their files won't make it to boards. So I guess not writing their PERs in the first place isn't much of a stretch.

But how are people refusing cost moves? I've gotten my share of posting messages that I didn't want, each time I told my career manager I wasn't happy, and I went anyway, because I was ordered to. My only other option was release.

Or I you just implying that people are playing the "if you post me I'll release" card? And that that move actually still works? That's not entirely on the member -- that's the decision of the career manager. And you can't AR someone for refusing a posting message that wasn't cut.


----------



## Transporter

Haven't seen the email on the changes but the fact that they are proposing changes to the process this late in the reporting period is disconcerting.  I've already participated in unit ranking board discussions and drafted draft PERs already. May or Jun would have been a better time... unless these changes won't go into effect until the FY 14/15 PER season. Anyone know the answer to that?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I was told the changes will be happening very soon.  Well before the end of this FY.


----------



## George Wallace

Transporter said:
			
		

> Haven't seen the email on the changes but the fact that they are proposing changes to the process this late in the reporting period is disconcerting.  I've already participated in unit ranking board discussions and drafted draft PERs already. May or Jun would have been a better time... unless these changes won't go into effect until the FY 14/15 PER season. Anyone know the answer to that?



Doesn't sound like a problem to me.  You have merited your people and drafted their PERs.  So what if the scoring 'table' has changed.  Use the new format to score to match your written assessments.  Too easy.  A new form or format is not going to change your Merit List nor demand major changes to your wording of the PER.

It sounds like you are ahead of the game, just waiting for the right form to fill in.


----------



## DAA

Never saw any emails on the topic yet but I did receive a quasi brief from some guy with Maple Leafs on the epilette and this is what spewed forth:

a.  Lt and below will no longer get PERs, as promotion to Capt is pretty much a "time in thing" much like going from Pte to Cpl is.  So it's a waste of resources managing these;
b.  Narratives will be allowed in "point form" as opposed to using proper gramatical sentence structure;
c.  CF members eligible for a PER, will be afforded the opportunity to "Opt out" if they so choose;
d.  For PERs that are staffed, Merit Boards will now be conducted/managed by Environmental Commands based on occupations.  If your occupation is considered to be a "purple" trade, it will then still be managed by DGMC based on the current process.

Never got any info on implementation timings but I would think that we are too far into it to make the change now, so expect it to come for next years reporting cycle.

This sounds oh so similar to the Civilian Performance assessments of the 80's-90's.   Would you like a "Short Form Assesssment or a Long Form Assessment, Mrs Smith?"


----------



## Transporter

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Doesn't sound like a problem to me.  You have merited your people and drafted their PERs.  So what if the scoring 'table' has changed.  Use the new format to score to match your written assessments.  Too easy.  A new form or format is not going to change your Merit List nor demand major changes to your wording of the PER.
> 
> It sounds like you are ahead of the game, just waiting for the right form to fill in.


 I'm sure I'll be able to figure it out and make it all work... I've only written about 6000 PERs in my career. However, my point is if you're going to make changes to something (and I'm all for streamlining the PER process), the proper way to do it would be at the beginning of the reporting period, not the end. But that's just my opinion I guess.


----------



## Jarnhamar

What are the SOPs when a member receives a PER they are not happy with and want to  argue it?


----------



## Transporter

DAA said:
			
		

> Never saw any emails on the topic yet but I did receive a quasi brief from some guy with Maple Leafs on the epilette and this is what spewed forth:
> 
> a.  Lt and below will no longer get PERs, as promotion to Capt is pretty much a "time in thing" much like going from Pte to Cpl is.  So it's a waste of resources managing these;
> b.  Narratives will be allowed in "point form" as opposed to using proper gramatical sentence structure;
> c.  CF members eligible for a PER, will be afforded the opportunity to "Opt out" if they so choose;
> d.  For PERs that are staffed, Merit Boards will now be conducted/managed by Environmental Commands based on occupations.  If your occupation is considered to be a "purple" trade, it will then still be managed by DGMC based on the current process.
> 
> Never got any info on implementation timings but I would think that we are too far into it to make the change now, so expect it to come for next years reporting cycle.
> 
> This sounds oh so similar to the Civilian Performance assessments of the 80's-90's.   Would you like a "Short Form Assesssment or a Long Form Assessment, Mrs Smith?"


 I was thinking the same... sounds something like the Civilian Performance assessment process... can probably only opt out if performance has been satisfactory though... also, what if your rock star decides he/she doesn't want a PER? 

Looking forward to seeing the email/CANFORGEN.


----------



## DAA

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> What are the SOPs when a member receives a PER they are not happy with and want to  argue it?





			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> What are the SOPs when a member receives a PER they are not happy with and want to  argue it?



First thing, is "informal resolution".  It's all spelled out in black and white in the CFPAS Manual and it is available online.  ---> http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/en/index.asp



			
				Transporter said:
			
		

> I was thinking the same... sounds something like the Civilian Performance assessment process... can probably only opt out if performance has been satisfactory though... also, what if your rock star decides he/she doesn't want a PER?
> 
> Looking forward to seeing the email/CANFORGEN.



I too would like to see the "official notice" but until then, we all wait and carry on as per normal.  

From what I understand, "anyone" will be able to opt out.  So if you, as a supervisor, identify someone with "rockstar" potenttial for advancement, then it will most likely be incumbent upon you to convince them to "opt in", time will tell.

My first thoughts when I heard all of this, where.........    Wait a second, PERs are or were linked to TOS (Terms of Service) offers, wait a second, PERs are linked to predicted advancement and loading on Career Courses (QL 6, PLQ, ILQ, etc).  Where the heck are we heading with this?


----------



## Jarnhamar

DAA said:
			
		

> First thing, is "informal resolution".  It's all spelled out in black and white in the CFPAS Manual and it is available online.  ---> http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/en/index.asp



Thank you very much.


----------



## PuckChaser

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> But how are people refusing cost moves? I've gotten my share of posting messages that I didn't want, each time I told my career manager I wasn't happy, and I went anyway, because I was ordered to. My only other option was release.
> 
> Or I you just implying that people are playing the "if you post me I'll release" card? And that that move actually still works? That's not entirely on the member -- that's the decision of the career manager. And you can't AR someone for refusing a posting message that wasn't cut.



The one big example I know of is SigOp (ACISS now) trade going through an entire succession planning list of CWOs to post to 1 HQ&Sigs as the RSM only to get "No" all the way down the line. Eventually a Cbt Engineer CWO was posted into the position (seemed like a real nice guy when I met him), and all those CWOs in Sigs presumably stayed in the succession plan list.

I don't think cost-move refusal is something thats happening at the lower rank levels.


----------



## McG

DAA said:
			
		

> CF members eligible for a PER, will be afforded the opportunity to "Opt out" if they so choose;


So, if a member is a sack of hammers one year there will be the option to opt-out of a PER and hide what should be an adverse?


----------



## MJP

MCG said:
			
		

> So, if a member is a sack of hammers one year there will be the option to opcan't t-out of a PER and hide what should be an adverse?



It doesn't seem so.  Everyone still gets a per, only MOI & Adverse get a potential rating.   Pers only opt out of being considered for promotion.


----------



## AmmoTech90

The information I received on the opt-out option was that both parties will have to agree to opting out.  Therefore Cpl Bag O'hammers cannot opt out of getting a PER the year they were on C&P and charged and was a general screw up.  Personally I would write the regulations so that if someone has admin or disciplinary action against them a PER would be required.  My view of this option is that it is for the person with 25+ years in who is not getting promoted or sincerely doesn't want progression, or they have six months on their contract and a civvie job waiting.  It reduces the work load on supervisors and hopefully allows for more effort to be put into the PERs that are written.

This is not happening this year, it has received support at high levels, but the exact details are still to be worked out.  Everyone will still get PDRs, the PER is what can be omitted, MJP's process may be the way forward but it is different from what I was told.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> The information I received on the opt-out option was that both parties will have to agree to opting out.  Therefore Cpl Bag O'hammers cannot opt out of getting a PER the year they were on C&P and charged and was a general screw up.  Personally I would write the regulations so that if someone has admin or disciplinary action against them a PER would be required.



Why?  For performance/conduct deficiencies, the mbr would have applic paperwork on file if they were on RMs, and their Conduct Sheet would reflect the disciplinary side.  IIRC, RM documents are scanned into PERMIS no?

Sure, a PER would be a nice 'tie up' but could be duplication of paperwork that isn't required.



> This is not happening this year



That's not what my WCWO said.  I guess time will tell.  Or, perhaps it will be done in the manner the FORCE test replaced EXRPES; instructions out now, but come into play after this PER season (which would make sense).


----------



## AmmoTech90

By not this year I meant this FY (13/14).


----------



## PuckChaser

MCG said:
			
		

> So, if a member is a sack of hammers one year there will be the option to opt-out of a PER and hide what should be an adverse?



The email stated the CO would have to sign off an exemption PER which would cue the "opt out". I would hope the CoC would notify the CO that said member should not be allowed to Opt Out due to poor performance.


----------



## McG

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Why?  For performance/conduct deficiencies, the mbr would have applic paperwork on file if they were on RMs, and their Conduct Sheet would reflect the disciplinary side.  IIRC, RM documents are scanned into PERMIS no?
> 
> Sure, a PER would be a nice 'tie up' but could be duplication of paperwork that isn't required.


Merit boards see neither admin measures from the pers file nor conduct sheets.  Therefore, a year of spectacular failure could be hidden if a PER is not written.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Seen.  Didn't realize that.


----------



## GnyHwy

From my understanding, opting out is much the same as tapping out.  You are essentially recognizing that you will not or do not desire to go any higher in rank, and are relieving the CoC of the burden of doing your PER.  

I do agree with this, as this should reduce a tonne of unnecessary administration.  Only persons in promotion zone or with the potential to enter the promotion zone need to be written.

For poor performers, there are plenty of other measures to deal with that, other than a crappy PER.

For Lts and below and Cpl and below, I am understanding that the eventual intent is for the Unit COs to promote their own. 

The part that gets me is point form format.  I can't understand why it is necessary.  Is this a way to level the playing field, whereas exceptional writers don't have an advantage in writing their own persons? Or where poor writer's aren't disadvantaged in writing their own persons?  Or perhaps, letting supervisors off the hook for bad grammar; and their supervisors not having to correct them?

I never understood why it would be so difficult to fill a few paragraphs about a person's entire year long performance.  If you can't fill that little block with things that person has done in an entire year, then they haven't done much!


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I admit, I am still digesting these potential changes but I do see some good here. Let's face it; the bulk of the trades are up-or-out. What if a technician just wants to get dirty turning wrenches all day or a cook wants to learn a million and one ways to flip omelettes every day - We don't have a system to accommodate these people on a pan-CF basis. I will use an example I am VERY familiar with at the FMF here in Halifax for the Navy. If your ship is entering a SWP and your are an HR Unit, when you request support for diesel work you just might luck out and get the "A-team" (Also known as the two Ronnies and those in the know on here, will indeed KNOW who I mean). These are two of the head guys and are both ex MS/PO2 who did not want to advance up the food chain any higher so here they are now and we are paying them a 40% pension and a salary around $50+K a year (I am estimating these numbers admittedly) when we could have retained them and had them "opt out" and remain as maintainers/maintenance supervisors. Too often, I am sure, people joining to make a career of it see the recruiting video which really only encompasses your job to the MS/MCpl level at which point you start assuming managerial roles of sorts. I know we have a few career LS/Cpls and I dare say, the corporate knowledge they have is invaluable in most cases.
This is my perception only of this "opt out" possibility. Will it create nightmares for CMs and Occ Mgrs? - You bet it will but I daresay, we have tried for years to sustain some of the trades using 'conventional' methods. Maybe we need to start thinking WAY outside the box.
...Again, the two cents worth from a long in the tooth stoker seeing WAY TOO many good people (Many of you on these forums) move to private industry because all they want to do is fix diesels, or gas turbines, or hydraulic systems or...I think you get it.

Pat


----------



## armyvern

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> I admit, I am still digesting these potential changes but I do see some good here. Let's face it; the bulk of the trades are up-or-out. What if a technician just wants to get dirty turning wrenches all day or a cook wants to learn a million and one ways to flip omelettes every day - We don't have a system to accommodate these people on a pan-CF basis. ...
> Pat



Sure we do; I have a couple of stars who've essentially "opted out" of career progression.  All it takes is a memorandum stating that you do not wish to progress up in rank which I then send to careers.  AR is done, and message is cut to member acknowledging their desire.  Message placed on pers file and file in Ottawa.  Now, in the "potential" block of their PER, I write only "Although XXXX shows outstanding potential for promotion, member does not wish to progress further IAW message DMILC XXXX XX".  The same process is applicable for all members of the CF - thus it is "pan-CF".

Members are also advised that if they wish to "opt back in" that all they need is a memo stating such sent back up to careers.  The first troop that I ever had who did this was ~2001_ish_ and I currently have two more who've done same (we're a Pri 2 HR Deployable Unit).  Both Loggies, neither Sup Techs.


----------



## Ostrozac

ArmyVern,

That's an interesting, and more formal, way to stop career advancement than what I'm familiar with.

What's I've seen happen currently is less formal -- when CFR'd Captains don't bother doing AJOSQ or CAFJOD, or when experienced Majors or MWOs don't speak a word of French, that results in the member not getting ranked anywhere near the top of the unit merit list. And therefore their PER never has scores good enough to make it to promotion board. So the member never gets a promotion offer that they would refuse. 

Now, in these examples, I expect the member would already be on IPS, and would be quite happy to serve in their current rank until a retirement date of their choosing. But the elephant in the room is probably how do you go about doing IPS offers for a member who has opted out of career progression earlier in their career? Is an official opt-out message on their file the kiss of death for them when their file gets looked at in their 22nd and 23rd year of service?


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Vern:
Fair enough and maybe I was making a bit of a generalization. That will indeed work, maybe even for most trades but I can tell you first hand, it cannot for all (in their current trade progression construct). Most of the shipboard positions for the technical trades (Mar Eng, WEng especially) are double hatted in that they are both Force employment but have a Force generation caveat. Yes, I know you are always in preps to assume your supervisor's job, but there is a bit of a difference here and I admit that this may (more likely WILL) require a major cultural shift. I also admit that this may be a Navy only problem. Essentially, if you request to cease training at the LS rank in pretty much any (Navy)trade, you will no longer be in uniform within a few years. I am saying that this opting out possibility will create a mechanism to allow that. I personally am eager to see if this can work because (as I said in another thread) we need a change in culture and this may be the impetus for it. That said, thank you for the insight and I am going to keep in mind what you said because I know of a few who want to do this now. The next step is to introduce some sort of financial incentive allowing us to increase their pay to align with experience, training etc. other than the 4 incentives at rank.


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I have a couple of stars who've essentially "opted out" of career progression.


So you're saying that you have troops who look to you and decide   "  I _definitely _don't want to end up like her!"     >

          ;D


----------



## armyvern

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> What's I've seen happen currently is less formal -- when CFR'd Captains don't bother doing AJOSQ or CAFJOD, or when experienced Majors or MWOs don't speak a word of French, that results in the member not getting ranked anywhere near the top of the unit merit list. And therefore their PER never has scores good enough to make it to promotion board. So the member never gets a promotion offer that they would refuse.



The above is related to potential, but how is their actual _performance._  Two different beasts as I see them.  In my trade, one can still be promoted past MWO without a language profile (_if_ they showed the potential ability to perform at the next rank), but they just wouldn't be able to be employed in any trade, branch or environmental _succession planned_ positions.  CWO Sup Techs don't necessarily need a language profile to be able to perform successfully in a CWO sup tech job in a Unit for example. This would negatively impact upon their ability to perform in a _SPd_ CWO position in the school, or branch though.



> Now, in these examples, I expect the member would already be on IPS, and would be quite happy to serve in their current rank until a retirement date of their choosing. But the elephant in the room is probably how do you go about doing IPS offers for a member who has opted out of career progression earlier in their career? Is an official opt-out message on their file the kiss of death for them when their file gets looked at in their 22nd and 23rd year of service?



I see this bit as being related to Performance (not _potential_ for progression). With my current two pers, one is IPS and one is not. I do not suspect that his choice to opt out will impact any future IPS offer as his "performance" is excellent - well above others in his trade.  He may be a Cpl who opted out, but when it comes time to select who you are making IPS offers for further service to, are you choosing the_ meh _performer or the excellent performer?  I know what my choice would be. I, personally, want to beat him with a large baseball bat as his potential would also be (if he let me formalize it dammit  ) higher than most of his peer group.  But, for now anyway - he is doing what he loves and wants to keep doing such.

My ~2001 case was a navy type; a Master Seaman.  He's still in and still a MS.  Still loving what he's doing and happy where he's at (back on a boat now).


----------



## armyvern

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So you're saying that you have troops who look to you and decide   "  I _definitely _don't want to end up like her!"     >
> 
> ;D



Pretty much; the troops have added a sign to my door announcing "Welcome to Mama XXXXX's Office"  --  I have done something wrong. :facepalm:


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I have done something wrong.


It's not your fault.  You're a redheaded female; it's inevitable.   :-*


----------



## medicineman

It's kind of refreshing to see something like this - I remember the conversation I had with my RSM a few years back when I went on Compassionate - he lost his shyte and started on about how I had to worry about my career, etc...I looked at him and told him that I was 4 ranks higher than I ever thought I'd get, I was perfectly happy with my current rank and station and had no ambition beyond that.  He took it rather personally - again I pointed out that it was MY career and not his, and if he'd actually been worried about my career and not his, we wouldn't have been in the position that led to me requesting that posting in the first place.  I think if people are good techs, mechanics, etc, and want to stay that way, then they should...and also should be paid appropriately, but that's another story for another day.  As bosses, we do have to listen to our subordinates - some people will never be comfortable or happy doing admin (I fall into the latter category), so we should be able to funnel people either up or sideways depending on wishes, talents or both.  If I'd had some higher level bosses and career managers in the right places the right time actually paying attention to me, I seriously doubt I'd be a civvy right now.

MM

Edit for grammar oopie.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> So, if a member is a sack of hammers one year there will be the option to opt-out of a PER and hide what should be an adverse?



That is why both CO and member must agree - to avoid exactly that scenario


----------



## Transporter

As illustrated by some of the posts here, the sad reality is that often-times its the "best and brightest", the ones who have their collective you-know-what together, and who have thought about life and stuff beyond just what's best for their careers, are the ones who "opt-out". Conversely, some of the most career-driven people I know are exactly the ones we should all be most afraid of making higher rank. 

Edit for words missing.


----------



## armyvern

Transporter said:
			
		

> As illustrated by some of the posts here, the sad reality is that often-times its the "best and brightest", the ones who have their collective you-know-what together, and who have thought about life and stuff beyond just what's best for their careers, who will "opt-out". Conversely, some of the most career-driven people I know are exactly the ones we should all be most afraid of making higher rank.



Don't misinterpret anything that I posted because I can also state that each and every one of my subordinate supervisors deserves to be in their leadership role.

Some people excel at that while others prefer to be hands-on.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with either - they are all doing what they prefer and thus have "their _collective_ shit together" - no-one moreso than the other.


----------



## Transporter

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Don't misinterpret anything that I posted because I can also state that each and every one of my subordinate supervisors deserves to be in their leadership role.
> 
> Some people excel at that while others prefer to be hands-on.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with either - they are all doing what they prefer and thus have "their _collective_ crap together" - no-one moreso than the other.


 Emphasis on "some", not all. Personally, I've already started to see indications within my MOC where the "B-Teams" at certain rank levels are starting to look pretty stacked. I don't mean to imply that there aren't plenty of folks out there who deserve every promotion they get however.


----------



## Tibbson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I partially agree with the "first 2 years as a Cpl = no PER"; it makes sense when considered with CFAO 49-4, Annex A, Table 1 (timelines for promotion NCM) as a newly promoted Cpl needs 2 years to EPZ and be promoted MCpl.  It would *seem* to make sense to do the same for MCpl (2 years seniority to EPZ Sgt), etc.  But, I don't like the idea of people just not having any kind of assessment at all.



Yep, 2 years as a Cpl to EPZ and be promoted to MCpl.  For most trades that means about 6 years of service in the CAF (give or take).  For trades like MP though that can mean you have people making MCpl with 2-3 years in uniform since they have bypassed the normal time as Pte.  The trade is struggling big time with that issue and has been for years now since Ptes were eliminated.  2 years of college hardly make up for 4 years in uniform but as I understand it, it was a pay issue to be competitive with civilian departments.


----------



## Pusser

Has anyone considered the problems of allowing people to stop their own career progression and plateau?  What about the people below them who do want to progress, but can't because the plateau folks are blocking all the billets at the next rank level?  I'm not sure what the state is now, but a number of years ago there was a situation amongst the MarEng Mechs where either 33% or 66% (I can't remember which) of all PO2s were career restricted (as a result of QL6 failure) and unpromotable.  This meant that promotions for MS and Below were VERY competitive and quite rare compared to other occupations.  It was sad to see keen, bright and competent MS & B being unable to progress because there were so many PO2s that could not.  Even sadder were the cases where the MS or even LS was so much brighter and more competent than his/her PO2 supervisor.  Will allowing folks to opt out of career progression create more problems?


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Pusser said:
			
		

> Has anyone considered the problems of allowing people to stop their own career progression and plateau?  What about the people below them who do want to progress, but can't because the plateau folks are blocking all the billets at the next rank level?  I'm not sure what the state is now, but a number of years ago there was a situation amongst the MarEng Mechs where either 33% or 66% (I can't remember which) of all PO2s were career restricted (as a result of QL6 failure) and unpromotable.  This meant that promotions for MS and Below were VERY competitive and quite rare compared to other occupations.  It was sad to see keen, bright and competent MS & B being unable to progress because there were so many PO2s that could not.  Even sadder were the cases where the MS or even LS was so much brighter and more competent than his/her PO2 supervisor.  Will allowing folks to opt out of career progression create more problems?


I know what you are talking about in this case but there was a little more to it where the QL6 and Cert 3 were dropped to the MS level, so yes, there was a stall in career progression but quite frankly, we still cannot fill many PO2 spots (We currently have 11 'legacy' PO2 non Cert 3 east-don't know the west number).
That said, this is the problem with allowing what is coming to be referred to as lateral progression and I don't have an answer even though I, personally am one of the biggest proponents for this in my trade mainly because of the really good people the Navy has lost as both technicians and as junior leaders. the secret is to find out how to park a number of people/positions at the LS and PO2 level. I KNOW that this is not a uniquely Mar Eng problem. There are other trades out there who do this but it doesn't tie up promotions for those wanting to carry on in the trade. I am all ears for anyone who wants to enlighten me.
There is no question though that this 'opting out' option will create these unique opportunities-the only question now is does it have potential (and we wont see this short term), to create logjams in certain trades.


----------



## dapaterson

There are mechanisms to deal with such blockages.  Review boards followed by handshakes and farewell.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are mechanisms to deal with such blockages.  Review boards followed by handshakes and farewell.



You need to read through all this da. The whole idea is that we need to retain these 'wrench turners' at the Cpl/LS level-They are a valuable asset and giving the golden handshake is what we are doing now...and it is costing us. I admit, there are deadbeats playing the system and we have always tackled them one at a time but those are not the individuals being referred to here.


----------



## dapaterson

I'm not talking about wrench turners (LS/MS) but rather supervisors.

If a trade is blocked at a rank level it's unhealthy.  Yo uend up without a solid experience base - rather, you get a lot of folks with a lot of experience, who leave at once and create a huge gap.  Far better to take steps to clear the blockage and ensure a constant flow - sort of like ex-Lax, to get the impacted shit moving and keeping things healthy in the long term.


----------



## McG

Not having seen anything official on this, there are still bits of the idea that are not clear.  The big question would be where it has been suggested that pers will not receive PERs that will not be seen by a merit board.  Does that mean that a first PER in rank will be the year prior to a member reaching EPZ (so that there is one PER for the board to consider) or three years prior to hitting EPZ (so that there are three PERs for the board to consider)?

Also, instead of not writing PERs for Lts, I would rather see we start making the promotions merit based.    … but that would be (and has been) a topic for another thread.


----------



## stokerwes

I tend to agree with Pat on this one. I know whom he is referring to regarding the A team. Sadly I too have seen a substantial number of personnel that just wanted to be marine engineering mechanics/technicians being forced to release because the current system was too inflexible to accommodate them. At least this proposed system is taking a step in the right direction. If people that were forced to leave the CAF, I can only relate my experiences from a Naval perspective, could have somehow remained where they were most satisfied I think it would have benefited the Navy tremendously. Let's not forget that people change with time. Maybe someone that wants to remain a mechanic or technician decides a few years later that they want to move on to a more supervisory postion. This would benefit the Navy as well as that person, that got to stay because of flexibility within the system, would able to pass on their vast knowledge to more junior positions and up the chain to superiors.  
There has to be a way to satisfy the need for trade progression while being able to retain personnel without causing progression blockages. I don't know how it could be achieved but there are a lot of people within the CAF that are a lot smarter than me that will come up with a viable solution.
As far as people abusing or playing the system that is going to happen regardless of any rules or orders that are promulgated. Some people just want to coast by in life. The majority want to be productive and contribute.
I will be looking forward to seeing if these changes actually happen. As with any changes there will be growing pains but we will all find a way to make it work.


----------



## TChuki

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I despise the PER system.  One is either over rated or under rated never accurately rated.  How many times does one have to see the bell curve used to pick the pecking order.  Guys who should have had some KUDOS kicked in the teeth because they can't give that many outstanding write ups.  Or slugs who rose up because they are the commsumate bag lickers of the unit.  I see each year amongst my peers the "what did you get?  who is where on the merit list?" and seeing the infighting and morale dumping that follows.  I am sick of it.
> 
> Yes, I know I am bitching and honestly cannot offer a total better solution to this yearly disaster.



There is so much that I wanted to say, I started drafting a paragraph and just deleted. This just makes my blood boil.
I couldn't agree more with the statement above…it is that plain, simple and to the point!!!

The latest round of disappointments, embarrassments and frustration was seen the entire section of Cpl only receive 1 PDR (with the initial issued in September) for the whole fiscal year with 1 member not even getting an Initial, and watching Sgts, openly completing the write-up for the `selected` Cpl that was to head to the unit's mini board, 
 using last years PER in the matter of 1 hour.-done before holidays- This all without member's brag sheet and more importantly without any other Cpls brag-sheets.


----------



## Tibbson

Pusser said:
			
		

> Has anyone considered the problems of allowing people to stop their own career progression and plateau?  What about the people below them who do want to progress, but can't because the plateau folks are blocking all the billets at the next rank level?



I agree with you however this is never an issue in any other industry, job, profession......   And yes, I know in many ways we are not just any other industry, job or profession but I really don't see people worrying at GM that they can't progress because Line Supervisor A has been in the same position for 15 years and people can't move up.  Or the Department Manager at Walmart who has been in that position for 4 years and gets told it's time to move on.  If the person in the position is competent, capable and willing to remain in that position then don't we have a responsibility to keep them employed in that position as long as we have a need for them in that position...or does that only apply to our injured members?  

Personally, I got more then a little ticked when one of the MCpls in the office told me I need to retire soon so that vacancies were created down the ranks for people to move up.  I earned my job and position and I do it well.  Nothing was automatic for me and I didn't complain when I was "stuck" at Cpl for 11 years due to no promotions way back when so others can just wait their turn as well.


----------



## DAA

Pusser said:
			
		

> Has anyone considered the problems of allowing people to stop their own career progression and plateau?  What about the people below them who do want to progress, but can't because the plateau folks are blocking all the billets at the next rank level?  I'm not sure what the state is now, but a number of years ago there was a situation amongst the MarEng Mechs where either 33% or 66% (I can't remember which) of all PO2s were career restricted (as a result of QL6 failure) and unpromotable.  This meant that promotions for MS and Below were VERY competitive and quite rare compared to other occupations.  It was sad to see keen, bright and competent MS & B being unable to progress because there were so many PO2s that could not.  Even sadder were the cases where the MS or even LS was so much brighter and more competent than his/her PO2 supervisor.  Will allowing folks to opt out of career progression create more problems?



It's too late, far too late.  The day they changed the IPS policy, started what we are seeing today, along the lines of promotion numbers.  With the removal of the "IPS Base Rank" followed by a steady increase in %'s of offers, to where we are today.  For all intense purposes, 100% conversion rates.

Allowing personnel to "opt" out, itsn't going to create any more problems with slow/no promotions than there already are.

Or let's play devil's advocate and say that all the top performers decide to "opt out" and those whom are less than stellar decide to "opt in".  Then what happens?


----------



## George Wallace

The unfortunate folk who are at or nearing "aging out" are affected.  Age discrimination will prevent them from that promotion that they may have received without such a freeze delaying their window of opportunity.  Sad fact that does exist, even though we say it doesn't.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The unfortunate folk who are at or nearing "aging out" are affected.  Age discrimination will prevent them from that promotion that they may have received without such a freeze delaying their window of opportunity.  Sad fact that does exist, even though we say it doesn't.



Bullshit.  Promotion is derived from results on the national merit boards.  For NCMs, there are no mechanisms for considering time left to serve anywhere in the process.


----------



## Drag

The only major heartache i have with the changes that are being discussed is not filling out the potential section for non-Immediate PERs.   In my occupations (CELE) Capt - Maj promotions, and in the ATIS Tech trade promotions anywhere up to MWO, regularly happen with a mix of high Ready and Immediate PERs.  You can write an individual that is showing potential to be competitive for promotion in say 2-3 year but is not ready to "immediately" assume the  next rank as a high Ready knowing he will still get looked 2-3 years from now and still be competitive.  Under the new system being discussed, I foresee a significant increase in PER inflation.  The default for anyone showing potential will become an Immediate PER and the scores will trend up to become broadly similar to the USAF system where even individuals with less than 1 year in rank are automatically near right lined because it is the only way to make them competitive against their peers.


----------



## PuckChaser

As opposed to the PER inflation we see now? Master and Outstanding should be a rare score, but its thrown around very easily. If you try to honestly and accurately assess someone's performance, typically you're just screwing them but not bumping a few marks up. I'm willing to see how this works out to combat the broken PER system I see now.


----------



## Old EO Tech

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Bullshit.  Promotion is derived from results on the national merit boards.  For NCMs, there are no mechanisms for considering time left to serve anywhere in the process.



Not to sidetrack the PER discussion to much here.  But I disagree, people are discriminated by age(though very unconstitutional) due to the Succession Planning System(at least the way the Army does it).  Yes technically a person has the same chance of promotion based on merit as anyone else whether you are succession planned or not.  But the fact is that if you are too old to fill a tier level position before age 55 you will not be put in SP'd positions, ie CSM/RSM/Ops O/Adj etc, and therefore you will lose those points at the national merit boards.  So indirectly SP does effect your chance of promotion, when you are only offered non SP postions, regardless of your performance at these jobs.

Of course this policy is not on paper anywhere or it would face a court challenge for sure, but it's the defacto policy nonetheless, and I've been told this in person and on the phone myself.


----------



## Drag

Puck Chaser, sound like we need to address a PER inflation problem and not the overhaul the system...  On the RCAF side, on the Wings at least, an unofficial quota system exists where you need the permission of the W Comd to give an individual not ranked in Section 5 an immediate PER.  While this has not fully addressed PER inflation it has helped slow it significantly.  During my previous posting at a Wing we did not breach the "quota" for any rank level in the unit, and were under quota for most.  At my current unit during the ranking boards I have seen as much as 6/7 written as Immediate.  

I think we will make the PER system even more broken as we are seeing in some occupations... I hear from from my Sigs coworkers that the cut of this year for Capt to Maj promotions for *making* the board was in the 93% range..  To me that means that you have guys getting right dressed PERs in the second and third year in rank, before they fully have a handle on their jobs at their current rank.

If we move that way we might as well adopt the USAF enlisted system where there is nearly no difference in EPR score between your superstars and your middle of the road performer.  As a result their promotions are mostly based on rand advancement testing and mbr education upgrading.   I do not believe that that is the way the CF should go as I've seen that system reward the individual who lets his work suffer for a month studying for a test and hurts the mbr that focuses on his primary job.


----------



## Old EO Tech

D3 said:
			
		

> Puck Chaser, sound like we need to address a PER inflation problem and not the overhaul the system...  On the RCAF side, on the Wings at least, an unofficial quota system exists where you need the permission of the W Comd to give an individual not ranked in Section 5 an immediate PER.  While this has not fully addressed PER inflation it has helped slow it significantly.  During my previous posting at a Wing we did not breach the "quota" for any rank level in the unit, and were under quota for most.  At my current unit during the ranking boards I have seen as much as 6/7 written as Immediate.
> 
> I think we will make the PER system even more broken as we are seeing in some occupations... I hear from from my Sigs coworkers that the cut of this year for Capt to Maj promotions for *making* the board was in the 93% range..  To me that means that you have guys getting right dressed PERs in the second and third year in rank, before they fully have a handle on their jobs at their current rank.
> 
> If we move that way we might as well adopt the USAF enlisted system where there is nearly no difference in EPR score between your superstars and your middle of the road performer.  As a result their promotions are mostly based on rand advancement testing and mbr education upgrading.   I do not believe that that is the way the CF should go as I've seen that system reward the individual who lets his work suffer for a month studying for a test and hurts the mbr that focuses on his primary job.



Yes adopting the USAF system would definitely not be a solution.  You can't adopt their meriting system and not adopt the fact that they promote people whether their is a job opening or not.  It would just be one more piss off if we gave people exams, they did outstanding on them, and then told them sorry there is not MWO/Major spot for you this year, come back next year and try again :-/


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Not to sidetrack the PER discussion to much here.  But I disagree, people are discriminated by age(though very unconstitutional) due to the Succession Planning System(at least the way the Army does it).  Yes technically a person has the same chance of promotion based on merit as anyone else whether you are succession planned or not.  But the fact is that if you are too old to fill a tier level position before age 55 you will not be put in SP'd positions, ie CSM/RSM/Ops O/Adj etc, and therefore you will lose those points at the national merit boards.  So indirectly SP does effect your chance of promotion, when you are only offered non SP postions, regardless of your performance at these jobs.
> 
> Of course this policy is not on paper anywhere or it would face a court challenge for sure, but it's the defacto policy nonetheless, and I've been told this in person and on the phone myself.



Fair one - I deliberately stated that promotion was not limited by rank.  Appointment to a succession planned position (and I will grant for some trades, that effectively limits promotion to CWO) is very much effected by years of service.  This in and of itself of course is not at all a contravention of human rights, which is why we use that terminology vice years TO serve.  On the officer side, selection for JCSP (which for two Army trades is directly linked to promotion - everyone else, not so much) is rigidly prescriptive wrt YOS.  No point creating a Staff Trained Major just in time for them to hit CRA.

On the whole, I consider the system to be very fair with respect to all aspects of a file, including age.  Performance trumps everything, on the whole - and I say this from the perspective of one who joined at the age of 26, and has been fighting the age thing my entire (relatively successful) career.


----------



## dapaterson

However, oddly enough, JCSP does not incur obligatory service.  There are folks who have their DWD in the mess in Toronto just after they graduate.


----------



## AirDet

D3 said:
			
		

> Under the new system being discussed, I foresee a significant increase in PER inflation.  The default for anyone showing potential will become an Immediate PER and the scores will trend up to become broadly similar to the USAF system where even individuals with less than 1 year in rank are automatically near right lined because it is the only way to make them competitive against their peers.



I have no doubt that is exactly what's going to happen. What I'm interested in seeing is how that will all pan out at the boards in the fall.


----------



## George Wallace

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Bullshit.  Promotion is derived from results on the national merit boards.  For NCMs, there are no mechanisms for considering time left to serve anywhere in the process.



Just back from a funeral at Beechwood and catching up.  Sorry if you think it is BS.  It isn't.  I had an OC tell me straight to my face, in front of witnesses, in the Mess tent at RV '92 that I was going nowhere as I was "too old".  Witnesses volunteered to bear witness should I have decided to fight that.  I didn't and served another thirteen years, without promotion.  So! Call BS all you want, but it is a fact.


----------



## Infanteer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just back from a funeral at Beechwood and catching up.  Sorry if you think it is BS.  It isn't.  I had an OC tell me straight to my face, in front of witnesses, in the Mess tent at RV '92 that I was going nowhere as I was "too old".  Witnesses volunteered to bear witness should I have decided to fight that.  I didn't and served another thirteen years, without promotion.  So! Call BS all you want, but it is a fact.



So, a statement by someone in the mess tent at RV 92 constitutes meriting policies in 2014?


----------



## Journeyman

Maybe he was just being kind by attributing it to your age.    >


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, a statement by someone in the mess tent at RV 92 constitutes meriting policies in 2014?



The same policies are in effect today as they were in 1992.  Discrimination existed then, as I am sure it exists now.  The example that lead down this path, about "aging out", is still valid.  Some day you may witness or experience it yourself.   Perhaps if you look within your own unit, you may find an example or two.   Times have changed.  Policies haven't seen many major changes.  Some things still remain the same and with a turn of the head, or a wink and a nod, or turning of a blind eye, are still happening.   PDRs and PERs are the closest things we have humanly possible to giving members a fair assessment.  They are not perfect and can still be abused, but I can not see any better system.


----------



## MJP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The same policies are in effect today as they were in 1992.  Discrimination existed then, as I am sure it exists now.  The example that lead down this path, about "aging out", is still valid.  Some day you may witness or experience it yourself.   Perhaps if you look within your own unit, you may find an example or two.   Times have changed.  Policies haven't seen many major changes.  Some things still remain the same and with a turn of the head, or a wink and a nod, or turning of a blind eye, are still happening.   PDRs and PERs are the closest things we have humanly possible to giving members a fair assessment.  They are not perfect and can still be abused, but I can not see any better system.



I have sat in many a merit board and age has never been a factor.  I have seen a large number of people at all ages meet what most people in their room considered their potential in terms of rank (or some cases a rank or two above).  Funny enough they don't usually get promoted after that point, except it seems by attrition.


----------



## armyvern

MJP said:
			
		

> I have sat in many a merit board and age has never been a factor.  I have seen a large number of people at all ages meet what most people in their room considered their potential in terms of rank (or some cases a rank or two above).  Funny enough they don't usually get promoted after that point, except it seems by attrition.



My experience in those boards mirrors yours.


----------



## George Wallace

I am not saying that this is running rampant in the CAF, only that it does exist.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The same policies are in effect today as they were in 1992.  Discrimination existed then, as I am sure it exists now.  The example that lead down this path, about "aging out", is still valid.  Some day you may witness or experience it yourself.   Perhaps if you look within your own unit, you may find an example or two.   Times have changed.  Policies haven't seen many major changes.  Some things still remain the same and with a turn of the head, or a wink and a nod, or turning of a blind eye, are still happening.   PDRs and PERs are the closest things we have humanly possible to giving members a fair assessment.  They are not perfect and can still be abused, but I can not see any better system.



Again, bullshit.  The Army of today is the Army that I always wanted to join - and I was at RV 92.  There is little room for dullards, small-minded bullies and discriminatory thinkers, and no room for "a turn of the head, or a wink and a nod, or turning of a blind eye".    We stamp that shit out wherever we see it.  The Dinosaurs are slowly dying off, taking most (but admittedly not all) the toxic leaders with them.  Ten years of war has a way of sorting out priorities.

It truly is a different Army than the one you served in, and to that I say thank the gods.  I only wish that you could be part of it now.


----------



## Old EO Tech

MJP said:
			
		

> I have sat in many a merit board and age has never been a factor.  I have seen a large number of people at all ages meet what most people in their room considered their potential in terms of rank (or some cases a rank or two above).  Funny enough they don't usually get promoted after that point, except it seems by attrition.



I think the merit boards are very fair as well.  It's not the merit boards themselves that are the problem but some of the systemic careers policies that happen outside the boards.  Such as the Succession planning system I mentioned in my previous post.  And I have also seen CM/Corps Leadership bypass the principles of the merit list and promote out of order, age being one factor, or simply geographic location and lack of posting credits.  While merit boards are highly regulated and overseen, what decisions are made afterwards do not have that level of oversight, and if a member is not being very proactive and tech-netting a lot, he/she is unlikely to even realize they are getting screwed over :-/


----------



## McG

D3 said:
			
		

> The only major heartache i have with the changes that are being discussed is not filling out the potential section for non-Immediate PERs.   In my occupations (CELE) Capt - Maj promotions, and in the ATIS Tech trade promotions anywhere up to MWO, regularly happen with a mix of high Ready and Immediate PERs.  You can write an individual that is showing potential to be competitive for promotion in say 2-3 year but is not ready to "immediately" assume the  next rank as a high Ready knowing he will still get looked 2-3 years from now and still be competitive.  Under the new system being discussed, I foresee a significant increase in PER inflation.  The default for anyone showing potential will become an Immediate PER and the scores will trend up to become broadly similar to the USAF system where even individuals with less than 1 year in rank are automatically near right lined because it is the only way to make them competitive against their peers.


I share similar concerns.
I also wonder how this will affect selection processes that also use PERs as a reference for meriting (some year-long advance training, occupation transfers, component transfers, and potentially others).



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> I have sat in many a merit board and age has never been a factor.


You will see it as an Adjt or OC.  I have seen a handful of CFR Capts sacraficed at the unit or formation level because "they will retire before reaching CO" in order to raise-up ROTP or young UTPNCM Capts.  I am also aware of age discussions during the unit and formation level meriting of MWOs and Majors.

The biggest disadvantage is not in merit boards but, as suggested by Old EO Tech, it is when guys are passed over for leadership and staff positions because they are too old to ever be a Div Sgt Major.  As a result, they do not recieve the higher experience points of having filled such positions.  I know of cases where age has been the deciding factor in sending majors to JCSP through residency or through DL.

In any case, it seems (having still only seen what is presented here) that these changes are a management solution to the CoC gaming the CFPAS as opposed to a leadership solution.  CFPAS works, but we do not follow CFPAS.  



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, oddly enough, JCSP does not incur obligatory service.  There are folks who have their DWD in the mess in Toronto just after they graduate.


Time to fix this.  Make it three years obligatory service after graduation.  We can then add this idea to our list of how the CF can get more milage out of its dollars.


----------



## Drag

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> bypass the principles of the merit list and promote out of order, age being one factor, or simply geographic location and lack of posting credits.  While merit boards are highly regulated and overseen, what decisions are made afterwards do not have that level of oversight, and if a member is not being very proactive and tech-netting a lot, he/she is unlikely to even realize they are getting screwed over :-/



Theoretically this is not supposed to happen, as per CFAO 11-6 Para 10:
10. The military requirement, referred to in subparagraph 4f(2), is the number of officers required at each rank level, in each MOC, to fill the Canadian Forces (CF) establishment. The military requirement also dictates that each establishment position be filled with personnel with the appropriate skill and knowledge. *To satisfy the military requirement it may be necessary to promote members out of sequence to the annual merit list. When an out of sequence promotion occurs, the bypassed member will normally be promoted in that year. Approval of an out of sequence promotion that will result in the bypassed member not being promoted until the next calendar year is deemed to be an exceptional event which requires the personal approval of the CDS*

Unless and individual becomes ineligible for promotion ( medical issues, PT test failure or conduct issues), he/she must be promoted if someone below them on the merit list was promoted unless approval was obtained from the CDS...  If an individual finds out that they were "skipped over: it would seem to me to be a very strong grounds for a grievance.


----------



## Old EO Tech

D3 said:
			
		

> Theoretically this is not supposed to happen, as per CFAO 11-6 Para 10:
> 10. The military requirement, referred to in subparagraph 4f(2), is the number of officers required at each rank level, in each MOC, to fill the Canadian Forces (CF) establishment. The military requirement also dictates that each establishment position be filled with personnel with the appropriate skill and knowledge. *To satisfy the military requirement it may be necessary to promote members out of sequence to the annual merit list. When an out of sequence promotion occurs, the bypassed member will normally be promoted in that year. Approval of an out of sequence promotion that will result in the bypassed member not being promoted until the next calendar year is deemed to be an exceptional event which requires the personal approval of the CDS*
> 
> Unless and individual becomes ineligible for promotion ( medical issues, PT test failure or conduct issues), he/she must be promoted if someone below them on the merit list was promoted unless approval was obtained from the CDS...  If an individual finds out that they were "skipped over: it would seem to me to be a very strong grounds for a grievance.



I agree it would be a good grounds for a grievance....if you found out...

But there are also other shady ways around this reg.  In the RCEME Corp all MWO feed into just one global pool for CWO, however we are not merited on the same list, all four trades have separate lists.  When I asked why we do this the answer was to the effect of, not all CWO jobs are universal some are specific to a specific trade and we need to put the best people in each position.  And while it is true for the Assistant Occupational Advisers and a few LCMM spots, 95% of CWO jobs can be filled by any trade.  But this system does allow the CM/Corps to pick from 4 lists for the "right person" for a job without breaking the CFAO you quoted.


----------



## Franko

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I agree it would be a good grounds for a grievance....if you found out...



Pretty easy to find out. It's done all the time by talking with others in your peer group and finding out where they placed. When someone gets promoted before you do, there's your cue and the clock starts ticking. 

From there, filing a grievance is just a step away.


----------



## armyvern

D3 said:
			
		

> Theoretically this is not supposed to happen, as per CFAO 11-6 Para 10:
> 10. The military requirement, referred to in subparagraph 4f(2), is the number of officers required at each rank level, in each MOC, to fill the Canadian Forces (CF) establishment. The military requirement also dictates that each establishment position be filled with personnel with the appropriate skill and knowledge. *To satisfy the military requirement it may be necessary to promote members out of sequence to the annual merit list. When an out of sequence promotion occurs, the bypassed member will normally be promoted in that year. Approval of an out of sequence promotion that will result in the bypassed member not being promoted until the next calendar year is deemed to be an exceptional event which requires the personal approval of the CDS*
> 
> Unless and individual becomes ineligible for promotion ( medical issues, PT test failure or conduct issues), he/she must be promoted if someone below them on the merit list was promoted unless approval was obtained from the CDS...  If an individual finds out that they were "skipped over: it would seem to me to be a very strong grounds for a grievance.



I have such a case occurring right now.  'Tis interesting times.


----------



## armyvern

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> But there are also other shady ways around this reg.  In the RCEME Corp all MWO feed into just one global pool for CWO, however we are not merited on the same list, all four trades have separate lists.  When I asked why we do this the answer was to the effect of, not all CWO jobs are universal some are specific to a specific trade and we need to put the best people in each position.  And while it is true for the Assistant Occupational Advisers and a few LCMM spots, 95% of CWO jobs can be filled by any trade.  But this system does allow the CM/Corps to pick from 4 lists for the "right person" for a job without breaking the CFAO you quoted.



'Tis normal and allowable in such cases.  Sup techs experience exactly such ... when a rigger qual'd is required for posn X, then the highest rigger on the merit list receives the promotion, out of sequence & possibly ahead of peers, and is placed into the job.  There are many specialities and pre-reqs required for many posns in the CF, and the next in line for promotion on whatever merit list that meets the pre-reqs and posn requirements should get that job & promotion.

Edit to add:  Oh, and it is very easy to find out if you've been bypassed these days as opposed to when you served.  The merit list numbers are published onto the troops' EMAA account by careers so that they can see what number they are and whether they are promoted or not.  Then, the careers website tracks how many promotions there were for the FY.  When you are listed on EMAA as number T and they've promoted up to number Z ... and you were not one of them and you didn't get by passed due to any of the items mentioned in the previously-quoted QR&O - guess what?


----------



## Ostrozac

You're right, it is allowed. If there are 6 LCol promotions coming in the army, but one of the job openings is Commandant of the Advanced Warfare Centre, and the top Major on the list with a parachute course is meritted as number 7, then Major number 7 will likely get the job, and Major number 6 will likely stay a Major.

But by a strict reading of the CFAO this decision has to be blessed by the CDS.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> You're right, it is allowed. If there are 6 LCol promotions coming in the army, but one of the job openings is Commandant of the Advanced Warfare Centre, and the top Major on the list with a parachute course is meritted as number 7, then Major number 7 will likely get the job, and Major number 6 will likely stay a Major.
> 
> But by a strict reading of the CFAO this decision has to be blessed by the CDS.



Ummmm.......no.  Not how it works at all.  Promotion and command are on two very different streams.

For command jobs in the Army, the various Regiments, Branches and Corps submit nominations on their Short Term Succession Plan.  Those nominations are reviewed and, in essence, voted on by Army Succession Board (ASB), which is comprised of the members of Army Council and select Regimental / Branch reps, and chaired by Deputy Commander Canadian Army (DCCA).  The candidates are narrowed down to a primary and an alternate for each command billet.  The Commander of the Army then reviews the results and selects each CO or RSM himself, usually (but not necessarily) iaw the recommendation from ASB.

Potential is also discussed and confirmed by ASB, in the guise of the Long Term Succession Plan.  Regiments, Branches and Corps submit their "tiering" to ASB, which confirms it.  The tiering indicates a senior officer or NCMs potential (Tier 3 means formation command / SM, Tier 2 essentially means Div Comd or higher).

Promotion on the other hand is governed by results on the national merit boards.

All of this can be found in the LFCO which is, IIRC, 11-79.


----------



## Ostrozac

Thanks for that, I was clearly misinformed as to how much gets done within the Army (as opposed to what happens at DGMC).

I'll have to give that LFCO a good read to educate myself a little better.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Thanks for that, I was clearly misinformed as to how much gets done within the Army (as opposed to what happens at DGMC).
> 
> I'll have to give that LFCO a good read to educate myself a little better.



De rien. 

I have been involved in the CFPAS / Promotion / Tiering part of the Army for some time now.  I am convinced that, given the size of the "workforce" and the various competing demands including Regimental, Army and personal preferences, that are system is remarkably fair, that it generally promotes competence and recognizes performance AND potential, and that there aren't any viable alternatives to the system in place.


----------



## Old EO Tech

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 'Tis normal and allowable in such cases.  Sup techs experience exactly such ... when a rigger qual'd is required for posn X, then the highest rigger on the merit list receives the promotion, out of sequence & possibly ahead of peers, and is placed into the job.  There are many specialities and pre-reqs required for many posns in the CF, and the next in line for promotion on whatever merit list that meets the pre-reqs and posn requirements should get that job & promotion.
> 
> Edit to add:  Oh, and it is very easy to find out if you've been bypassed these days as opposed to when you served.  The merit list numbers are published onto the troops' EMAA account by careers so that they can see what number they are and whether they are promoted or not.  Then, the careers website tracks how many promotions there were for the FY.  When you are listed on EMAA as number T and they've promoted up to number Z ... and you were not one of them and you didn't get by passed due to any of the items mentioned in the previously-quoted QR&O - guess what?



I agree that when there is a hard requirement that bypassing people is fine.  But what I was getting at is that there is a large potential for misuse of this system, when there is not a hard requirement but when subjective opinions are used to pick a person from one list vice another.

And btw I am still serving, and yes EMAA and some tech-netting makes bypassing the system much harder but still not impossible.


----------



## armyvern

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> ...
> And btw I am still serving, and yes EMAA and some tech-netting makes bypassing the system much harder but still not impossible.



My apologies; you're just old. Like me.   ;D


----------



## Franko

EMMA's been down all week. Now is the time to bypass! LOL


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> EMMA's been down all week. Now is the time to bypass! LOL



 :cheers: :rofl:

Frustrating...


----------



## Old EO Tech

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Ummmm.......no.  Not how it works at all.  Promotion and command are on two very different streams.
> 
> For command jobs in the Army, the various Regiments, Branches and Corps submit nominations on their Short Term Succession Plan.  Those nominations are reviewed and, in essence, voted on by Army Succession Board (ASB), which is comprised of the members of Army Council and select Regimental / Branch reps, and chaired by Deputy Commander Canadian Army (DCCA).  The candidates are narrowed down to a primary and an alternate for each command billet.  The Commander of the Army then reviews the results and selects each CO or RSM himself, usually (but not necessarily) iaw the recommendation from ASB.
> 
> Potential is also discussed and confirmed by ASB, in the guise of the Long Term Succession Plan.  Regiments, Branches and Corps submit their "tiering" to ASB, which confirms it.  The tiering indicates a senior officer or NCMs potential (Tier 3 means formation command / SM, Tier 2 essentially means Div Comd or higher).
> 
> Promotion on the other hand is governed by results on the national merit boards.
> 
> All of this can be found in the LFCO which is, IIRC, 11-79.



So just out of curiousity, since SP and promotions are separate administrative processes, what happens when MWO X is planned to be the next RSM but for some reason, performance..medical..etc, fails to be promoted.  Does the ASB have to sit again to make a new recommendation to the CCA?


----------



## Journeyman

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Does the ASB have to sit again to make a new recommendation to the CCA?



Apparently not.





			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The candidates are narrowed down to a primary *and an alternate *  for each command billet.


----------



## Old EO Tech

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> My apologies; you're just old. Like me.   ;D



Yes I'm starting to feel old when my troops are younger than my kids


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> So just out of curiousity, since SP and promotions are separate administrative processes, what happens when MWO X is planned to be the next RSM but for some reason, performance..medical..etc, fails to be promoted.  Does the ASB have to sit again to make a new recommendation to the CCA?



As Journeyman said, there are alternates.  Sometimes, neither primary or alternate gets promoted, which leaves the Regiment in question in a bit of a pickle.

In a completely unrelated note, the next CO of the Strats is from 12 RBC....


----------



## AirDet

I've been reading all the comments here from different bases and commands. All I can say is, this is going to be a really interesting PER season. I wouldn't want to serve on a merit board with all these changes.

As for age discrimination, I have no doubt it and other form of discrimination do happen. I don't believe it to be systemic though.


----------



## Tibbson

AirDet said:
			
		

> I've been reading all the comments here from different bases and commands. All I can say is, this is going to be a really interesting PER season. I wouldn't want to serve on a merit board with all these changes.
> 
> As for age discrimination, I have no doubt it and other form of discrimination do happen. I don't believe it to be systemic though.



I must admit, I haven`t seen any of these changes people are talking about.  My office already has PERs done after having help our local board and then a Canada wide teleconference to marry our local results in with the rest of our Unit PERs across Canada (we`ve got about 200 members in various locations).  If they change the system now we`re going to have to do it all over again.  Then again, why should that surprise anyone.  lol


----------



## Old EO Tech

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> I must admit, I haven`t seen any of these changes people are talking about.  My office already has PERs done after having help our local board and then a Canada wide teleconference to marry our local results in with the rest of our Unit PERs across Canada (we`ve got about 200 members in various locations).  If they change the system now we`re going to have to do it all over again.  Then again, why should that surprise anyone.  lol



Out in 1 CMBG none of these changes have been implemented as policy, though I've heard 3 PPCLI is writing their PER's in point form, guess they are betting on the changes coming quickly.  At 1PPCLI we are doing business as per last year.  And with our aggressive timings we will have all the PER drafts done before the CANFORGEN, and then half the PER will be redundant for all the junior Cpls, and everyone opting out...oh well such is life...


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Out in 1 CMBG none of these changes have been implemented as policy, though I've heard 3 PPCLI is writing their PER's in point form, guess they are betting on the changes coming quickly.  At 1PPCLI we are doing business as per last year.  And with our aggressive timings we will have all the PER drafts done before the CANFORGEN, and then half the PER will be redundant for all the junior Cpls, and everyone opting out...oh well such is life...



I am sure that 1 CMBG will adapt, and adapt quickly.  This is good news (if it is ever announced) , and no doubt the Bde will pounce on the opportunity to strike a blow for common sense, even if they end up having to rewrite PERs.


----------



## Tibbson

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I am sure that 1 CMBG will adapt, and adapt quickly.  This is good news (if it is ever announced) , and no doubt the Bde will pounce on the opportunity to strike a blow for common sense, even if they end up having to rewrite PERs.



We just received a draft copy of the CANFORGEN today with the number consisting of XXX/14 and an indication it would be released around 15 Feb 14.  We were also told to revisit the PERs we had already written and that our Unit boards would be redone once we had the PERs amended to the new format.  

About the biggest comment we all had was that if they want to change the system, why do it NOW?  Why not wait until after 1 Apr 14 and bring it out in prep for next year or, if they insisted on it being done for this year, they should have given us a heads up long before now.  

The only other observation we had was that now that the narratives were gone, only to be replaced by bullet points for ES and M in Sec 4 and "O" in Section 5 for those with an "Immediate" PER...how are we to have enough room?  We felt there was enough room in Section 5 to allow for up to 6 bullet points if someone is right justified in Potential but there are only 17 lines of text for 17 factors in Section 4 if you have someone who is all ES or M.  Essentially one line per factor.  Thats the part I'm going to find challenging.  

Going to be interesting to see how it all plays out.


----------



## PuckChaser

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> The only other observation we had was that now that the narratives were gone, only to be replaced by bullet points for ES and M in Sec 4 and "O" in Section 5 for those with an "Immediate" PER...how are we to have enough room?  We felt there was enough room in Section 5 to allow for up to 6 bullet points if someone is right justified in Potential but there are only 17 lines of text for 17 factors in Section 4 if you have someone who is all ES or M.  Essentially one line per factor.  Thats the part I'm going to find challenging.



Its worse when you have to make actual sentences, unless you're grouping an event under different headings.


----------



## MJP

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> We felt there was enough room in Section 5 to allow for up to 6 bullet points if someone is right justified in Potential but there are only 17 lines of text for 17 factors in Section 4 if you have someone who is all ES or M.  Essentially one line per factor.  Thats the part I'm going to find challenging.



Many examples can be written to cover off 1-3 of the AFs at once, something that is quite common in the narrative style anyway.


----------



## Tibbson

MJP said:
			
		

> Many examples can be written to cover off 1-3 of the AFs at once, something that is quite common in the narrative style anyway.



That might be, and I hope it is, but for now we were told each one must be substantiated.


----------



## Old EO Tech

I'm sure there will be tweaks to the new CFPAS as feedback is collected, just like happened to CFPAS when it first came out, and the old 10 point system before that.  At least we don't have our scores covered by a layover so we can only read the narrative and guess our score :-/


----------



## GnyHwy

I still can't get past this bullet thing.  My good god, I didn't think it would/should be such as task.  I guess it's an easy way to fill up a block for someone who hasn't done anything.  

I've seen more time spent organizing a BBQ than we are spending writing out a person's yearlong work.  

Editted to add:  Oh wait a minute... I know why now.  You only get 1 point for written communication.  Organizing a BBQ is worth 3.  That makes sense.   :


----------



## SupersonicMax

The PER system is messed up and biased anyways.  Most units will rank people before writing the PER (which will reflect what the ranking is). In the end, it'll just save the poor soul writing the PERs time doing actual work.

The PER system should not be how you tell your subordinates how well they are doing.


----------



## GnyHwy

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The PER system is messed up and biased anyways.  Most units All units will rank people before writing the PER (which will reflect what the ranking is). In the end, it'll just save the poor soul writing the PERs time doing actual work.
> 
> The PER system should not be how you tell your subordinates how well they are doing.



FTFY!


----------



## McG

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The PER system should not be how you tell your subordinates how well they are doing.


But it should do your subordinates justice when communicating their performance to merit boards and the various selection boards that look at such documents.


----------



## medicineman

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> We just received a draft copy of the CANFORGEN today with the number consisting of XXX/14 and an indication it would be released around 15 Feb 14.  We were also told to revisit the PERs we had already written and that our Unit boards would be redone once we had the PERs amended to the new format.
> 
> About the biggest comment we all had was that if they want to change the system, why do it NOW?  Why not wait until after 1 Apr 14 and bring it out in prep for next year or, if they insisted on it being done for this year, they should have given us a heads up long before now.



It's to make sure the person who came up with this idea gets credit for it THIS PER season and not NEXT.

MM


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Drat!  Foiled by that damn_ Leading Change _ bubble again!


----------



## Tibbson

MJP said:
			
		

> Many examples can be written to cover off 1-3 of the AFs at once, something that is quite common in the narrative style anyway.



We were specifically directed to do the following:

- the AFs and PFs (where needed) were to be bulleted separately.  For example if you could normally comment on both Initiative and Leadership together, now you needed to have them listed as individual AF bullets.  Without adjectives of course.

- Because there are only 17 lines of text allowed in both sections, and there are essentially 17 AFs in Section 4....if someone was all AS or M there would be 17 one line comments, one for each AF.  Essentially, if you can't fit it on one line, cut it down.

- Because someone right justified can only have one line of comment per AF, someone with only 3 AFs requiring comment will only have three one line comments with the remainder of the Section 4 block left empty.  Why should someone developing with all "skilled" and 3 "Above Standard" get the whole text box for the three "Above Standard" bubbles while someone right justified gets one line per AF?  If the rock star gets one line per AF comment then everyone else gets on line per AF regardless of how many AFs they have.

- We've got to put all of our other points on a member on a secondary "justification sheet" so really, all we've done is shift the work from the PER document to a secondary "love me list" that supervisors can use to fight with in a board.

As you can see, there is going to be a ridiculous amount of writing, rewriting, changing, opinions and confusion without firm direction and examples being given.


----------



## lcis00110

At my organization, it's been determined that we are allowed to combine AFs to make a point.  It will still be bulleted, just not in a list form. It will be written in a paragraph form in order to meet the 17 line restriction within the text box.  For example: (AF1).......(AF2).....(AF3,6).....(AF14,16) vice:
AF1
AF2
AF3
...
AF16

I'm just glad there will be no more "FLUFF" words in order to "fill" the unused space!!!  NO BS, and more FACTS!!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

While reading the CMP letter I couldn't help but notice the date of the AFC decision and date of letter.  I don't work in NDHQ but I'd like to think there was opportunity for this info re: changes to this PER season to be released quicker.  

 :2c:


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> - We've got to put all of our other points on a member on a secondary "justification sheet" so really, all we've done is shift the work from the PER document to a secondary "love me list" that supervisors can use to fight with in a board.



That is redonkulous.  Someone in your CofC needs to give their head a shake.



			
				lcis00110 said:
			
		

> At my organization, it's been determined that we are allowed to combine AFs to make a point.  It will still be bulleted, just not in a list form. It will be written in a paragraph form in order to meet the 17 line restriction within the text box.  For example: (AF1).......(AF2).....(AF3,6).....(AF14,16) vice:
> AF1
> AF2
> AF3
> ...
> AF16



 :facepalm:

I guess following the direction is too hard for some organisations.


----------



## Old EO Tech

lcis00110 said:
			
		

> At my organization, it's been determined that we are allowed to combine AFs to make a point.  It will still be bulleted, just not in a list form. It will be written in a paragraph form in order to meet the 17 line restriction within the text box.  For example: (AF1).......(AF2).....(AF3,6).....(AF14,16) vice:
> AF1
> AF2
> AF3
> ...
> AF16
> 
> I'm just glad there will be no more "FLUFF" words in order to "fill" the unused space!!!  NO BS, and more FACTS!!!



I just read the message as well, and there is no direction saying that all the AF or PF have to be left justified, so yes all ES/M AF etc need a comment but they can all be one big paragraph.  And without adjectives it should not be that hard to fit in the space.


----------



## Tibbson

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I just read the message as well, and there is no direction saying that all the AF or PF have to be left justified, so yes all ES/M AF etc need a comment but they can all be one big paragraph.  And without adjectives it should not be that hard to fit in the space.



No, it shouldn't be hard to fill the space but that is my main objection.  I have one member for which I have to touch on every AF because he's all either ES or M.  I will have no problems filling the 17 lines regardless of which way I write him up, ie: one line per AF or by combining AFs.  On the other hand, I have one member who only has three AF factors to write about because he is all S with three ES areas.  Now, how it is fair that he gets up to 17 lines to touch on his three AF factors whereas the other member has the same amount of space by which I can talk about his 17 AFs?  

Yes, I don't have to fill the block for the developing member but you just know some supervisors will while others will not use the whole space.  In either case though unless the standards are the same for all members, ie: one line of text per AF with each one touched on separately, then I'm sure we will find some supervisors undercutting some people to save work or inflating others in order to make it easier to write.  

I've also quickly come to realize that for all the effort we are now saving on the actual PER, we are spending more time now on the supplemental substantiation sheet our office wants us to submit with the PER.  This is a document with each AF and PF listed along with all examples we can produce for each AF/PF so that we have additional notes to talk off on when it comes time for the boards.  We've gone from a PER with data to a bare bones PER with a "crib sheet" of talking points to justify the PER bullets.


----------



## Transporter

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> No, it shouldn't be hard to fill the space but that is my main objection.  I have one member for which I have to touch on every AF because he's all either ES or M.  I will have no problems filling the 17 lines regardless of which way I write him up, ie: one line per AF or by combining AFs.  On the other hand, I have one member who only has three AF factors to write about because he is all S with three ES areas.  Now, how it is fair that he gets up to 17 lines to touch on his three AF factors whereas the other member has the same amount of space by which I can talk about his 17 AFs?
> 
> Yes, I don't have to fill the block for the developing member but you just know some supervisors will while others will not use the whole space.  In either case though unless the standards are the same for all members, ie: one line of text per AF with each one touched on separately, then I'm sure we will find some supervisors undercutting some people to save work or inflating others in order to make it easier to write.
> 
> I've also quickly come to realize that for all the effort we are now saving on the actual PER, we are spending more time now on the supplemental substantiation sheet our office wants us to submit with the PER.  This is a document with each AF and PF listed along with all examples we can produce for each AF/PF so that we have additional notes to talk off on when it comes time for the boards.  We've gone from a PER with data to a bare bones PER with a "crib sheet" of talking points to justify the PER bullets.


 Same with those who opt out. Sure, you don't have to do a PER (which in all likelihood would only have been section 4 anyway) but now you have to complete an exemption form within CFPAS and do a PDR (which, essentially is a bulletized PER). Not to mention the one-time opt-out request memo through the chain to the CO and then up to the CMs. This will be easier for someone I guess.


----------



## Shamrock

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> <snip>
> I've also quickly come to realize that for all the effort we are now saving on the actual PER, we are spending more time now on the supplemental substantiation sheet our office wants us to submit with the PER...



In my organization we call that sheet the PDR.  Each PER comes with a minimum of 2.


----------



## AirDet

lcis00110 said:
			
		

> I'm just glad there will be no more "FLUFF" words in order to "fill" the unused space!!!  NO BS, and more FACTS!!!



That in itself will save a lot of time. It'll also reduce the bleeding PER syndrome and back-and-forthITUS PERs suffer from.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> I've also quickly come to realize that for all the effort we are now saving on the actual PER, we are spending more time now on the supplemental substantiation sheet our office wants us to submit with the PER.  This is a document with each AF and PF listed along with all examples we can produce for each AF/PF so that we have additional notes to talk off on when it comes time for the boards.  We've gone from a PER with data to a bare bones PER with a "crib sheet" of talking points to justify the PER bullets.



Again, your C of C is getting it completely wrong.  This initiative is meant to save us time.  If you comment on 3 AFs, then three lines of text - that simple.  No crib sheets.  No substantiation.  Once the unit merit board determines rankings it is all meant to be quite simple.


----------



## Old EO Tech

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Again, your C of C is getting it completely wrong.  This initiative is meant to save us time.  If you comment on 3 AFs, then three lines of text - that simple.  No crib sheets.  No substantiation.  Once the unit merit board determines rankings it is all meant to be quite simple.



I agree completely, this is direction not an option.  And I'm sure my Bn is struggling with whether their is room for the physical fitness and dress and deportment statement they have traditionally liked.  But with 17 lines of text for an MOI, even nose to tail, I doubt there is much room left over.  We were discussing this in my shop yesterday, that a Developing or Skilled solider is getting a PER with dots and signatures and that is it, that is the policy.  I already have one solider that is very happy with his job as it is, and doesn't want a PER, so clearly this draft CANFORGEN is a step in the right direction.

My only question is were did the original idea that Cpl in their first two years did not need a PER go?....


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I agree completely, this is direction not an option.  And I'm sure my Bn is struggling with whether their is room for the physical fitness and dress and deportment statement they have traditionally liked.  But with 17 lines of text for an MOI, even nose to tail, I doubt there is much room left over.  We were discussing this in my shop yesterday, that a Developing or Skilled solider is getting a PER with dots and signatures and that is it, that is the policy.  I already have one solider that is very happy with his job as it is, and doesn't want a PER, so clearly this draft CANFORGEN is a step in the right direction.
> 
> My only question is were did the original idea that Cpl in their first two years did not need a PER go?....



Probably from someone who didn't want to do them.....


----------



## AirDet

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> My only question is were did the original idea that Cpl in their first two years did not need a PER go?....


We've been told that no PER for 2Lt, Lt, or Cpl <2 years. 1CAD was quoted as the source. 

We were also given a few examples of the new PERs. NO CRIB SHEETS!


----------



## Transporter

AirDet said:
			
		

> We've been told that no PER for 2Lt, Lt, or Cpl <2 years. 1CAD was quoted as the source.
> 
> We were also given a few examples of the new PERs. NO CRIB SHEETS!


 The draft CANFORGEN that I received yesterday says nothing about Cpls < two years not getting a PER (as does for Lt/SLt). Interesting.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Transporter said:
			
		

> The draft CANFORGEN that I received yesterday says nothing about Cpls < two years not getting a PER (as does for Lt/SLt). Interesting.



Same here, that is why I was wondering about the difference in the received draft CANFORGEN and the info that was given here by knowledgeable people.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

How about we wait until the actual CANFORGEN shows up instead of this draft nonsense?


----------



## Transporter

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> How about we wait until the actual CANFORGEN shows up instead of this draft nonsense?


 Just exchanging info my man. Of course we'll wait for the actual CANFORGEN. Did anyone suggest we do otherwise?


----------



## AirDet

Transporter said:
			
		

> Just exchanging info my man. Of course we'll wait for the actual CANFORGEN. Did anyone suggest we do otherwise?



I'll find the 1CAD ref and post it. I agree with Transporter as well that this is all speculation until the actual CANFORGEN is released.


----------



## PuckChaser

My unit is implementing the "draft" CANFORGEN as well, we have PD scheduled next week from the Adjt to explain it all.


----------



## MJP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> My unit is implementing the "draft" CANFORGEN as well, we have PD scheduled next week from the Adjt to explain it all.



We did this as well.  Best way forward IMHO is to get the 80-90% solution now and then adjust once the CANFORGEN is released.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> My unit is implementing the "draft" CANFORGEN as well, we have PD scheduled next week from the Adjt to explain it all.



I hear that 1 CMBG is providing examples of a raft of possible PERs to ensure that they can stamp out any nonsense early - and that the new rules will be ruthlessly applied.

In other words, after years of complaining about the PER process, the Brigade is going to try to learn to take yes for an answer....


----------



## Journeyman

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> ...... the Brigade is going to try to learn to take yes for an answer....



Heresy!


----------



## Old EO Tech

MJP said:
			
		

> We did this as well.  Best way forward IMHO is to get the 80-90% solution now and then adjust once the CANFORGEN is released.



That is exactly what I told my Sect Comd, while we wait for the new Bn instruction based on the CANFORGEN and any 1 CMBG guidance.


----------



## Old EO Tech

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I hear that 1 CMBG is providing examples of a raft of possible PERs to ensure that they can stamp out any nonsense early - and that the new rules will be ruthlessly applied.
> 
> In other words, after years of complaining about the PER process, the Brigade is going to try to learn to take yes for an answer....



Staff work from the Bde Staff.....and in a timely fashion?  Not to be overly cynical but I will await with bated breath


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Staff work from the Bde Staff.....and in a timely fashion?  Not to be overly cynical but I will await with bated breath



Perhaps I have more faith than you in this case


----------



## TChuki

I read most of the messages on this topic and I am not going to beat over a dead horse. My perspective is that immediate supervisor’s have too much power with the current system. Too much emphasis is put on this bell curve statistics during the assessment. I am also convince that stacking up, and assessing performance and potential is rarely done in the full context of the squad looked at. Often those reviewing have pretty good idea of who’s who well ahead, and that alone dictates the scores and nothing else. I understand that units and individual trades ought to rank their members, and that the process is time consuming, I just can’t help but shake my head for the miserable morale of the troops and lack of honesty.

That 360 system sounded interesting

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo5/no1/mp-pm-eng.asp


----------



## George Wallace

TChuki said:
			
		

> ....... My perspective is that immediate supervisor’s have too much power with the current system.




Ummm?   Whom should be doing the evaluations of their troops then?  Perhaps someone from another unit in another Trade?  Whom do you suggest, that would be able to give as honest an evaluation of their people's work, work ethic, skills, knowledge, aspirations, etc.?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummm?   Whom should be doing the evaluations of their troops then?  Perhaps someone from another unit in another Trade?  Whom do you suggest, that would be able to give as honest an evaluation of their people's work, work ethic, skills, knowledge, aspirations, etc.?



Damn it! There we go again.  :facepalm: Ruining another thread with simple logic.

You maniac! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you to hell! 8)


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> Damn it! There we go again.  :facepalm: Ruining another thread with simple logic.
> 
> You maniac! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you to hell! 8)



Good thing I removed the Easter Bunny from the options.


----------



## Tibbson

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Again, your C of C is getting it completely wrong.  This initiative is meant to save us time.  If you comment on 3 AFs, then three lines of text - that simple.  No crib sheets.  No substantiation.  Once the unit merit board determines rankings it is all meant to be quite simple.



I don't disagree with you but in the case of my Unit we are split around the country into 11 individual Detachments under one centrally located CO (with OCs in each Det).  As a result, I can sit here and work through rankings of the 14 MCpls in my Det but now they want this substantiation sheet for the larger Unit level board conducted by teleconference.  If I rank our top MCpl as Immediate with a score of 92 and some other Det lists their top MCpl as an Immediate also with a score of 92 OR if someone questions the score, then there is this substantiation sheet to argue from.  

I know....the changes are supposed to simplify the process but of course someone up the chain decided to foul it up again.  

Then again my Brother is in a Unit that takes the stance that the comment in the CANFORGEN which states it's to be implemented for the "upcoming PER season" means NEXT year, not this year so they are saying (for now) that they are changing nothing of how they will do their PERs.  

Watch and shoot.


----------



## DAA

CANFORGEN 011/14 is now "officially" available for review on the DWAN.


----------



## Tibbson

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> How about we wait until the actual CANFORGEN shows up instead of this draft nonsense?



Agreed but when the Career shop sends out the draft so that people can get a heads up on the changes to come it normally signals that it's pretty much a done deal.


----------



## McG

TChuki said:
			
		

> Too much emphasis is put on this bell curve statistics during the assessment.


Too much emphasis?  Any emphasis or use of a bell curve has been prohibited for years.


----------



## Tibbson

DAA said:
			
		

> CANFORGEN 011/14 is now "officially" available for review on the DWAN.



Is there any notable change from the draft that was floating around?  I don't have DIN access this week.


----------



## Transporter

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> Is there any notable change from the draft that was floating around?  I don't have DIN access this week.


 There were a few subtle changes in some of the wording of one para if I remember correctly but no substantive changes. All the previously-discussed changes remain with no others added. And it does go into effect this current PER year (FY 13/14).


----------



## JSR OP

Direction fm  1CMBG HQ is now out along with three sample PERs:


1 CMBG PERSONNEL EVALUATION  
REPORT (PER) CHANGES FY 2013/2014               	               

References:  A.  CANFORGEN 011/14
B.  1 CMBG 5225-1 (BSC) - 1 CMBG Performance Assessment Instruction FY 2013/2014 dated 17 Sept 2013
C.  CFPAS Handbook
D.  DGMC Website CFPAS Home - http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgmc/cfpas-sepfc/index-eng.asp

GENERAL

1.	At reference A, Chief Military Personnel approved a number of interim changes to the PER process, which are to be implemented within the FY 2013/2014 PERs, and will remain in place until CFPAS is replaced, which is currently scheduled for 2016.  The goal is to modernize the CFPAS reporting process with short and long-term initiatives.  The following is updated direction and amends the guidance provided at reference B with regard to PERs.

UNIT PER RESPONSIBILITIES

2.	Commanding Officers (CO) are to ensure that all members on unit strength receive an Annual PER or PER Exemptions (PERX) under the following conditions:

a.	All military personnel on unit strength effective 31 March will receive an Annual PER.  Reporting period for these PERs will be 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014;

b.	All military personnel who have returned from deployment with a theatre PER:

(1)	will receive an Annual PER with a reporting period from date returned from theatre to 31 March 2014; or

(2)	will receive a PERX in cases where there is not sufficient period of observation, the reporting period will be from the date the member returned from theatre to 31 March 2014;

c.	All military personnel who have returned from deployment with a Theatre PDR, will receive and Annual PER.  The reporting period will be 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014 and details from the Theatre PDR are to be included;

d.	all personnel assigned to the Advanced Training List (ATL) or Basic Training List (BTL) and who are not expected to join a functional unit prior to 31 March 2014 will require either an Annual PER or PERX from 1 April 2013 to the Change of Status (COS) date in accordance with reference C; and

e.	in accordance with reference A, members who submit a request to Opt Out of receiving an annual PER will receive a PERX.  Specific details pertaining to Opting Out are provided in paragraph 5.

LIEUTENANTS

3.	In accordance with reference A, Lieutenants will no longer receive an annual PER but will now receive an annual PDR.  The PDR will be signed by their OC as the supervisor and the CO as the reviewing officer.

NARRATIVES

4.	There have been several changes to the way in which PERs will be written.  Performance (Section 4) and potential (Section 5) narratives will now be written as bulleted lists, where as the additional review (Section 6) will continue to be written in complete sentences for those applicable PERs.  The following information shall be followed for this fiscal year:

a.	General.  The Performance Assessment Factor (AF) and Potential Factor (PF) will commence with the bullet in parentheses.  The use of adjectives and adverbs for the purpose of emphasis are no longer required as they are implied by the dot score. The bullet lists will be left justified and in numerical order, however multiple AFs or PFs can be combined up to a maximum of three (AF10, AF11).  The following generic format is to be used – (AF or PF with identifying number), activity description, result.  The following are examples provided in reference A: 

(1)	Example 1.  (AF2) Failed to provide meaningful PDRs to all subordinates. Multiple complaints received. 

(2)	Example 2.  (AF3) Trained team to coordinate major software change.  Team updated 1200 computers in 4 months. 

(3)	Example 3.  (PF1) Acting Section Sgt for 4 months during Ex DOUBLE TROUBLE.  Achieved most section requirements. 

b.	Performance – Section 4.  Using the format listed above all AFs receiving the following ratings must be commented on:

(1)	UNSATISFACTORY;

(2)	NEEDS IMPROVEMENT;

(3)	EXCEEDED STANDARD; or

(4)	MASTERED. 

c.	There is no requirement for a standardized opening statement to indicate member’s overall performance.  Further there is no requirement to fill up the narrative space as NOT OBSERVED, DEVELOPING or SKILLED AFs do not require comments. Comments are only required for (AF17) Conduct On/Off Duty if it is “unacceptable”.  Comments on fitness are only required if individuals are not tested or failed, for example (FT) Not tested due to medical restrictions.

d.	In cases where all ratings are either Developing or Skilled there will be no requirement to provide a Section 4 narrative.  In these cases “NA” will be the only text in Section 4.


e.	Potential – Section 5.  There is no requirement to include an opening statement, and bulleted comments will only be made in Section 5 for PERs with promotion recommendations of NO or IMMEDIATE.  

(1)	For those specific promotion recommendations, PF comments will be required for all LOW, ABOVE AVERAGE and OUTSTANDING ratings and no comments will be provided for any NORMAL ratings.

(2)	In cases where the promotion recommendation is DEVELOPING or READY, “NA” will be the only text in Section 5

f.	Additional Review – Section 6.  The narrative for Section 6 has not changed from previous years and will continue to be written in complete sentences for those applicable PERs.  The narrative will include a ranking, employment or course recommendation and promotion recommendation.  The ranking will only highlight the highest level of ranking ie Div vice Bde or Bde vice Unit.  For PERs that require Section 6 comments, the following will be followed:

(1)	Opening sentence.  The first line will adhere to one of the following formats as provided in reference A:

(a)        Members who are in the top 10 or 50% (which ever is less): Rank/Name  ranked XX of XX across all MOSID in the Unit/1 CMBG/ 3rd Cdn Div;

(b)        Member who are not numerically ranked but within the top 10%: Rank/Name is in the top 10% of XX across all MOSID in the Unit/1 CMBG/ 3rd Cdn Div; and

(c)        If member is not numerically ranked but within the top 20%: Rank/Name is in the top 20% of XX across all MOSID in the Unit/1 CMBG/ 3rd Cdn Div.

(2)	Content.  The general content of Section 6 should follow the following example formats:

(a)        MCpl Guy is ranked within the top 20% of 101 MCpls across all MOSID in 1 PPCLI.  He is an outstanding leader and is ready for immediate promotion to Sgt.  He has already proven his superior ability to perform the duties of a Section Comd.  MCpl Guy is capable of more senior appointments in the Regiment.

(b)        Capt Bloggins is ranked within the top 10% of  223 Capts across all MOSID in 1 CMBG.  He is a proven leader and has demonstrated outstanding planning skills.  Capt Bloggins is recommended for attendance on AOC, immediately promoted to Maj and considered for sub-unit command.

5.	Examples of PERs are included at Annex A.


OPTING OUT OF ANNUAL PER

6.	A significant change to CFPAS is the mechanism by which a member can indicate their desire to continue to serve the CAF at their current rank for the remainder of their career.  In accordance with reference A, a member may choose to submit a request to Opt Out of receiving an Annual PER.  Some examples of personnel who may wish to exercise this mechanism are as follows:

a.	Members close to retirement;

b.	Members releasing;

c.	Personnel on Permanent Medical Categories; 

d.	Personnel who are retained with a pending Medical Release;

e.	Members who do not have or will not gain the prerequisite qualification or foundational experience for promotion competition; and

f.	Those whose time in rank may be taken to signify that future promotion is unlikely. 

7.	A member requesting to Opt Out of Annual PERs is signifying that they no longer wish to pursue career progression in the form of promotion.  These members are still required to perform their assigned duties, including potential deployments, attending courses and as required geographical moves (postings).

8.	Opt Out Process.  In accordance with reference A and amplified at reference D, the following process shall be followed:

a.	Members will initiate this process in discussion with their Chain of Command.  The member must submit a written request to the unit CO.

b.	If supported by the CO, the request will be annotated as supported and submitted (via scan) to the applicable Career Manager (CM).  The CO may refuse the request in a case where the member would receive an adverse PER, the CO desires to see the member promoted or for any other reason listed in section 117 of reference C.

c.	The CM must determine if the request is in the interest of the CAF based on the overall needs of the service.  Final approval must be received from the CM prior to the request being considered approved.

d.	Should the request to Opt Out of an annual PER be approved by the CM, both an annual PDR and PERX will be completed.  Section 4 of the PERX will indicate “Opt Out of receiving a formal annual PER”.  Further the formal request to Opt Out will be kept on the member’s Pers File.

9.	In cases where a member subsequently changes their mind and wishes to receive a PER, the member will be required to submit their request in writing.  The Member’s promotion selection file will start building from the first PER after the member decides to no longer Opt Out.  No attempt will be made to reconstruct PERs.

CONCLUSION

10.	The fair and just assessment of our soldiers is a function of leadership.  I hold all COs accountable to enforce these new modernization initiatives, which will overtime reduce the administrative workload associated with assessing our soldiers.  I expect that all soldiers will be accurately assessed and that all PERs will be accurately completed and on time.  There have been no change to deadline and late returns will not be tolerated.

11.	Questions regarding this matter can be directed to the G1


----------



## Transporter

Under the "old" system, there was a clear distinction in the approaches to writing narratives in section 4 and section 5; section 4 was more descriptive of performance and written in past tense, with section 5 being more about how observed performance was indicative of capabilities for success at the next rank, and written in present tense. A big no-no, and one that was always cautioned every year following merit boards, was that section 5 WAS NOT to be a continuation of section 4.

The current direction for writing sections 4 & 5 (i.e. bullet points outlining AF/PF, activity description, result) seems to change that.  Going by the explicit examples for writing the section 5 PF bullets, it's not possible to write it in anything but past tense and its difficult, if not impossible, to link it to expressions of how it's indicative of potential for success at the next rank (unless it's just supposed to be implied because you're scoring it AA or O). It also seems duplicative as some of the AFs/PFs are pretty much the same in section 4 and section 5, like communication skills, leadership, etc.

Has anyone else wrestled with this and how have you approached it?


----------



## DAA

Transporter said:
			
		

> Under the "old" system, there was a clear distinction in the approaches to writing narratives in section 4 and section 5; section 4 was more descriptive of performance and written in past tense, with section 5 being more about how observed performance was indicative of capabilities for success at the next rank, and written in present tense. A big no-no, and one that was always cautioned every year following merit boards, was that section 5 WAS NOT to be a continuation of section 4.
> 
> The current direction for writing sections 4 & 5 (i.e. bullet points outlining AF/PF, activity description, result) seems to change that.  Going by the explicit examples for writing the section 5 PF bullets, it's not possible to write it in anything but past tense and its difficult, if not impossible, to link it to expressions of how it's indicative of potential for success at the next rank (unless it's just supposed to be implied because you're scoring it AA or O). It also seems duplicative as some of the AFs/PFs are pretty much the same in section 4 and section 5, like communication skills, leadership, etc.
> 
> Has anyone else wrestled with this and how have you approached it?



Depends on how you are approaching this and whether it is based on the recent CANFORGEN or some locally generated and issued guidance.


----------



## armyvern

I used examples of situations where the troop was doing something at a higher ranked posn etc : "as the A/_*whatever_, did this. Accomplished that." (_*whatever_ because I have many troops that read here and although I have seen their PERs, they have not 'cause they are always subject to change. 8))


----------



## Transporter

DAA said:
			
		

> Depends on how you are approaching this and whether it is based on the recent CANFORGEN or some locally generated and issued guidance.



I'm talking pre-CANFORGEN CFPAS guidance/methodology versus what the new CANFORGEN directs. Historically, Section 5 was not supposed to be a simple continuation of section 4 in that it was to describe potential, not simply provide more examples of actual performance. Cautions against this were often identified in annual merit board / PER season lessons learned messages (promulgated by DGMC if I remember correctly). 

My point is, the way the new CANFORGEN explains what's required for sections 4 and 5, it's the same i.e. AF/PF, activity description, result.  For example, why would you need to provide an activity description and result for PF 3 (communication skills) when you've already covered that with activity descriptions and results in AFs 10/11 (verbal/written communication)?


----------



## Jarnhamar

I just wanted to work on my written communication and point out that I think it's a GREAT idea to introduce a new PER format RIGHT before PERs are due, causing many of us to rewrite a half dozen or more PERs from the old format we rushed to complete early.  

Waiting until this round was done to give us a year to work out the bugs (and deal with the CoC tinkering with it) would have been a horrible idea.  I'm pretty excited about the prospect of writing the 19th iteration (not kidding) of one of my MOI soldiers.


----------



## armyvern

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I just wanted to work on my written communication and point out that I think it's a GREAT idea to introduce a new PER format RIGHT before PERs are due, causing many of us to rewrite a half dozen or more PERs from the old format we rushed to complete early.
> ...



You get the "O" in PD!!  That's a Potential factor BTW.   >

Maybe, if your boss is nice, you'll get the "M" in Leading Change up above. 



> MCpl Sloggins [I'm boycotting Bloggins] rewrote all section PERs to new standard on little notice.  Achieved success.


Damn, give it to all of us this year!!


----------



## Transporter

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I just wanted to work on my written communication and point out that I think it's a GREAT idea to introduce a new PER format RIGHT before PERs are due, causing many of us to rewrite a half dozen or more PERs from the old format we rushed to complete early.
> 
> Waiting until this round was done to give us a year to work out the bugs (and deal with the CoC tinkering with it) would have been a horrible idea.  I'm pretty excited about the prospect of writing the 19th iteration (not kidding) of one of my MOI soldiers.



I hear ya. I'm currently redoing all of mine which, surprisingly, is not as straight-forward as I thought it would be but it's coming along. I keep wanting to default to my old writing style and favourite AF/PF descriptors    

Lots of questions but not many answers at this point.


----------



## DAA

Transporter said:
			
		

> I'm talking pre-CANFORGEN CFPAS guidance/methodology versus what the new CANFORGEN directs. Historically, Section 5 was not supposed to be a simple continuation of section 4 in that it was to describe potential, not simply provide more examples of actual performance. Cautions against this were often identified in annual merit board / PER season lessons learned messages (promulgated by DGMC if I remember correctly).
> 
> My point is, the way the new CANFORGEN explains what's required for sections 4 and 5, it's the same i.e. AF/PF, activity description, result.  For example, why would you need to provide an activity description and result for PF 3 (communication skills) when you've already covered that with activity descriptions and results in AFs 10/11 (verbal/written communication)?



Yup, new process, new rules and even more "creative" interpretations to come down the pipe.

The entire process this year, will no doubt be subject to increased "scrutiny" at unit level and the need for some to strictly adhere to their own interpretation of the new guidance.

I myself, shall be writing PERs as best I can, which does service to my subordinates, within "reasonable" confines of the current policy.  However, in the back of my mind will always be the ever present fact, that there will be someone else later on down the road, who will read this and have to put this assessment into some form of context and compare it against other members of the CF.

So, if you think you are struggling over writing it, imagine what it's going to be like sitting on a Merit Board 5-6 months from now and having to interpret it.  The later of which, being experienced people, just might fall into the habit of relying on "what they know or accept" .

Just my opinion.


----------



## Transporter

DAA said:
			
		

> Yup, new process, new rules and even more "creative" interpretations to come down the pipe.
> 
> The entire process this year, will no doubt be subject to increased "scrutiny" at unit level and the need for some to strictly adhere to their own interpretation of the new guidance.
> 
> I myself, shall be writing PERs as best I can, which does service to my subordinates, within "reasonable" confines of the current policy.  However, in the back of my mind will always be the ever present fact, that there will be someone else later on down the road, who will read this and have to put this assessment into some form of context and compare it against other members of the CF.
> 
> So, if you think you are struggling over writing it, imagine what it's going to be like sitting on a Merit Board 5-6 months from now and having to interpret it.  The later of which, being experienced people, just might fall into the habit of relying on "what they know or accept" .
> 
> Just my opinion.



I don't disagree. Just curious to see how others have been moving forward with the new direction.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Transporter said:
			
		

> I don't disagree. Just curious to see how others have been moving forward with the new direction.



It's going to be a work in progress for everyone, I remember when CFPAS first came out, it took years of pendulum swinging for a standard to settle out.  I expect the same for these changes, and then again in 2016 when the completely reprogrammed CFPAS is released.

I know at my unit, sub units are trying to make a standard looking MOI and non-MOI PER, and on Friday examples of each from each Coy went to the Adj,  he will then have a PD session with the Coy 2IC's to say what examples are what he wants and what going to need changes.

I'm not sure if Bde/Div/CA is planning on sampling this years results and providing any guidance, I'm sure we will see a CANFORGEN from CMP this fall after they see the results of our labour


----------



## Transporter

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> It's going to be a work in progress for everyone, I remember when CFPAS first came out, it took years of pendulum swinging for a standard to settle out.  I expect the same for these changes, and then again in 2016 when the completely reprogrammed CFPAS is released.
> 
> I know at my unit, sub units are trying to make a standard looking MOI and non-MOI PER, and on Friday examples of each from each Coy went to the Adj,  he will then have a PD session with the Coy 2IC's to say what examples are what he wants and what going to need changes.
> 
> I'm not sure if Bde/Div/CA is planning on sampling this years results and providing any guidance, I'm sure we will see a CANFORGEN from CMP this fall after they see the results of our labour



Agreed. This year will be interesting for sure. I've seen example draft PERs from multiple units, from MOI to Ready and there are already differences in interpretation/approach emerging. As I've noted above, biggest issue I see is section 5 becoming nothing more than an extension of section 4, which used to be a no-no. Watch and shoot I guess.


----------



## McG

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if Bde/Div/CA is planning on sampling this years results and providing any guidance, I'm sure we will see a CANFORGEN from CMP this fall after they see the results of our labour


CMP sends their CFPAS lessons learned guidance about every February (and have been doing this for several years now).
Lower levels of command just like to ignore this annual standardizing guidance because it does not fit how they want to do PERs.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Is it possible for someone to redress a PER after the redress time frame has expired for a special circumstance or anything?


----------



## Swingline1984

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Is it possible for someone to redress a PER after the redress time frame has expired for a special circumstance or anything?



Yes.  Everything fit to print about the grievance process is in QR&O: Volume 1 - Chapter 7 - Grievances; DAOD 2017-1 - Military Grievance Process, as well as at the following link:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-support-services-for-members-grievance/index.page?

**edited to add:  pay specific attention to para 7.02 (2) & (3) of the QR&O.


----------



## opcougar

Good day all,

Just wondering if any of the more experienced members, have a brag sheet template they have used / worked best for them over the years, and don't mind sharing. I am looking in particular for ones for MCpls and Sgts.

Cheers


----------



## DAA

It's called Section 3 and Section 4 of the PDR.....Members Accomplishments and Members Career Goals.  And it's the members responsibility to fill it out.


----------



## opcougar

DAA,

Ack. However what is being asked, is a word template from mbrs here to track their accomplishment along the way. I know what the sections are, and what goes in there, just trying to help people get in the habit of noting their stuff, as opposed to scrabbling in the end trying to remember what they did when.


----------



## ModlrMike

I use a notebook. I write from the front for day-to-day subjects, and the back for my yearly tasks and accomplishments. I replace the book every year. Dollar store, no need to spend a fortune.


----------



## 211RadOp

Keep a draft e-mail of what you do.


----------



## DAA

opcougar said:
			
		

> DAA,
> 
> Ack. However what is being asked, is a word template from mbrs here to track their accomplishment along the way. I know what the sections are, and what goes in there, just trying to help people get in the habit of noting their stuff, as opposed to scrabbling in the end trying to remember what they did when.



I'd think it would be a good idea to have them start making these notes "within" section 3/4 of the CFPAS application and saving their information locally.  The software is available to everyone, it's use is mandated and by having subordinates use it, gives them exposure to the application itself (for when they become supervisors), it's processes and the guidelines (ie; CFPAS Manual).  I'm a Snr NCO and my CO usually sends me an email a couple times a year and just says "X, would you be kind enough to provide me with your most current PDR Sect 3/4 input so I can consolidate?"  2-3 minutes later, they have it......

Why re-invent the wheel when you can reinforce what is currently available?


----------



## PMedMoe

DAA said:
			
		

> I'd think it would be a good idea to have them start make these notes "within" section 3/4 of the CFPAS application and saving their information locally.  The software is available to everyone, it's use is mandated and by having subordinates use it, gives them exposure to the application itself (for when they become supervisors), it's processes and the guidelines (ie; CFPAS Manual).  I'm a Snr NCO and my CO usually sends me an email a couple times a year and just says "X, would you be kind enough to provide me with your most current PDR Sect 3/4 input so I can consolidate?"  2-3 minutes later, they have it......
> 
> Why re-invent the wheel when you can reinforce what is currently available?



 :goodpost:

That, and write things down on a calendar or in a journal...   :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I just use a word doc, with a header for the reporting period.  I type in bold/underlined the name of the month and below it use bulleted list of any relevant stuff for the month, etc and keep it on my Q drive in a folder I have for PD/Trg stuff.  Whenever I get asked for 'what I've done since', I just email that to whoever is asking.

At the bottom I keep a list of short/med/long term career goals, course desired, 3 posting pref's.


----------



## MARS

opcougar said:
			
		

> Good day all,
> 
> I am looking in particular for ones for MCpls and Sgts.
> 
> Cheers



MCpls and Sgts need this kind of guidance?

Jesus wept.  Short of lining up for lunch everyday, I can think of few things in the CF that are simpler or more straight forward than completion of the member's brag sheet.  I once had one submitted to me written with a green sharpie marker on a crumpled sheet with a coffee stain…no joke.  Member wrote it up in the workshop and stuffed it in his pocket until he submitted it.  Worked fine for me, and everyone else I know.


----------



## TCM621

DAA said:
			
		

> I'd think it would be a good idea to have them start making these notes "within" section 3/4 of the CFPAS application and saving their information locally.  The software is available to everyone, it's use is mandated and by having subordinates use it, gives them exposure to the application itself (for when they become supervisors), it's processes and the guidelines (ie; CFPAS Manual).  I'm a Snr NCO and my CO usually sends me an email a couple times a year and just says "X, would you be kind enough to provide me with your most current PDR Sect 3/4 input so I can consolidate?"  2-3 minutes later, they have it......
> 
> Why re-invent the wheel when you can reinforce what is currently available?


Great idea. I think I'll start doing this. I am terrible for not selling myself with a good brag sheet. Apparently, I did my job and did it well doesn't cut it. And I always end up misplacing my notes. 
Thanks.


----------



## NavyHopeful

DAA said:
			
		

> I'd think it would be a good idea to have them start making these notes "within" section 3/4 of the CFPAS application and saving their information locally.  The software is available to everyone, it's use is mandated and by having subordinates use it, gives them exposure to the application itself (for when they become supervisors), it's processes and the guidelines (ie; CFPAS Manual).  I'm a Snr NCO and my CO usually sends me an email a couple times a year and just says "X, would you be kind enough to provide me with your most current PDR Sect 3/4 input so I can consolidate?"  2-3 minutes later, they have it......
> 
> Why re-invent the wheel when you can reinforce what is currently available?



As a Jr. NCM, I will start doing this.  We have our own Divisional Note template we use onboard, but I think your advice about using the ACTUAL software is a great piece of advice, and will allow me to get the experience with it.  Thanks for putting this idea out there.

Cheers.

Rev


----------



## Jay4th

if your subordinates ned to write up a brag sheet of accomplishments in order to help the boss write his PDR, then the boss isn't doing his job.  We have Monitor Mass that if used even remotely properly, creates the brag sheet and PDR for you.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Jay4th said:
			
		

> if your subordinates ned to write up a brag sheet of accomplishments in order to help the boss write his PDR, then the boss isn't doing his job.  We have Monitor Mass that if used even remotely properly, creates the brag sheet and PDR for you.



I disagree; you can have comprehensive div notes but it's still beneficial to give subordinates the option to submit a brag sheet.  Even if you only have one or two folks under you, it's easy to miss something while on leave or otherwise working on something else, and also lets people take a more active role in what goes into their PER.  What may not have seemed like a big deal to you may be an accomplishment they took pride in.  The whole div system is supposed to be interactive as well, so the brag sheet is a good prep for the periodic div interviews.  Used properly it's a great tool.  

Worse case, lets you give a lazy supervisor material to write you up about, so you don't get hosed.  And lets face it, there are a number of those.

Monitor mass misses all kinds of stuff, and with the new PER format, the impact of what you did is more important then the participation checkmark in MM. :2c:


----------



## Jay4th

Very valid points NP.  We have all seen troops get screwed come PER season and meriting due to lazy reporting by supervisors throughout the year.


----------



## CountDC

or get screwed when posted and nothing gets forwarded on so your new boss has no knowledge of the prior accomplishments until he/she sees them on your brag sheet.

Got to admit - I didnt think of having the actual PDR as a brag sheet and think it is a great idea.  Saves me work too as now I just have to tidy it up instead of typing it from scratch for my subordinates.


----------



## George Wallace

CountDC said:
			
		

> or get screwed when posted and nothing gets forwarded on so your new boss has no knowledge of the prior accomplishments until he/she sees them on your brag sheet.
> 
> Got to admit - I didnt think of having the actual PDR as a brag sheet and think it is a great idea.  Saves me work too as now I just have to tidy it up instead of typing it from scratch for my subordinates.



That is where a "Posting Letter" from your current CO to your new CO comes in.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Doesn't everyone get a PDR review as part of the CFPAS cycle?  On time and accurate?   ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Doesn't everyone get a PDR review as part of the CFPAS cycle?  On time and accurate?   ;D



You really have to ask..... ;D


----------



## TCM621

The other advantage of a brag sheet is to catch the things that may not be noticeable at work. Is he taking classes outside of work hours, learning french, is he active in the community, etc.
I know a lot of people think if it doesn't happen during work hours it should have no bearing on promotion but it important. 

It is also helpful in getting a sense of how your subordinate sees himself. if he gives you a brag sheet claiming to be a rock star and you see him as below average, one of you is out to lunch. Maybe you need to talk about his performance in comparison to your expectations.  They say you should never be surprised by a per or pdr.  I have been surprised numerous times and in many cases if I had done a better brag sheet my bosses wouldn't have missed (or at least had no excuse) major tasks I had completed. If nothing else, they could have talked to me before hand and we could deal with it then vice having it go back up the chain to get fixed, making everyone's life more difficult.


----------



## Navy_Pete

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is where a "Posting Letter" from your current CO to your new CO comes in.



Really?  I'm five postings down so far with no letters, and only one posting PDR.  To be fair, on one occasion, I was happy to not have one, as my supervisor was useless and was glad to be rid of him, and the last one was within the same division to a different directorate on the same floor, so wasn't necessary.  I've done a lot of them up myself for attach postings as well as posting PDRs, but that seemed to be the exception instead of the norm.

That's the good thing about a brag sheet, and I think doing it up in CFPAS is also a great idea.  Previously had just kept a log in an outlook note then sent it via email when asked for it.


----------



## George Wallace

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Really?  I'm five postings down so far with no letters, and only one posting PDR.  To be fair, on one occasion, I was happy to not have one, as my supervisor was useless and was glad to be rid of him, and the last one was within the same division to a different directorate on the same floor, so wasn't necessary.  I've done a lot of them up myself for attach postings as well as posting PDRs, but that seemed to be the exception instead of the norm.
> 
> That's the good thing about a brag sheet, and I think doing it up in CFPAS is also a great idea.  Previously had just kept a log in an outlook note then sent it via email when asked for it.



I got one that my boss gave me a copy of.  He was Senior Serving Dragoon.  My new CO basically ignored it.  But the intent was there and I appreciated the copy that recommended me for some Advance Crses and catch up to my peers, none of which happened.  I think that the "Posting Letter" is/was a great staffing tool, but few are done; another staff work fail and lack of administrative attention paid by many superiors towards their subordinates careers.


----------



## DAA

It's not rocket science..........

CFPAS Manual, Chap 1, Art 103, para 2  -  The PDR will be used by a unit to report a person's performance to his or her home unit during operational deployments under 3 months duration or temporary assignments such as attached postings, TD, or secondments of any length. On posting, losing units will use the PDR to pass a individual's performance/potential information to the gaining unit   or vice versa when a Dept ID Waiver has been approved (see sect 121). The home or gaining unit will use this information in preparing the person's Annual PER.

And let's not forget about para 3 of the above.......

Units are reminded of the importance of the PDR process and of the fact that it is mandatory for all ranks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

If only we (the collective CAF *we*) were as good at_ following _the policies we write as we are at _writing_ them... 8)


----------



## opcougar

Jay4th said:
			
		

> Very valid points NP.  We have all seen troops get screwed come PER season and meriting due to lazy reporting by supervisors throughout the year.



Quick to spout a non-contribution there eh, and then when called out your comment, decided to back track.


----------



## MJP

opcougar said:
			
		

> Quick to spout a non-contribution there eh, and then when called out your comment, decided to back track.



What?

Jay4th's comment was on the money.  I don't need a brag sheet from my guys to write them up properly because I have a vested interest in them and actually track what they are doing and the outcome.  That doesn't mean I don't get them but I certainly don't hinge development of my subordinates based on a piece of paper from them.  It may help fill in one or two missing gaps but actually knowing your soldiers and their strength's and weaknesses is better than slavishly following the CFPAS process.


----------



## Infanteer

opcougar said:
			
		

> Quick to spout a non-contribution there eh, and then when called out your comment, decided to back track.



Don't be a dick.

The Staff.


----------



## McG

New guidance is out for PER writting this year.





> *CANFORGEN 220/14 CMP 102/14 181519Z DEC 14
> CHANGES TO CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (CAF) MILITARY PERSONNEL EVALUATION REPORT (PER) FOR THE 2014/2015 REPORTING YEAR*
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> REFS: A. CANFORGEN 011/14 CMP 010/14 062211Z FEB 14 (CHANGES TO THE CAF PER FOR THE 2013/2014 REPORTING YEAR
> B. CFPAS HELP FILE
> 
> 1. REF A IS HEREBY CANCELLED
> 
> 2. IN KEEPING WITH DEFENCE RENEWAL INITIATIVES TO MODERNIZE THE CAF CAREER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REPLACEMENT FOR CFPAS, A NUMBER OF INTERIM CHANGES TO THE PER PROCESS HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THE UPCOMING PER SEASON. THESE CHANGES WILL GRADUALLY MOVE THE CURRENT CFPAS TOWARDS THE PROCESSES ENVISAGED FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS
> 
> 3. EVALUATIONS OF PERSONNEL FOR THE SELECTION BOARDS AND THE PROVISION OF FEEDBACK TO MEMBERS IN MEANINGFUL AND STRAIGHTFORWARD WAYS, WHILE REDUCING THE WORK LOAD ON SUPERVISORS AND ON THE BOARD MEMBERSHIP UNDERLIES THE INTENT OF THE CHANGES DESCRIBED BELOW. THIS CANFORGEN REPLACES REF A, AND IS WRITTEN IN TWO PARTS. PART 1 DESCRIBES NEW OR AMENDED FEATURES FOR CFPAS 14/15 AND PART 2 DESCRIBES THOSE PORTIONS OF THE CFPAS 13/14 MODERNIZATION AMENDMENT THAT REMAIN IN EFFECT
> 
> *PART 1: NEW OR AMENDED FEATURES*
> 
> 4. ON ALL FORM TYPES, AND FOR ALL RANKS, PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL NARRATIVES SHALL BE WRITTEN IN BULLET FORM AS FOLLOWS:
> 
> 
> A. NO REPEAT NO PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT FACTOR (AF) OR POTENTIAL FACTOR (PF) IDENTIFIERS ARE TO BE USED
> B. DO NOT COMMENT ON: I. SKILLED, DEVELOPING, OR NOT OBSERVED AFS II. NORMAL PF III. COMPETENT, FUNDAMENTAL, OR NOT OBSERVED SCORES IN CF SENIOR OFFICER AND CWO/CPO1 PER S
> C. USE THE FORMAT: ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AND RESULT
> D. THE DEGREE OF SUCCESS IS ALREADY IMPLIED BY THE DOT SCORE. LIMIT THE USE OF ADJECTIVES/ ADVERBS WHERE POSSIBLE. IN PARTICULAR RESERVE THEM FOR PER S IN THE TOP 20 PERCENT TO DISTINGUISH TRULY TOP BEHAVIOUR
> E. AS A RESULT OF THE SUCCESSFUL TRIAL BY THE RCN, FILL NO MORE THAN HALF THE NARRATIVE SPACE (9 LINES). THIS LENGTH RESTRICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THEATRE PER S
> 5. READY PER S DO NOT HAVE A POTENTIAL NARRATIVE. A SHORT COMMENT ON PROGRESSION IN CURRENT RANK AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT EMPLOYMENT CAN BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE MAXIMUM 9 LINES IN THE PERFORMANCE SECTION
> 
> 6. ADDITIONAL REVIEW, WHICH INCLUDES SECTION 6 OF STANDARD PER, SECTION 7 OF CHAPLAIN PER, AND SECTION 5 OF CAF SENIOR OFFICER AND CWO/CPO1 PER, IS TO BE WRITTEN AS FOLLOWS:
> 
> 
> A. STATEMENT ON RANKING OF PERSONNEL OF SAME RANK, ACROSS MOSID, WITHIN UNIT/FORMATION/GROUP. NO MORE THAN 10 PERSONS OR 50 PCT, WHICHEVER IS LESS, ARE TO BE RANKED. AN EXCEPTION IS MADE FOR THOSE LARGE ORGANIZATIONS WITH SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF PERSONNEL WITHIN A RANK (MORE THAN 100 IN A SINGLE RANK), WHICH MAY AT THE COMMANDER S DISCRETION, PROVIDE A NUMERICAL RANKING OF THE TOP 20 PCT (EX. 34 OF 168 MAJORS)
> 
> B. NARRATIVE, IN PROSE, IS TO PROVIDE AS A MINIMUM THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN THE ORDER GIVEN: RANKING, RATE OF ADVANCEMENT TO NEXT RANK, RECOMMENDATION FOR OCCUPATION/RANK APPROPRIATE COMMAND/LEADERSHIP TOUR IF APPROPRIATE, AND SUITABILITY AND TIMING OF FUTURE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONAL COMMENT MAY BE MADE AFTER THIS STANDARDIZED INFORMATION IS GIVEN
> *PART 2 : CARRYOVER FEATURES*
> 
> 7. LT/SLT PER S. LT/SLT PER S ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED. A PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) SHALL BE PROVIDED TO EVERY LT/SLT NOT ON A FORMAL TRAINING COURSE (WHO WOULD OTHERWISE RECEIVE A COURSE REPORT)
> 
> 8. SELECTION BOARDS FROM CPL/LS TO MCPL/MS. THE CA SUCESSFULLY CONDUCTED A RANGE OF CPL SELECTION BOARDS FOR APPOINTMENT TO MCPL FOR SPECIFIC OCCUPATIONS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO IN THE FUTURE
> 
> 9. OPTING OUT OF A PER. ONE OF THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE CURRENT PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IS THE ABSENCE OF A MECHANISM BY WHICH MEMBERS MAY SIGNAL THEIR DESIRE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE THEIR NATION AT THEIR CURRENT RANK FOR THE REMAINDER OF THEIR CAREER. ACCORDINGLY, PERSONNEL NOW HAVE THE OPTION TO QUOTE OPT OUT UNQUOTE OF RECEIVING A FORMAL ANNUAL PER
> 
> …
> 
> 10. ADMINISTRATION OF THE OPT OUT OPTION IS OUTLINED BELOW:
> 
> …
> 
> 11. CONSEQUENCES. THE CONSEQUENCES OF OPTING OUT OF FORMAL EVALUATION ARE SIGNIFICANT AND INCLUDE:
> 
> …
> 
> 12. REF B WILL BE UPDATED IN DUE COURSE. ALL QUESTIONS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO DMCSS 2 STAFF AS FOLLOWS: LCDR CUTHBERT … OR LT(N) LALIBERTE …



Having seen a selection board under the "new" PER writting style, there are elements of this CANFORGEN that I like and others that I do not.  

Numerically ranking the top 20% where there are more than 100 pers at a given rank level is probably a good thing.  It may take some adjustment for those formations that have grown comfortable in past years writting PERs to declair all the top 30% to be in the top 20%.

I do not like that ready PERs do not recieve Potential narratives.  There are a lot of selection board points (for most if not all occupations) that are dependant upon comments in the potential narrative.  Unfortunately, in our inflated system, the average guy is Above Average (and therefore Ready).  Because of this, completed potential narratives would allow discerning between the inflated Developing and the actually Ready PER.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> New guidance is out for PER writting this year.



Am I ever glad I no longer have to write PERs, if annually new instructions are sent out as to how to write them.  

Out of curiosity, how would anyone be able to monitor/track their progress over the years if the formats are not conducent to doing so?  Will next years "Superior" be last years "Above Average" and so on?  Will one only be merited on eight points/factors, rather than ten, or twelve, or whatever?


----------



## PuckChaser

MCG said:
			
		

> I do not like that ready PERs do not recieve Potential narratives.  There are a lot of selection board points (for most if not all occupations) that are dependant upon comments in the potential narrative.



Its also kind of a morale killer when your Potential Section has "N/A" listed as its only comment.  >


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Yup.  IMO they didn't 'fix' the PAS, they just lessened the amount of work people have to do every year.


----------



## sidemount

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yup.  IMO they didn't 'fix' the PAS, they just lessened the amount of work people have to do every year.



True words right there



Big fixing needed, but all that has been done is less writing. I have 5 PERs that I am writing and it takes no time at all to do. I don't even get the space I would need to write what is appropriate for the member.....its junk.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

sidemount said:
			
		

> True words right there
> 
> 
> 
> Big fixing needed, but all that has been done is less writing. I have 5 PERs that I am writing and it takes no time at all to do. I don't even get the space I would need to write what is appropriate for the member.....its junk.



Depends on the sensibility of your unit. I've been places that involved about 3-5 times the amount of writing of the PER in unit specific spreadsheets and PER file folders. One notable one had a spreadsheet that wanted you to give a full paragraph on each performance and potential factor, regardless if the PER is going to discuss that particular point. In the end, it encourage cookie cutterism. I refused to do so, and having no spare time at work (or not having the luxury of any interruptionless time) I spent the better part of 2 weeks of evenings to get them done.


----------



## sidemount

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Depends on the sensibility of your unit. I've been places that involved about 3-5 times the amount of writing of the PER in unit specific spreadsheets and PER file folders. One notable one had a spreadsheet that wanted you to give a full paragraph on each performance and potential factor, regardless if the PER is going to discuss that particular point. In the end, it encourage cookie cutterism. I refused to do so, and having no spare time at work (or not having the luxury of any interruptionless time) I spent the better part of 2 weeks of evenings to get them done.


I hear you on the cookie cutterism. I used to see a lot of that on the older PERs where there was actually a paragraph.... just poor writing skills. Now, with the point form I see much less of it....but the PER narrative really doesn' t say anything about the member anymore.....it almost seems pointless to write. 

I guess its better for those who have no writing skills, but those that write well are rendered almost useless.

Just my thoughts anyway.

A whole paragraph for each factor sounds like fun and a ton of work for nothing.....and here I thought the performa's im writing that mimic the PER were poitnless haha


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Depends on the sensibility of your unit. I've been places that involved about 3-5 times the amount of writing of the PER in unit specific spreadsheets and PER file folders. One notable one had a spreadsheet that wanted you to give a full paragraph on each performance and potential factor, regardless if the PER is going to discuss that particular point. In the end, it encourage cookie cutterism. I refused to do so, and having no spare time at work (or not having the luxury of any interruptionless time) I spent the better part of 2 weeks of evenings to get them done.



And yet, there is guidance on the "how to" right in the CFPAS help file.  If only people would stop trying to make the wheel roll differently...


----------



## PuckChaser

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Depends on the sensibility of your unit. I've been places that involved about 3-5 times the amount of writing of the PER in unit specific spreadsheets and PER file folders. One notable one had a spreadsheet that wanted you to give a full paragraph on each performance and potential factor, regardless if the PER is going to discuss that particular point. In the end, it encourage cookie cutterism. I refused to do so, and having no spare time at work (or not having the luxury of any interruptionless time) I spent the better part of 2 weeks of evenings to get them done.



You must have been at my unit. We merited everyone in our Sqn, regardless of their PER score. Speaking notes sheets needed to be completed for 1st year Cpls who were getting Skilled/Low-Ready PERs.


----------



## MJP

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And yet, there is guidance on the "how to" right in the CFPAS help file.  If only people would stop trying to make the wheel roll differently...



Well even with the CFPAS help file some people just can't WRITE....  




			
				sidemount said:
			
		

> I guess its better for those who have no writing skills, but those that write well are rendered almost useless.



Which was one of the inequities of the previous system.  People that belonged to supervisors that could write skillfully sounded much better than folks just as good that were written by supervisor's less skilled.

I am not totally sold on the all of the new system but with the amount institutional effort that went into writing the old PERs something had to change.  I have no heartache with SND folks getting a numerical score and that's it.  Not wasting a tremendous amount of time on the folks that won't be seen by a promotion board is a good change IMHO.  CFPAS PDRs is the mechanism throughout the year should be what are guiding them to become those ESAAR/MOIs.  

Come board time the dot score full stop is what gets you into the merit board.  By reducing the amount of fluff written into a PER and focusing on a mbr's real strength's there are better opportunities for the board to review the most relevant data.  Especially additional review which every board mbr I have ever talked to is what they really pay attention to because it contains some very key information like next job, ranking and career crse recommendations.  Like I said, I am not totally sold on doing away with the writing with our top performers.  I don't mind spending time on their PERs because it matters for them at this point but I will concede that as laid out above some of the changes seem in theory pretty decent and allow us too not spend 4-5 months screwing around writing PERs

* edit
 I can't sentence....


----------



## Gunner98

That is quite a balancing act - reduce workload while maintaining the provision of straightforward, meaningful feedback.  Somewhat reminds me of the old PER system from the 1980-90's where there was a flap under which the real scores and evaluation gems were written and not passed on to the individual.  

So the 80-20 rule has popped up again - you will spend 80% of your time writing for 20% of the unit and the other 80% of the unit don't matter much.  

Opting out of the PER process - interesting concept.  Can you opt out of the Code of Service Discipline, too? 

I wonder what the end state will look like, perhaps  :nod:  or  :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think A LOT of the problem with CFPAS isn't CFPAS, its the politics where people are trying to 'situate the estimate' so that the ppl they want promoted/held back are, rather than just writing people up on their performance that year and letting the chips fall where they may.

Mini-boards, unit board, etc etc etc.  Write people up on their performance against their initial PDR and that's that.


----------



## jollyjacktar

It's crap.  You're over or under written rarely or never accurately written to meet the alloted immediates, ready's etc etc.  If the majority of your subordinates performed outstanding, then by all means give them that rating.  I have seen too many times over the years a deserving member getting screwed because there were not enough outstandings to cover everyone.


----------



## captloadie

Why don't we just get rid of the immediate category all together. You are either ready for promotion, or you are still developing. Nobody gets promoted immediately anymore anyway. Most scrits require x number of immediates before you are even screened in.


----------



## Rifleman62

How about being posted to a new unit and the automatic wipe out of your "good" PERs because you are in a new job and know nothing? How does that influence three immediates or whatever needed for promotion?


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think A LOT of the problem with CFPAS isn't CFPAS, its the politics where people are trying to 'situate the estimate' so that the ppl they want promoted/held back are, rather than just writing people up on their performance that year and letting the chips fall where they may.
> 
> Mini-boards, unit board, etc etc etc.  Write people up on their performance against their initial PDR and that's that.



That works until you realize the next guy wrote his mediocre soldiers up as walking on water and now you've set your star performers back 2 or 3 years in their career because you wanted to stand on principle.


----------



## Gunner98

Think of the wasted time by supervisors, unit ranking boards and career managers for interviews during my 28-year career.  I was promoted twice - from Lt to Capt in the Artillery (in January 1988) and Capt to Major as a HCA (in January 2005). Forget about the preparation of PDRs because unless I initiated them they were rarely completed.


----------



## PuckChaser

I think we've got to keep in mind these are interim measures as part of a larger rebuild of how we evaluate our troops. The measures are being applied to a flawed system, so we get bandaids on the Titanic. Once they get a whole new system together, with some of the time saving measures they've implemented, then we might see more accurate reports of performance. I'm personally a fan of only having 3 promotion recommendation options (No, Developing, Ready), but having the same numbers of PF options to be able to make a distinction between your "good enough" to be promoted, and high fliers.


----------



## Ostrozac

captloadie said:
			
		

> Why don't we just get rid of the immediate category all together. You are either ready for promotion, or you are still developing. Nobody gets promoted immediately anymore anyway. Most scrits require x number of immediates before you are even screened in.



Lately that's been heavily dependant on rank and trade. Some merit boards are so superselective that only near perfect scores across the board (and French, and the right courses) will get a promotion. Some other merit boards have promoted based on ready PERs.

Check out some of the MOSIDs that are Red (officer and NCM both) -- promotion boards tend to be less competitive when the trade has been bleeding experienced manpower.


----------



## dapaterson

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Check out some of the MOSIDs that are Red (officer and NCM both) -- promotion boards tend to be less competitive when the trade has been bleeding experienced manpower.



Not the only reason for a trade to be red - new positions can cause that as well, as can rank inversions - for example, some trades want more Sgts than MCpls, which creates lots of pressure to promote MCpls, and can result in promoting based on PERs with lower scores than in other trades.


----------



## Tibbson

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Lately that's been heavily dependant on rank and trade. Some merit boards are so superselective that only near perfect scores across the board (and French, and the right courses) will get a promotion. Some other merit boards have promoted based on ready PERs.
> 
> Check out some of the MOSIDs that are Red (officer and NCM both) -- promotion boards tend to be less competitive when the trade has been bleeding experienced manpower.



I don't see them as less competitive.  If they need to promote 30 to a certain rank level, they will promote the top 30 presented to the board.  If that is 30 who are "Immediate" then so be it but if they have to dig deeper down the list because of higher then normal releases.  Give it 5 years and those same trades may only be promoting a fraction of those numbers and only those right justified.


----------



## dapaterson

Boards to not always promote to PML.

As well, the FRP years saw at least one occupation promote to PML post-FRP, only to see PML subsequently reduced (as establishments were adjusted downwards).  The end result was zero promotions for quite a number of years in that occupation, and an increasingly large contingent of folks who could not be promoted; rumour has it that one member topped the merit list four years running; the next year, he slipped down a notch - and that year there was finally a single promotion.


----------



## Old EO Tech

I'd really like to see some RCN examples of MOI PER's with 16 AF's to cover and only using 9 lines...anyone happen too see one of these elusive beasts that the new CANFORGEN references?


----------



## Jarnhamar

I have a serious question about what happens to recruiters, or whomever is responsible for files, when they get lost.

Last month not one but two of my good friends had their applications lost by CFRC and have to start from scratch.  
One of them is a vet who got out of the CF after over a decade of service and multiple tours including Bosnia, Germany and Afghanistan.  After a long chat about the state of the world and the state of the CF he decided to sign up again and serve.
The other guy is very physically fit, very intelligent and a tradesman who wanted to put on a uniform and contribute to the CF 'do his time.

Both files were lost.  If I lose a glove at work I have to pay for it.  If I lose a protected B file or one of those "Exercise Only ROE cards" I can be charged. (and get threatened with the latter all the time)
I don't recall exactly what is in a recruits file but I can take some guesses.  Sensitive personal information, previous places of work and addresses, names of family members and dependents, school transcripts,  Social Insurance Number. I'm sure there is more I'm missing.

So what happens when a file is lost? 
Is there an investigation to what happened? Is a big effort made to try and track down the persons lost personal info? Is someone held accountable and gets  it noted on their PDR?  Do lost files just get a shoulder shrug?


----------



## DAA

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I have a serious question about what happens to recruiters, or whomever is responsible for files, when they get lost.
> 
> So what happens when a file is lost?
> Is there an investigation to what happened? Is a big effort made to try and track down the persons lost personal info? Is someone held accountable and gets  it noted on their PDR?  Do lost files just get a shoulder shrug?



 :dunno:


----------



## George Wallace

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I have a serious question about what happens to recruiters, or whomever is responsible for files, when they get lost.
> 
> Last month not one but two of my good friends had their applications lost by CFRC and have to start from scratch.
> One of them is a vet who got out of the CF after over a decade of service and multiple tours including Bosnia, Germany and Afghanistan.  After a long chat about the state of the world and the state of the CF he decided to sign up again and serve.
> The other guy is very physically fit, very intelligent and a tradesman who wanted to put on a uniform and contribute to the CF 'do his time.
> 
> Both files were lost. ..........



Hopefully they keep photocopies of what they submitted.  If not, advise them to do so the next time, and remember to do so in the future with all their documents and correspondence.

It has been a while since I did Recruiting, but I do remember that some of the file clerks, well at least one, in the CFRC here were/was both lazy and incompetent.  All the good work done by all the Recruiters and other staff in the CFRC was negated by one key person in one key position.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Perhaps one of the recruiters monitoring this board can run us through the process and how the file is logged into the system? Our database where I work gives us a file #, assigns an officer to it and requires a "Bring forward" date that reminds you a file is pending. A file may go slightly astray but not far and for to long.


----------



## Harris

A fried of mine worked at the CFRC in Halifax a few years ago and when I mentioned that they had lost one of my soldier's files she gave me the big shoulder shrug and said, "It happens all the time".  When I asked if there were any issues raised with this, she replied to the negative.  Not saying that is the case now, but it certainly was then.


----------



## KT56

Can someone explain to me how PER exemptions work? I have been on parental leave for 9 months of this current fiscal year and my CoC says that I will be getting an PER Exemption this year. Does it just double last years PER so that I should receive the exact same score ?


----------



## sidemount

the post above is still accurate.

Others may have better info but the way I read it is esentially you dont get a score but if you were strong enough to be merited then you get the average of your last 2 PER scores instead of the exemption


----------



## McG

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think A LOT of the problem with CFPAS isn't CFPAS, its the politics where people are trying to 'situate the estimate' so that the ppl they want promoted/held back are, rather than just writing people up on their performance that year and letting the chips fall where they may.


I would have to agree.  I recently heard one CO offer the observation that "despite how open and transparent the PER process is supposed to be, it really is not."  The CFPAS policies and directives (as laid out through the CFPAS help file and annual CANFORGEN) are routinely ignored.  

CFPAS says all PER copies will be destroyed once they have been receipted by the PER processing centre in NDHQ, but I would not be surprised if every unit retains copies until at least the next year's PERs are in Ottawa (and I know examples of units with three years of PERs on file).

CFPAS says that PER potential and rankings are not to be lowered for individuals who are forecasted to component transfer or be promoted, yet I have seen the exact thing come out of unit and formation merit boards.  There was even a CANFORGEN on the topic of too many pers being dropped in score for an anticipated promotion which (often for training injury TCats) does not happen and suddenly a guy is held back in rank another 2 - 3 years while waiting to regenerate the right scores to be selected again.

CFPAS says that previous years' PER scores shall not be a factor in setting the present year's PER score (and the grievance board has upheld this position by rejecting multiple grievance arguments based on prior scores), but these again are items of information that are routinely pulled into unit and formation merit boards.

Here is another one:





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's crap.  You're over or under written rarely or never accurately written to meet the alloted immediates, ready's etc etc.  If the majority of your subordinates performed outstanding, then by all means give them that rating.  I have seen too many times over the years a deserving member getting screwed because there were not enough outstandings to cover everyone.


CFPAS rules expressly prohibit score controls and bell curves.  If what you say is true, then every referenced _screwed member_ would have solid grounds for redress ... though they may have to ATI the ship's PER directions to prove their case.  (That being said, I think flexible score controls are something we may need to consider.  The average individual is above average, and that really dilutes the value of the performance based assessment when weighted against all the check-in-the-box factors considered at a promotion board) 



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> How about being posted to a new unit and the automatic wipe out of your "good" PERs because you are in a new job and know nothing? How does that influence three immediates or whatever needed for promotion?


In theory, one's performance may suffer due to the learning curve associated with a difficult new job.  Potential should not suffer that same effect, and so promotion recommendation (N, D, R, I which are directly derived from potential) should not suffer.  That being said, units should not have a standing practice of punishing the new guy - if such a thing is happening and can be proven, then this is again a solid ground for redress.



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Eye In The Sky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mini-boards, unit board, etc etc etc.  Write people up on their performance against their initial PDR and that's that.
> 
> 
> 
> That works until you realize the next guy wrote his mediocre soldiers up as walking on water and now you've set your star performers back 2 or 3 years in their career because you wanted to stand on principle.
Click to expand...

And this is why CFPAS needs to be a priority for leadership right to the top in the CAF before it will be fixed.  Nobody wants to be the first guy to stop gaming the system because it will be his subordinates who, at an aggregate level, suffer.


----------



## Mediman14

I redressed my PER, My Commanding Officer had recently told me that PDR's have no bearing on PER's. In my case, I never received any PDR's including an initial PDR. Has anyone ever hear of this before?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It happens more than you think that PDRs don't get issued. That they aren't issued does not automatically invalidate a PER, however.

Ridiculous example follows- lets say on 15 mar, you were witnessed robbing the unit canteen by the CO, the RSM and and padre. That fact might not make a PDR, but would still be a perfectly valid thing to comment on in your PER.


----------



## Biohazardxj

If something is brought up on your PER that you feel is inaccurate and it has never been mentioned on a PDR or brought to your attention in an formal or informal manner then yes, you do have grounds to question it.   You may want to try and resolve it and the lowest lever first, such as a chat with your supervisor, but if necessary you can redress it.


----------



## McG

With the new nine line limit on PER narrative and non-descript sentence structure, it is very likely that a PER will simply not mention anything that may be taken issue with.  Successful PER grievances that I have seen were generally based on disproving an element of the narrative which substantiated the disputed bullet(s), or demonstrating an inconsistency between bullets and narrative.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It happens more than you think that PDRs don't get issued. That they aren't issued does not automatically invalidate a PER, however.



Initial PDRs are required by policy however.   Critical tasks and expected performance are indentified and that is what much of the PER should be measured against.  How can a mbr be assessed against things they were never made aware of if no initial PDR was issued?

Most of the problems with CFPAS are with people not following it and those people not being held accountable.   There is a help file in plain simple language to follow.  If a mbr doesn't receive their initial PDR that is a CofC failure at many levels.  Start holding those responsible accountable, right up to unit COs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I redressed my PER, My Commanding Officer had recently told me that PDR's have no bearing on PER's. In my case, I never received any PDR's including an initial PDR. Has anyone ever hear of this before?



Start by reading the CFPAS help file and understanding the CAF official policy.  Did you have a good AM helping you with your grievance prep?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Initial PDRs are required by policy however.   Critical tasks and expected performance are indentified and that is what much of the PER should be measured against.  How can a mbr be assessed against things they were never made aware of if no initial PDR was issued?
> 
> Most of the problems with CFPAS are with people not following it and those people not being held accountable.   There is a help file in plain simple language to follow.  If a mbr doesn't receive their initial PDR that is a CofC failure at many levels.  Start holding those responsible accountable, right up to unit COs.



EITS- absolutely, PDRs are required. But the lack of one (or an incomplete one) is not an automatic "get out of jail free card" to win a grievance. I have seen enough PER seasons in my life to know that the vast majority of disagreements over PER scoring and narrative are settled informally at the unit level. In cases where grievances over PERs have occurred, the successful ones (from the point of view of the member with the grievance) are the ones where they are best able to display with concrete examples and evidence how there is a mistake in the scoring of a particular AF or PF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Agree completely with the aspect lack of initial or even quarterly PDR isn't grounds for granting redress, sorry I should have said that.

It just irks me that leadership from the CO on down fails and a mbr suddenly finds themselves sighs PER they are caught off guard with.  Having said that, I also believe a Cpl or above should be proactive e enough to request initial PDRs when they don't get them.  Sometimes it is just an innocent oversight.  Sometimes.


----------



## Mediman14

Thanks All for your answers, 
  I resubmitted my grievance to the next authority beyond the CO. I have not received a PDR in two years despite my efforts to remind my supervisor. I had often worked above my current rank expectations, but it gets failed to be recognized on a regular basis. My particular unit has a lot of corruption that is never dealt with. atleast it seems that way!


----------



## ballz

I assume you are grieving your FY 14/15 PER? How is that even possible? It shouldn't even have been issued until April 1st at the earliest, and that would be the sharpest admin since sliced bread.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Maybe not receiving a PDR isn't a guaranteed win with the Grievance Authority but it definitely works in the persons favor.

First, with no initial then the benchmark you are judging them against isn't there. Essentially you haven't told them what their job consists of, so how can you say they weren't meeting the standard?

Second, when that goes up the grievance chain it goes up to the next levels in the command chain. Any LCol/Col that sees that the PDRs aren't being done will piss them off to high hell. They probably will decide the grievance is founded simply to prove a point. It shows complete laziness on part of the unit CoC.

Maybe the person receiving the bad PER is a complete bag of hammers, and often this is the case, but if you haven't done your due diligence and told him what his job consists of, the standard expected and at least twice provided formal feedback to say "You suck at this, this and this and here's the action plan you need to follow to improve in the next reporting period" then don't be surprised when Cpl Bagofhammers wins his redress.


----------



## captloadie

So, the OP didn't say they received a bad PER, just that he wanted to grieve his. The bench mark on a PER would be an S and an N. Technically, it is up to the individual to justify why he has done more than the standard.  PDR's can be a useful tool to set the expected level, but how may of you write them so that each point has a verying degree of performance. You know, x level of effort will get you x score. Yes, the areas of strength and areas for improvement speak to that, but its still a judgement call on the evaluator at the end of the day. 

No LCol or Col is going to approve a grievance, just to prove a point.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Maybe not receiving a PDR isn't a guaranteed win with the Grievance Authority but it definitely works in the persons favor.
> 
> First, with no initial then the benchmark you are judging them against isn't there. Essentially you haven't told them what their job consists of, so how can you say they weren't meeting the standard?



Agreee.



> Second, when that goes up the grievance chain it goes up to the next levels in the command chain. Any LCol/Col that sees that the PDRs aren't being done will piss them off to high hell. They probably will decide the grievance is founded simply to prove a point. It shows complete laziness on part of the unit CoC.



Disagree.

http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/cs-sc/2013-104-eng.html

http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/cs-sc/2013-103-eng.html


----------



## CountDC

Well EIS beat me to it with the redress links.

Not having a PDR does not give the member any form of help on a PER redress as often we can get picked on for things that should be common knowledge for a trade qualified member.  Using clerks as an example - just because we are not given a PDR does not mean we can use it in the argument when we get a bad score for not maintaining PERs files properly as it is common trade knowledge.  Most PER arguments I have seen are based around those type of situations and the member fails to provide evidence to support their case.

I personally experienced the comment "if my PER is not higher than last year I can redress it" comment.  I informed them they can redress anything they want but if that was their only point they certainly would lose as I had no way of knowing what their prior PER was, had no business knowing iaw CFPAS directives and was under no obligation to ensure their PER scored higher.


----------



## Poacher434

I am just wondering if anybody knows where to find or can provide the link through PM of the publication/canforgern/other regarding a merritting system within the CF.

I know there is a system in existance and it differs between PRES and REGF but I am looking for the bible of it all.

I have checked through multiple different sites and thought maybe something within the career managers spectrum, but to no avail I have found nothing.

Thanks much.


----------



## dapaterson

The help file for CFPAS has considerable details on that.  I have not looked for it since before the last great DND Internet re-org, but it used to be available for download on the Internet.


----------



## mariomike

Poacher434 said:
			
		

> I am just wondering if anybody knows where to find or can provide the link through PM of the publication/canforgern/other regarding a merritting system within the CF.



CFPAS (PERs & PDRs), Assesment Process, Honest Assesments, & Unjust Career Advancement (Merged Topic
http://army.ca/forums/threads/25156.75.html

CFPAS Download  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/113095.0

( Not sure why "CF Merritting system" is posted in the Physical Training and Standards forum? )


----------



## McG

I understood RegF and PRes were ranked separately for potential in section 5, but ranking in section 6 was everybody at the given rank across all occupations and components.


----------



## Poacher434

mariomike said:
			
		

> ( Not sure why "CF Merritting system" is posted in the Physical Training and Standards forum? )



I chose this thread because I figured there was a standard that was across the board, with further consideration I guess the administration thread could be a better option. 

Perhaps a mod can move this to a more fitting thread?

Also thanks all for the replies, I'll check those out


----------



## Lumber

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I'd really like to see some RCN examples of MOI PER's with 16 AF's to cover and only using 9 lines...anyone happen too see one of these elusive beasts that the new CANFORGEN references?



We just finished writing all of our PERs. There up for final review with our XO and PERMON. There will probably more revisions this week; I think one Immediate PER had something like 17 copies stacked together in the folder. Everything from important changes like changing a sentence to better describe the quality of the member's performance, to silly things like changing the name of a position to an acronym, then spelling it out, then changing it back to an acronym!

In answer to your question though, we followed the CANFORGEN to a T. All of our PERs have a minimum of 6 lines and no more than 9 lines. Everything is written Action:Result. I.e. "Frequently arranged supplementary trg for the section at shore facilities. Operators were well prepared for trials and operations." All ES and Mastered AFs are covered. 

Even the few Immediate I saw which had 15/16 Mastered AFs (there may have been one with 16/16 but I never saw it) managed to describe them all using 16 lines. The trick was to find example of their performance which demonstrated more than one AF. In the example above, it demonstrated both "Evaluation and Developing Subordinates" AND "Initiative."

I'm surprised that you asked the question, because, what else do you expect to happen? We had to make it work. The only other possibilities were either 1. You just don't give anyone that many ES/M AFs, or 2. You disregard the CANFORGEN and write more than 9 lines.


----------



## Lumber

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Disagree.
> 
> http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/cs-sc/2013-104-eng.html
> 
> http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/cs-sc/2013-103-eng.html



And there goes the last bit of productiveness I had left... >


----------



## McG

So, you PERs used the potential narrative (for those who get one) as an extension of the performance narrative?


----------



## Lumber

MCG said:
			
		

> So, you PERs used the potential narrative (for those who get one) as an extension of the performance narrative?



Negative. You wrote only about the Performance Assessment Factors (AFs) in the Performance narrative, and only about Potential Factors in the Potential Narrative.


----------



## McG

As it should be.  I assume then that you intended to write "9 lines" in here:


			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Even the few Immediate I saw which had 15/16 Mastered AFs (there may have been one with 16/16 but I never saw it) managed to describe them all using 16 lines.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Maybe it's time we stopped basing promotions off arbitrary assessments, vague examples of performance and the all powerful boys club and start actually testing people to see if they possess the academics, experience and job skill to be promoted.


----------



## garb811

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe it's time we stopped basing promotions off arbitrary assessments, vague examples of performance and the all powerful boys club and start actually testing people to see if they possess the academics, experience and job skill to be promoted.


Technically, we do that (for NCMs at all appointments/ranks and Officers at some ranks), which is why when people are promoted without the requisite courses formally required for that promotion, they are designated as Acting Lacking and the promotion is not substantive until such time as those courses are completed.  If an AL goes on the course and fails it, or declines the course for personal reasons, an AR is supposed to be done with the probable outcome being loss of the promotion.  For those who attend the career course(s) prior to promotion, the course report is supposed to be part of the National Merit board and have influence on the national ranking but, at least in my trade, the course reports have become so generic that they are pointless for that purpose.  

Even if we did away with AL and increased the weight of the course report at the national board, you would still need some mechanism to decide who merits attending those career courses though...and that would devolve back to the PER and the national ranking.  Unless you re-institute things such as the pre-JLC/pre-ISCC and use those to determine who goes but then you circle back around to trying to figure out who merits attending the pre-course in order to qualify for the course.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I can only speak for the infantry but we get promoted if we have the required courses, required time in, and merit high enough with _the boys._  

What I'm talking about is taking all the members in line for a potential promotion, sitting them in a room, and giving them an exam tailored to their job.   I'm not talking about giving people points for speaking french but for knowing the 17 steps of battle proceedure. What's involved in a section attack. Procedure for arresting someone etc..

Kind of like how the Americans do it to promote people. Promote someone because they scored a 98% on their exam for the rank of Sgt not because so and so is a good dude and supports the mess.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I can only speak for the infantry but we get promoted if we have the required courses, required time in, and merit high enough with _the boys._
> 
> What I'm talking about is taking all the members in line for a potential promotion, sitting them in a room, and giving them an exam tailored to their job.   I'm not talking about giving people points for speaking french but for knowing the 17 steps of battle proceedure. What's involved in a section attack. Procedure for arresting someone etc..
> 
> Kind of like how the Americans do it to promote people. Promote someone because they scored a 98% on their exam for the rank of Sgt not because so and so is a good dude and supports the mess.



The only problem with that is that the American's will promote people if they score above X threshold and worry about finding them a job at their new rank later.  We being a small military can't do that, so even if you score well on a test, it's no better than getting that MOI, if there are no positions you are still not getting promoted...


----------



## ModlrMike

We could do both. It might clear the merit list of all those folks on "sports scholarships" who don't know sh!t about their jobs, but know how to play hockey with the CO.


----------



## McG

PWT scores should have a box to be entered on the PER.


----------



## PuckChaser

If you're going to do that, give troops the ammo to practice.


----------



## sidemount

no kidding, got guys coming to the range, given 20 rounds to zero and then expected to fire PWT 1,2, and 3.....with no practice since the last year they fired the same thing and had the same results.....usually a fail.

One thing that we need more of is tons of shooting practice, GOOD coaching from trained professionals, not just people they could drum up for range staff.

But trying to to get all that is like an act of god.

Shouldn't be on the PER especially when the member has no control over it.


----------



## Lumber

MCG said:
			
		

> As it should be.  I assume then that you intended to write "9 lines" in here:



Woops! Yes I meant 9 lines.


----------



## Lumber

sidemount said:
			
		

> no kidding, got guys coming to the range, given 20 rounds to zero and then expected to fire PWT 1,2, and 3.....
> .
> .
> Shouldn't be on the PER especially when the member has no control over it.



"Developed innovative trg plan using new "imaginary" ammunition. Enabled subordinates to successfully complete PWT with superior results."

AF4: Leading Change - Mastered
AF6: Problem Solving - Mastered

 ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Visualization is supposed to work wonders. We should include a mandatory week of sitting in a dark, silent room visualizing being able to for in the range and hitting your target. Everyone will pass then, and hate ibts even more.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MCG said:
			
		

> PWT scores should have a box to be entered on the PER.



PWT could be included if it's a key technical aspect of that persons job. While shooting the C7 is an annual qualification it us of far less importance to pilots, mars o, finance, etc vice an infantry soldier. Perhaps a better mode would be to gave each trade officially identify technical/tactical aspects of huge job that must be covered by all units in the trade to create a common base of technical/tactical skills instead of unit "a" and unit "b" crating different evaluation criteria (which happens a lot).

As for the lack of ammo for the pwt's, the cfosp states that all soldiers should qualify to a standard 1 lower than mandated in the lfco on a sat range. No bullets required, and the system can measure breathing, weapon cant, etc for good shooting principle instruction.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

In our community, all aircrew do C7 and 9mm.  As well as CBRN, FA,Nav, comms, and a whole other pile of readiness and currency requirements that are common to all in addition to our MOSID specific requirements.

There is already plenty to be captured in a PER, now with the new writing guidance NONE of it is captured in annual assessments.


----------



## Lumber

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In our community, all aircrew do C7 and 9mm.  As well as CBRN, FA,Nav, comms, and a whole other pile of readiness and currency requirements that are common to all in addition to our MOSID specific requirements.
> 
> There is already plenty to be captured in a PER, now with the new writing guidance NONE of it is captured in annual assessments.



Round the fleet, refresher training does NOT get included in a PER. It does not count as "New Qualifications", nor does it affect your Performance and Potential factors, or merit any mention in the narratives. Because you simply receive a "pass/fail" (and almost always pass), you can't assess someones performance or potential on it.

This includes C8 and Sig Sauer refresher, Flood Trg, Fire Fighting Trg, Sea Survival, First Aid, and CBRN.


----------



## kratz

I could easily support Bruce's suggestion, above the BTL.


----------



## hockeysgal

I am currently using the CFPAS program to complete some PER's and am having some problems with the help file.  Specifically, I can't open it, when I click on help nothing happens (the help file is also suppose to open automatically when I open the program but that doesn't happen either)...  Has anyone had this problem before and found a way to fix it?


----------



## dangerboy

Are you using it on the DWAN or on a home computer?


----------



## hockeysgal

I am using it on my home computer, on the DWAN it worked fine last I used it


----------



## donaldk

You may need this if you are running Windows 7 or newer:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/download/details.aspx?id=91


----------



## hockeysgal

Just tried downloading for windows 8 but apparently it is not applicable to my computer, at least that's the message I get when trying to download it.  Any other thoughts, or possible solutions?


----------



## MJP

What part of the help file are you looking for, or do you just want the entire thing?


----------



## hockeysgal

The part with the ranks that defines what each category is worth in parts 4 and 5 for the PER's


----------



## Good2Golf

...and the "Leading Change" dot is rated higher than the "Don't Break Things" dot.

Anybody made arrangements for the PHA recently?  You know, your physical health assessment?  What we used to call a "medical"...

:not-again:

G2G


----------



## medicineman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and the "Leading Change" dot is rated higher than the "Don't Break Things" dot.
> 
> Anybody made arrangements for the PHA recently?  You know, your physical health assessment?  What we used to call a "medical"...
> 
> :not-again:
> 
> G2G



Which was previously called a "PHE" - Periodic Health Exam.   :facepalm: :facepalm:

MM


----------



## Kirkhill

medicineman said:
			
		

> Which was previously called a "PHE" - Periodic Health Exam.   :facepalm: :facepalm:
> 
> MM



Was that just for the female members?


----------



## medicineman

Missed something GTG said - the P is actually for Periodic in PHA...all they ended up doing was changing the last word so the HCA or HSO in Ottawa could justify their cubicle dwelling for another PER season.

And to answer Kirkhill's question, since we're a gender neutral military, as a guy, you too need to be on your menses in order to get the exam done  >.

MM


----------



## kev994

Leading Change points should be retroactive. If in 5 years your idea is gone, it was stupid and never should have been implemented. Those points ought to be revoked.


----------



## George Wallace

kev994 said:
			
		

> Leading Change points should be retroactive. If in 5 years your idea is gone, it was stupid and never should have been implemented. Those points ought to be revoked.



Revoked X 5


----------



## Loachman

There should be real life Milpoints.


----------



## c_canuk

Not just gone, there should be before and after metrics for identifying positive change. Frequently bad ideas become organizational zombies that never die.

IE, with MES if they had taken a baseline measure of skill sets, time to train functional det members from raw recruit, and time to respond to support requests, I'm sure there would be some interesting outcomes compared to 5 years later. Those are the points MES was supposed to improve as well as flexibility (which is harder to assess)

Maybe set up the promotion system such that there is an evaluation on the state of your AOR on posting in (predecessor's posting out) then on your posting out, another assessment is done. If the assessment is negative you don't get promoted. 3 Negatives in a row gets you demoted maybe?

Of course this sort of thing should be already being done by the member's CoC based on their yearly PER/PDR cycle, so the idea is probably redundant on paper...   :'(


----------



## Kirkhill

This is a serious question.

Is there any chance of reducing the rate of churn in the organization and keeping people in position longer?  I don't know how long your posting cycle is but I know myself it usually takes me a couple of years to grow accustomed to a job and start making positive contributions.  What would be the effect on the force if senior positions were increased to a 5 year posting?

The 5 year number is not picked at random. It relates to most start up businesses succeeding or failing in the first five years.  This is indicative of the managements ability to grip the situation and adjust to realities.  In five years the validity of the concept of the business has been demonstrated and the quality of the management can be assessed.

Short cycling managers, in my opinion, is a recipe for stasis - or as Shakespeare would have put it "lots of sound and fury signifying nothing".

IF the organization has well defined jobs and job descriptions and a clearly defined endstate then it can survive a high churn rate.  This is an army at war.

But if the organization has to be adaptive, flexible even, it has to rely on its managers and those managers need time to figure out the problem and enact a solution - and be held accountable for their end product. 

And yes it is about management and not just leadership.


----------



## PanaEng

tangent alert...   ff topic:
 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill

PanaEng said:
			
		

> tangent alert...   ff topic:
> :cheers:



Damm.  Ok.  Somebody open a new thread.  Everything is connected to everything else.....

 :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Damm.  Ok.  Somebody open a new thread.  Everything is connected to everything else.....
> 
> :cheers:


Done - carry on, folks.


----------



## Ostrozac

While five years is probably excessive, I think it's absolutely idiotic that we've never synched up the managed readiness cycle with either the command cycle or the posting cycles. 

If a battalion is on a three year readiness cycle, then the posting plot for leadership has to match that three year cycle, or else the steps of high readiness make little to no sense.

Many's the time I've seen guys go to Wainwright in the spring to be declared on high readiness, only to be posted out that APS. And then for the unit leadership to be completely re-jigged during the same APS. All only a few months after Wainwright.

So if your fictional B Coy was declared OPRED and on NTM in Wainwright in May, but by July it has brand new troops posted in as well as a new OC, is it still OPRED? Shades of the family axe story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus


----------



## Tibbson

I think the idea of syncing the cycles sounds like a great idea but its one of those ideas that only looks good on paper.  If it was just a matter of doing that it would work but by the time you factor in such things as illnesses, injuries, other medical issues, retirements, releases, promotions, disciplinary matters, training requirements for career courses, other assorted training issues, administrative matters, qualifications required by a Unit or tasking and a whole host of other potential disruptions to the plan of keeping people in place longer it quickly becomes a much less attainable objective.


----------



## medicineman

Not to sound TOO cynical, but because that makes sense ( the linking of postings to managed readiness cycles), it'll never happen - someone will come up with a way too complicated solution for dealing with things that only they can implement (because only they really understand it) and will keep them in their desk through several managed readiness cycles.  Of course because it's complicated, it'll therefore be considered better (simple can't possibly be effective or even good you know :sarcasm.  I think we all see where this goes...sarcasm off.

MM


----------



## Kirkhill

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I think the idea of syncing the cycles sounds like a great idea but its one of those ideas that only looks good on paper.  If it was just a matter of doing that it would work but by the time you factor in such things as illnesses, injuries, other medical issues, retirements, releases, promotions, disciplinary matters, training requirements for career courses, other assorted training issues, administrative matters, qualifications required by a Unit or tasking and a whole host of other potential disruptions to the plan of keeping people in place longer it quickly becomes a much less attainable objective.



If so then the OTHER course of action is re-validate the High Readiness Unit every time there is a change in personnel...... What price inspectors, ranges, retraining and requalifying?


----------



## daftandbarmy

medicineman said:
			
		

> Not to sound TOO cynical, but because that makes sense ( the linking of postings to managed readiness cycles), it'll never happen - someone will come up with a way too complicated solution for dealing with things that only they can implement (because only they really understand it) and will keep them in their desk through several managed readiness cycles.  Of course because it's complicated, it'll therefore be considered better (simple can't possibly be effective or even good you know :sarcasm.  I think we all see where this goes...sarcasm off.
> 
> MM



I think SAP would be a good IT based solution to these management coordination problems, right?  >


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I think SAP would be a good IT based solution to these management coordination problems, right?  >



Got any consultants in mind?   ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Got any consultants in mind?   ;D



SAP: rhymes with 'not me'


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> SAP: rhymes with 'not me'



 :cheers:


----------



## medicineman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I think SAP would be a good IT based solution to these management coordination problems, right?  >



Now who's being sarcastic?  Lol.

MM


----------



## Scootermcg

Does anyone have any more info about the option to opt out of a per? 

I submitted my request as per the cfpas manual to opt out of the per system this  year.  Reasoning:
-release date in September 
-only a few weeks observed at current unit with no input from previous unit 

My request was denied with reasons stated "it doesn't meet the criteria".  Although one of the specified reasons to opt out is retirement/release. 

I have indicated my desire to submit a grievance for that decision, and they are pushing me to sign the per anyway.  

Any advice? Any reference materials other than cfpas manual?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

You're pulling pin. Who cares what it says?


----------



## Scootermcg

Lol valid point, and I really don't care about the content.  

But at the same time I'm not wrong in my request, and I still have 3 months to make noise about it.


----------



## mariomike

Scootermcg said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any more info about the option to opt out of a per?



No, but it has been discussed:
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=w9pcVbStHYqN8Qei7YDYAQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:army.ca+%22opt+out%22+PER


----------



## Eye In The Sky

You and your CofC have to agree on the opt out.  

Ref is the CANFORGEN released in (IIRC) Feb or Mar this year as well as 2014 winter timeframe.


----------



## DAA

Scootermcg said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any more info about the option to opt out of a per?
> I submitted my request as per the cfpas manual to opt out of the per system this  year.  Reasoning:
> -release date in September
> -only a few weeks observed at current unit with no input from previous unit
> My request was denied with reasons stated "it doesn't meet the criteria".  Although one of the specified reasons to opt out is retirement/release.
> I have indicated my desire to submit a grievance for that decision, and they are pushing me to sign the per anyway.
> Any advice? Any reference materials other than cfpas manual?



The CO of your Unit has final say on "opt outs" regardless of the reason as to why you have asked for this.  However, keep in mind, that you need to submit your request "during" the reporting period and not after.

At the end of the day and if you don't want the PER, just slide it right back across the desk and refuse to sign.  You have nothing to grieve here, move along and don't depart on bad terms.


----------



## ModlrMike

I believe there is a provision to mark the PER "member refused to sign".


----------



## George Wallace

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I believe there is a provision to mark the PER "member refused to sign".



Your signature on the PER is that "you have read it"; not that "you agree with it".  If you disagree with it, you have the Redress procedure to follow should you want to grieve it.


----------



## Kat Stevens

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Your signature on the PER is that "you have read it"; not that "you agree with it".  If you disagree with it, you have the Redress procedure to follow should you want to grieve it.



Unless I woke up in the PRC this morning, being forced to sign anything is coercion.  I refused to sign PER that I got mid way through a Bosnia tour, written by a guy from another unit who had been my boss for a grand total of two months, and was a streamer who disliked me for years prior. I got yelled at, cajoled and finally threatened if I didn't sign. I still refused, as I didn't feel what I was asked to sign was my PER, therefore I couldn't sign it because it was someone else's.  Hasty rewrite and I signed, but I thought it was quite hilarious the amount of headless chicken hide n seek it caused.


----------



## George Wallace

Where did I say you were forced to sign.  I said that all you were signing was that you had READ the PER.


----------



## MJP

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Unless I woke up in the PRC this morning, being forced to sign anything is coercion.  I refused to sign PER that I got mid way through a Bosnia tour, written by a guy from another unit who had been my boss for a grand total of two months, and was a streamer who disliked me for years prior. I got yelled at, cajoled and finally threatened if I didn't sign. I still refused, as I didn't feel what I was asked to sign was my PER, therefore I couldn't sign it because it was someone else's.  Hasty rewrite and I signed, but I thought it was quite hilarious the amount of headless chicken hide n seek it caused.



LOL Sometimes it works out.

Generally in those kind of situations they should have just written mbr refused to sign and sent it in for processing and allow the mbr to grieve it.  They aren't signing it because they agree with it just that they acknowledge it anyway.


----------



## kratz

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Where did I say you were forced  to sign.  I said that all you were signing was that you had READ the PER.



The statement on the form indicates the member's signature indicates reading the PER. 

I agree, a member may have read a PER...but even this many years later, nothing forces a member to sign anything. While choosing NOT to sign a PER makes things difficult for the COC, there process has measures in place allowing for this, though not your best COA.   YMMV


----------



## Kat Stevens

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Where did I say you were forced to sign.  I said that all you were signing was that you had READ the PER.



Where did I say you said I was?  See?  I can play that game too.  I was ordered by a Sgt, a WO, an MWO, a Lt, and a Maj more than once to sign it.  I think they were shocked that a lowly Cpl would defy all their mighty mightiness.


----------



## Pusser

Scootermcg said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any more info about the option to opt out of a per?
> 
> I submitted my request as per the cfpas manual to opt out of the per system this  year.  Reasoning:
> -release date in September
> -only a few weeks observed at current unit with no input from previous unit
> 
> My request was denied with reasons stated "it doesn't meet the criteria".  Although one of the specified reasons to opt out is retirement/release.
> 
> I have indicated my desire to submit a grievance for that decision, and they are pushing me to sign the per anyway.
> 
> Any advice? Any reference materials other than cfpas manual?



As others have said, the final decision as to whether you receive a PER is not yours.  Furthermore, why are you upset about this?  It doesn't mean anymore work for you.  Grieving that your PER is unfair and/or doesn't reflect your performance is one thing, but I tend to think that grieving the fact they wrote a PER on you when you asked them not to is kind of silly.

Don't burn your bridges.  You may be getting out now, but who knows what the future might bring?  You may want re-enrole someday or join the Reserve.  It's best not to go out on a sour note.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I found this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Washington Post_, very interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2015/07/21/in-big-move-accenture-will-get-rid-of-annual-performance-reviews-and-rankings/


> In big move, Accenture will get rid of annual performance reviews and rankings
> 
> By Lillian Cunningham
> 
> July 21
> 
> As of September, one of the largest companies in the world will do all of its employees and managers an enormous favor: It will get rid of the annual performance review.
> 
> Accenture CEO Pierre Nanterme told The Washington Post that the professional services firm, which employs hundreds of thousands of workers in cities around the globe, has been quietly preparing for this “massive revolution” in its internal operations.
> 
> “Imagine, for a company of 330,000 people, changing the performance management process—it’s huge,” Nanterme said. “We’re going to get rid of probably 90 percent of what we did in the past.”
> 
> The firm will disband rankings and the once-a-year evaluation process starting in fiscal year 2016, which for Accenture begins this September. It will implement a more fluid system, in which employees receive timely feedback from their managers on an ongoing basis following assignments.
> 
> Accenture is joining a small but prominent list of major corporations that have had enough with the forced rankings, the time-consuming paperwork and the frustration engendered among managers and employees alike. Six percent of Fortune 500 companies have gotten rid of rankings, according to management research firm CEB.
> 
> These companies say their own research, as well as outside studies, ultimately convinced them that all the time, money and effort spent didn't ultimately accomplish their main goal — to drive better performance among employees.
> 
> In March, the consulting and accounting giant Deloitte announced that it was piloting a new program in which, like at Accenture, rankings would disappear and the evaluation process would unfold incrementally throughout the year. Deloitte is also experimenting with using only four simple questions in its reviews, two of which simply require yes or no answers.
> 
> _[ What if you could replace performance evaluations with four simple questions? ]_​
> Microsoft did away with its rankings nearly two years ago, attracting particular attention since it had long evangelized about the merits of its system that judged employees against each other. Adobe, Gap and Medtronic have also transformed their performance-review process.
> 
> “All this terminology of rankings—forcing rankings along some distribution curve or whatever—we’re done with that,” Nanterme said of Accenture's decision. “We’re going to evaluate you in your role, not vis à vis someone else who might work in Washington, who might work in Bangalore. It’s irrelevant. It should be about you.”
> 
> Though many major companies still haven’t taken the leap, most are aware that their current systems are flawed. CEB found that 95 percent of managers are dissatisfied with the way their companies conduct performance reviews, and nearly 90 percent of HR leaders say the process doesn’t even yield accurate information.
> 
> “Employees that do best in performance management systems tend to be the employees that are the most narcissistic and self-promoting,” said Brian Kropp, the HR practice leader for CEB. “Those aren’t necessarily the employees you need to be the best organization going forward.”
> 
> _[ Unilever CEO says he's 'ashamed' of his pay and has company's 'simplest job' ]_​
> Brain research has shown that even employees who get positive reviews experience negative effects from the process. It often triggers disengagement, and constricts our openness to creativity and growth.
> 
> CEB also found that the average manager spends more than 200 hours a year on activities related to performance reviews—things like sitting in training sessions, filling out forms and delivering evaluations to employees. When you add up those hours, plus the cost of the performance-management technology itself, CEB estimates that a company of about 10,000 employees spends roughly $35 million a year to conduct reviews.
> 
> “The process is too heavy, too costly for the outcome,” Nanterme said. “And the outcome is not great.”
> 
> Interestingly, though, the decision to roll out an updated approach usually has little to do with reining in those numbers. Kropp said companies aren’t likely to save much time or money by transitioning away from their old ratings systems to a new evaluation process. Where they stand to benefit is, instead, the return on those investments. “The smartest companies are asking, how do we get the best value out of the time and money we are spending?” Kropp said.
> 
> That’s the question Accenture posed to itself. And its answer was that performance management had to change from trying to measure the value of employees’ contribution after the fact. It needed instead to regularly support and position workers to perform better in the future.
> 
> “The art of leadership is not to spend your time measuring, evaluating,” Nanterme said. “It’s all about selecting the person. And if you believe you selected the right person, then you give that person the freedom, the authority, the delegation to innovate and to lead with some very simple measure.”




Performance evaluation is not new. We know, for example, that the Royal Navy had the main elements of a "merit system" (examinations, evaluations, recommendations) in place in the 18th century. The British Army switched to its version of a "merit" system (which included performance evaluations) in the 1880s.

The _system_ has become more formal and complex over the years ~ some (many?) executives (and military leaders, too?) think it has become too formal, too complex, too remote (from the individual concerned and his team leader) and, simply, just too big.

I'm prepared to guarantee that _Accenture_, _Deloitte_ and _Microsoft_ are not promoting people based on simple seniority or, even, just on one team leader's say-so, but, _it appears to me_, that those companies (and the others in the "six percent of _Fortune 500_ companies") have made managers and executive _responsible_ for hiring, firing, training and promoting the _right_ people.

Some _radical_ points to consider:

     1. Promotion to corporal _might_ require only three things ~

         a. Successful completion of a junior leadership course (in other words separate trade skill/training from leadership/,management training);

         b. The Commanding Officer's approval; and

         c. An open _position_ on the establishment. 

     2. Equally, promotion to captain _might_ be very similar: examinations (shades of the 18th century Royal Navy), the CO's recommendation and an open position.

The _responsibility_ for promotion would, then, rest with the people most involved: the individual her/himself and the local (ship/unit) chain of command. Ottawa, even MOG/brigade/wing or division or command, would not have any role ~ beyond establishment approval ~ in promotions (or selection for courses) beyond setting a really good example of leadership at the higher levels.


----------



## Mediman14

I know when I did my PLQ 5 years ago, there was very limited exposure to PDR's. The majority of exposure a person gets is thru hands on experience. Do the same apply to officers?


----------



## MJP

Very much so.  There is little formal training on the process at any level.  What I did during my Phase 3 almost mirrored my PLQ.  Generally though each unit has slightly different way of doing PDRs, some good some bad so what is taught isn't always that relevant.


----------



## BinRat55

I like to expose the CFPAS program to my troops at a young age. Almost from the time they get to me actually. I don't want to see their part 3 and 4 in ink or typed up in a word doc. I give them the electronic version of their part 1 / 2 and teach them how to navigate in the program. When it comes time for me (or my MCpls) to receive the part 3s, it's done directly on CFPAS and emailed. Several things happen - member is familiar with the program, less work for the MCpl / Sgt and document continuity is retained. Good PD for everyone!


----------



## 211RadOp

When I was promoted to MCpl, I had never written a PER before and I had four that year to write.

When I was promoted to Sgt, as PD, I would have my Cpls write "PERs" on the Ptes under them. This gave them the experience in writing them, as well as meat for the MCpls to write the Cpls with.


----------



## Mediman14

211RadOp said:
			
		

> When I was promoted to MCpl, I had never written a PER before and I had four that year to write.
> 
> When I was promoted to Sgt, as PD, I would have my Cpls write "PERs" on the Ptes under them. This gave them the experience in writing them, as well as meat for the MCpls to write the Cpls with.





I once did that, but my CoC thought it was a dumb idea. Some of my Cpl's fail to see the logic behind this. They will probably learn the hard way and wish they had exposure to the CFPAS program! I think that PDR's and PER' should be taught more frequently on certain courses!


----------



## George Wallace

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I once did that, but my CoC thought it was a dumb idea. Some of my Cpl's fail to see the logic behind this. They will probably learn the hard way and wish they had exposure to the CFPAS program! I think that PDR's and PER' should be taught more frequently on certain courses!



I believe all of these little Administrative tasks should be passed on to young members early so that they see the importance of them and have knowledge of how to effectively use them.  They do have significant affect on people's careers.  Lack of a supervisor to effectively document their personnel, allows less deserving personnel who do have supervisors who have meticulously documented their performance, to get loaded more often on career courses and taskings.


----------



## sidemount

I had all my Cpls do the OJT crews PDRs. That way they had the exposure to CFPAS and its good PD for them. 

Ive always taught them to answer 3 questions: what they did, how they did it (based on the word picture book), and what was the outcome. After that its just practice with structure and grammar to get it the way the CoC wants.
PERs have gotten much easier to write as most of the meat of them have been removed. I have a feeling in a few years it will be bubble score only with maybe a COs recommendation.


----------



## BinRat55

sidemount said:
			
		

> Ive always taught them to answer 3 questions: what they did, how they did it (based on the word picture book), and what was the outcome. After that its just practice with structure and grammar to get it the way the CoC wants.
> PERs have gotten much easier to write as most of the meat of them have been removed. I have a feeling in a few years it will be bubble score only with maybe a COs recommendation.



That was a few years ago... now the formula is "Did X - Y happened" All PERs are written in a quasi-point form with literally NO help from the WPB now with the exception of where do we put the dots. This in turn for me, leads to the question - do I do the PDRs differently? As sidemount stated, we have always written PDRs so that we can steal sentences for the PERs, but this can't be done like this any more.


----------



## sidemount

I keep doing the PDRs the old way with the how, one: because thats how my bosses wanted it, and two: this is what we can use for justification of PER points. Its a lot easier argue the points when you have all your paperwork following the WPB, especially when the member decides to grieve.

You are absolutly right though, the WPB is no help for PERs, we are dictated the number of lines to use, done in point form with what they did and the outcome. Seem kind of pointless to have it there now.


----------



## BinRat55

Not sure as to the validity of this, however I hear that in the near future, when you choose a dot, a dropdown box will appear on the right with a few "blanket" statements pertaining to said dot... for example:

I am in the CFPAS document PER. Tombstone data entered correctly. I choose "AA" for Writen Communication. in the narritive area, I can then choose one of three or four statements with the correct tone - "Member facilitated orders WELL from his/her CoC" or "Member displayed GOOD accuracy when passing orders to his/her subordinates"...

Or something to that effect!


----------



## dapaterson

With the implementation of the upgrade and update to HRMS, it is probable that the new personnel evaluation system will leverage the same tool.  So a PER, once completed and approved in electronic form will automagically be part of the pers file - no more printing, signing and mailing to DMCA (who then scan the resulting file).

There's a lot of work behind the scenes of this as well, starting with the question "What do we need to assess for performance and potential to best develop and select CAF personnel fo future employment?"


----------



## BinRat55

Sounds like a possible step in the right direction. We have come a long way from the old "He done good. He could do better" system (When I tell young soldiers my first PER was a 6.2 I get some fairly odd looks...) But we still have a ways to go. Utilizing HRMS stays in stride with the paperless era, speeding the process and I like it. And a lot of us really don't realize the work it takes behind the scenes to make improvements to something we have been using as a career advancement tool for over 60 years!

If they ask the right questions, as you put it, and continued to use the common sense they are beginning to display, we may very well have a viable product in a few years.

I believe the Americans write a test for promotion - it's based on knowledge. If you have no idea what you're doing, then a PFC you'll stay! I wonder...


----------



## Mediman14

There is one thing about the new PER system, there is the potential to have a blank PER based on the bubbles. I personally is not a big fan of that particular part.


----------



## sidemount

The unit I was just at tried to do that for every single person on OJT

Based on PDRs written from the various units they went to on OJT rotation....there were a few grievences submitted


----------



## PMedMoe

I like the idea of exposing people to it early.  But given the fact that they've changed it twice within the last couple of years; what training is ever going to be sufficient??

I rather liken it to the time when they were contemplating bringing in the "combat" bra and several of us females got a questionnaire.

One question was: How would you advise a new female trainee in the field regarding undergarments? (It may have been worded differently but that was the gist).

My reply:  Nothing, they'll learn it soon enough.   >

It may seem a tad flippant, but they _will_ learn.  Advise them to keep copies of their own and any they might have written with personal details (SN, name, etc) blacked out for future reference.  And let them know you're available for advice.


----------



## BinRat55

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> There is one thing about the new PER system, there is the potential to have a blank PER based on the bubbles. I personally is not a big fan of that particular part.



I have done that. Last season. Two SNDs... nothing but sots - no narrative. I wasn't a fan either. I realize that PDRs are there for a reason, but when a PER is blank, it tends to send a message... the right message but the completely wrong way. It's like "You're coming along, gettin better, but I couldn't be bothered to write anything about you. You were less than memorable in anything you did. Thanks for comin out sport..."

Meh.


----------



## TCM621

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I have done that. Last season. Two SNDs... nothing but sots - no narrative. I wasn't a fan either. I realize that PDRs are there for a reason, but when a PER is blank, it tends to send a message... the right message but the completely wrong way. It's like "You're coming along, gettin better, but I couldn't be bothered to write anything about you. You were less than memorable in anything you did. Thanks for comin out sport..."
> 
> Meh.



Particularily when the unit is not giving PDRs. And lets be honest, it happens way more than it should. The narrative serves on a PER serves two functions. First, it justifies the bubbles. The second, and equally if not more importantly, provides written feedback to the member on his/her performance over the reporting period. If you know where you stand, you can improve. Writing the narrative sucked but it was something supervisors had to do. It seemed that the new one is aimed at making supervisors lives easier not helping the people the PERs are written for.


----------



## BinRat55

And herein lies the issue - one should not be "surprised" during a PER interview. If (and as you stated, assuming you stay on top of the PDR process) the PDR process is followed correctly, all members should know where they stand. Always. Remember - we give corrective PDRs (5Bs) there is no reason you can't issue a 5A if the member does exceptional at / with something. These 5As and 5Bs coupled with the regular interval (quarterly) PDRs allow the member to improve or maintain conduct all year 'round.

Also, I truly believe it's a supervisor's responsibility to stay on top of this process. Too many times have I heard "Our CoC doesn't give PDRs regularly or at all..." It's a complete cop out and sheer laziness  - to heck with the CoC - do it for your subordinates yourselves. It is a disservice to those who get YOU promoted. (Not meant towards you Tcm... just a sore spot with me...).


----------



## TCM621

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> And herein lies the issue - one should not be "surprised" during a PER interview. If (and as you stated, assuming you stay on top of the PDR process) the PDR process is followed correctly, all members should know where they stand. Always. Remember - we give corrective PDRs (5Bs) there is no reason you can't issue a 5A if the member does exceptional at / with something. These 5As and 5Bs coupled with the regular interval (quarterly) PDRs allow the member to improve or maintain conduct all year 'round.
> 
> Also, I truly believe it's a supervisor's responsibility to stay on top of this process. Too many times have I heard "Our CoC doesn't give PDRs regularly or at all..." It's a complete cop out and sheer laziness  - to heck with the CoC - do it for your subordinates yourselves. It is a disservice to those who get YOU promoted. (Not meant towards you Tcm... just a sore spot with me...).



I 110 percent agree with you. One of the biggest problems with the PER process is that it isn't followed properly. PERs shouldn't be a surprise but they often are because what their supervisor is telling them about their work doesn't match with the fallout from the bun fight.  Or the PDR process isn't followed properly, etc. 

Since our only method of promotion is the PER,  it becomes more about who is getting promoted rather than being an accurate assessment tool.  If you are in a trade with very few promotions,  you need to right your subordinates up just shy of Jesus. And often where a member's score ends up is out if the supervisor's (or anyone directly involved in that person's work) hands.


----------



## Mediman14

I agree that PER's should be no surprise if the Mbr is honest! PDR's is the same thing, should be no surprises.
  Not getting PDR's is very lazy, that had happen to me, no initial, no PDR's, no nothing, PER was blank. I put in a grievance and was told by my CO that I don't have to get a PDR every year. So needless to say I used that past CoC as examples on what not to do.
  Before I went on summer leave, I submitted my PDR's to my supervisor to be vetted, I advised him that one of the subordinates will be leaving shortly for a career course and should be given the PDR prior to leaving. He did do that but decided to change things and add things that was not in that reporting period and not accurate. Needless to say, the subordinate was shocked. The Cpl submitted an Intent to Grieve to the CO. Thank God he took my name off it! 
   I think there should be formal training on PDR's and PER's, and should be introduced in great detail on the PLQ and officer equivalent. I often wondered if that issue ever got to the General level for discussion.


----------



## BinRat55

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I put in a grievance and was told by my CO that I don't have to get a PDR every year.



And I quote:

103. The Personnel Development Review (PDR)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PDR is a two step process: 


Step 1 of the process occurs during the initial meeting between the supervisor and subordinate at the beginning of the reporting period or when a new supervisor or subordinate is assigned. A new supervisor has the option of either confirming the previous supervisor's PDR or initiating a new one; and 


Step 2 of the process consists of a minimum of two feedback sessions; the first shall be at the mid point and the last at the end of the reporting period, which is the PER interview, or PDR interview for AB-OS/Pte, OCDT, ASLt/2Lt, or SLt/Lt. Feedback sessions may occur more often as desired or directed by local commanders. 



The PDR will be used by a unit to report a person's performance to his or her home unit during operational deployments under 3 months duration or temporary assignments such as attached postings, TD, or secondments of any length. On posting, losing units will use the PDR to pass a individual's performance/potential information to the gaining unit or vice versa when a Dept ID Waiver has been approved (see sect 121). The home or gaining unit will use this information in preparing the person's Annual PER. 


PDRs may be handwritten, however typed is preferable. COs are to ensure that assessments originating from their unit are accurate and not inflated. The individual's PDR is to be stored in the unit personnel file for a minimum of two years after which they are to be destroyed. Units are reminded of the importance of the PDR process and of *the fact that it is mandatory for all ranks*. 

MANDATORY FOR ALL RANKS...


----------



## BinRat55

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I think there should be formal training on PDR's and PER's, and should be introduced in great detail on the PLQ and officer equivalent.



Yes and no. My take on it (as I alluded to in earlier posts) is that we as supervisors / Sr NCOs have a responsibility to our younger up-and-coming leaders to teach this and ensure their competence. Many CoCs have the basics which is usually a good start, but how do you teach this to a diverse group on a PLQ? Combat Arms do it a bit differently than purple trades, who do it a bit different than the Navy. No, it's something that we need to ensure our future leaders are in line with - period. We advise our CoC (how many times have I had to explain to a young officer that "No sir, we DON'T do it this way...") and teach our subordinates. It's too easy to get to a new unit and say "this is how I learned it on my PLQ" at the expense of your troops...

If one of my Cpls had to "learn" about PDRs and PERs on a PLQ, then I have failed as a leader myself. The more they know about the process that defines their career for them, the better soldier and tech I have in the end.


----------



## SupersonicMax

There are many more ways to keep your subbordinates informed of their performance throughout the year.  If someone waits for PDR time, there this is a failing in their supervisory skills. Regular verbal feedback is good.  I personally sit down individually with my guys once or twice a month go know what's in their mind, giving them a forum to voice their concerns and for me to give them feedback.  Along with daily interraction with them, they know where they stand but more importantly, I know their concerns and can take action

The PDR process really serves 2 purposes:

1- Force people unable to give relevant and regular feedback in a somewhat acceptable timeframe

2- Formally document poor performance for eventual admin actions/issues.

Top performers are normally well known within a unit and if not, it will be very apparent.

The PDR process as it is doesn't work.  The fact that many ENTIRE units (including HHQs) don't really use it is a point in case.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

My  :2c: is simple form is that while the changes over the past 2 years may have reduced the workload CFPAS imposed on us, those did little to improve CFPAS overall, as a reporting/assessment system.


----------



## BinRat55

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There are many more ways to keep your subbordinates informed of their performance throughout the year.  If someone waits for PDR time, there this is a failing in their supervisory skills. Regular verbal feedback is good.  I personally sit down individually with my guys once or twice a month go know what's in their mind, giving them a forum to voice their concerns and for me to give them feedback.  Along with daily interraction with them, they know where they stand but more importantly, I know their concerns and can take action
> 
> The PDR process really serves 2 purposes:
> 
> 1- Force people unable to give relevant and regular feedback in a somewhat acceptable timeframe
> 
> 2- Formally document poor performance for eventual admin actions/issues.
> 
> Top performers are normally well known within a unit and if not, it will be very apparent.
> 
> The PDR process as it is doesn't work.  The fact that many ENTIRE units (including HHQs) don't really use it is a point in case.



I agree with many of your points here. It isn't just about a formal process, a piece of paper in my office and an "atta-boy" en masse from a CO. Many great leaders I have had the pleasure to serve with have gotten to know me and my subordinates over a beer, BBQ, after an O group, in the smoking pit... that's all well and good, but it only serves to garner the respect needed to lead. It doesn't mean a row of beans to any board that Cpl Bloggins is a great guy because you got to know know him. We have checks and balances in place (called the CFPAS) that, while not perfect, does serve a greater purpose. I also agree with you when you say that it becomes easier to take action from an informal standpoint. Too often, young Pte Blue or Cpl Yellow will not want to voice a concern, for fear of some kind of punishment or reprisal. Under the "old" principals of leadership - #6 (if I remember correctly) is Know your soldiers and promote their welfare.

I have to disagree with your theory of the PDR serving two purposes - Forcing feedback in a certain timeframe and to formally document poor performance. Seems a little shortsighted to me. I have been involved with the CFPAS for a very long time, seen many outcomes of abuse, proper use, manipulation, calculation and action. I can honestly tell you that in my humble experience, when done right, it (PDRs) are a wonderful tool. When the young Pte who does not receive a PER in April gets a good PDR, watch how he / she shares that with their coworkers. See the fire it lights in the less motivated to do just that much better.

I could go on forever, and I do understand that everyone has an opinion and are entitled to it. Everyone has a leadership style too, and those who know me understand me because I have learned this from many on this site.

The CFPAS is what it is - a tool. When a tool is used correctly even a dull pocket knife can skin a moose!


----------



## SupersonicMax

So, we do PDRs so people can get out of the office and brag?  There are many more ways to publicly recognize strong people in the organization. I don't believe a PDR is one of them.

I had a grand total of 0 PDRs written on me in my 15 years and I do not feel cheated or that my supervisors did a bad job of mentoring me. They just had a different approach.

CFPAS is no more than a form generator.  The program doesn't do much more more than that (there is no database or grander mechanism directly attached to it).  The process we use to assess people uses the forms generated by CFPAS.  The PDR process is, in my opinion, largely redundant when good supervision happens.  The PER process is not actually used to assess and give feedback to our people but is rather a tool to let boards know where people sit in the pack: we decide the bullets on a local board before we write the PERs. Then we write something that will match the bullets (normally something grossly exaggerated).  Backwards isn't it?


----------



## TCM621

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> So, we do PDRs so people can get out of the office and brag?  There are many more ways to publicly recognize strong people in the organization. I don't believe a PDR is one of them.
> 
> I had a grand total of 0 PDRs written on me in my 15 years and I do not feel cheated or that my supervisors did a bad job of mentoring me. They just had a different approach.
> 
> CFPAS is no more than a form generator.  The program doesn't do much more more than that (there is no database or grander mechanism directly attached to it).  The process we use to assess people uses the forms generated by CFPAS.  The PDR process is, in my opinion, largely redundant when good supervision happens.  The PER process is not actually used to assess and give feedback to our people but is rather a tool to let boards know where people sit in the pack: we decide the bullets on a local board before we write the PERs. Then we write something that will match the bullets (normally something grossly exaggerated).  Backwards isn't it?



If you have never received PDRs you have been cheated and your supervisor's did not do their jobs correctly. That is not up for discussion, PDRs are mandatory full stop. If you have been lucky enough to not have any major problems, good for you but it doesn't make it right. 

We work in an environment where your ability to advance is decided by people who don't know you.  The only things they are allowed to base their decision on is the PER. If there is a problem,  PDRs are there to back up that PER. As a supervisor,  if someone doesn't like there PER,  you can point to their PDRs (up or down the chain as necessary) to justify what you feel is acceptable. Your supervisor telling you something is irrelevant because at the end of the day it never officially happened. 

As to "bragging" about a PDR, when you sit a young private down and give him a glowing PDR, his confidence rises and he feels validated. It is a formal acknowledgement of all his hard work. For a brand new private, those are few and far between.  By their very nature privates are told they are doing something wrong constantly and given menial jobs to complete. It is good for them,  to sit them down every once in a while and show them, in writing, that the CoC recognizes their hard work and tell them if you do a, b, and C, the next one will be even better. 

As someone who has seen a ton of instances where "so and so told me" has been flat out denied,  I am a huge fan of getting stuff in writing.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If you have never received PDRs you have been cheated and your supervisor's did not do their jobs correctly. That is not up for discussion, PDRs are mandatory full stop. If you have been lucky enough to not have any major problems, good for you but it doesn't make it right.



Because it is mandated it makes it a good tool?  Again, the fact that entire units don't use it is probably a good indicator that it is not suitable for what it is meant.  PDRs are mandatory sure. Just like many other things we don't follow to the letter.




			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> We work in an environment where your ability to advance is decided by people who don't know you.  The only things they are allowed to base their decision on is the PER. If there is a problem,  PDRs are there to back up that PER. As a supervisor,  if someone doesn't like there PER,  you can point to their PDRs (up or down the chain as necessary) to justify what you feel is acceptable. Your supervisor telling you something is irrelevant because at the end of the day it never officially happened.



PDRs are not used for career advancement (read promotion boards).  PERs are.  I have seen one individual try to grieve a PER because he did not have PDRs written.  Since we tend to over-evaluate people, he did not have a leg to stand on:  his bullets were mostly Above average, never below average.  His potential was the same.  Still not enough for an immediate or a ready but according to his PER, he was doing what was expected of him and a little more.  The lack of PDR did not interfere with where we thought he ranked.  In this case, he was clearly trying to play the system to get ahead.  Still didn't work.


[quote author=Tcm621]

As to "bragging" about a PDR, when you sit a young private down and give him a glowing PDR, his confidence rises and he feels validated. It is a formal acknowledgement of all his hard work. For a brand new private, those are few and far between.  By their very nature privates are told they are doing something wrong constantly and given menial jobs to complete. It is good for them,  to sit them down every once in a while and show them, in writing, that the CoC recognizes their hard work and tell them if you do a, b, and C, the next one will be even better.
[/quote]

Or you can award the Person of the month award for whatever level you lead.  Or you can do this verbally with the individual on a regular basis.  PDRs are a lazy way to recognize your people.

I had a teacher in University that would invite students with marks greater than 90% for a diner (after each exams).  He would announce when he gave the exams back who would go for dinner.  Very small gesture that most people appreciated greatly.  Way better than a piece of paper telling you you are doing well.

In the end, because we are mandated to do it doesn't mean it's the right way to do it.  I personally find PDRs a bit of a waste of time, even though I do them....


----------



## George Wallace

Sorry, Max but I think you and your whole unit are wrong in what they are doing and that it does indeed have an affect on the careers of the service members working in your organization.



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Because it is mandated it makes it a good tool?  Again, the fact that entire units don't use it is probably a good indicator that it is not suitable for what it is meant.  PDRs are mandatory sure. Just like many other things we don't follow to the letter.



And just because you and your organization have failed to use this tool, does not make that right.  If this is just a small indication of what your organization fails to comply with, there may be some very serious problems there.  Time will tell.



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> PDRs are not used for career advancement (read promotion boards).  PERs are.  I have seen one individual try to grieve a PER because he did not have PDRs written.  Since we tend to over-evaluate people, he did not have a leg to stand on:  his bullets were mostly Above average, never below average.  His potential was the same.  Still not enough for an immediate or a ready but according to his PER, he was doing what was expected of him and a little more.  The lack of PDR did not interfere with where we thought he ranked.  In this case, he was clearly trying to play the system to get ahead.  Still didn't work.



This is where you have made one very large mistake.  As mentioned, the PDR's lead up to the PER, giving the PER author an indication of how to evaluate the person being written up.  That is but half of what the PDR system does.  The PDR interviews will indicate to the member where they are doing well and where they may or do need to improve.  If this is all documented in the PDR's on the member, then the example of your member grieving a PER should not happen, as the member has been counselled on their shortcomings.  If you and your organization can not document, document, document; then you will see more grievances.   



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Or you can award the Person of the month award for whatever level you lead.  Or you can do this verbally with the individual on a regular basis.  PDRs are a lazy way to recognize your people.



You have missed the whole object of what the PDR system is all about.  It is to document the members performance and progression in Trade and the CAF.  What is "LAZY" is a supervisor who can not do the simple administration to ensure that their personnel have their personal files kept up to date, and reflecting their performance and progression.  Don't forget, you still have to council your members individually on their PDR.  



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I had a teacher in University that would invite students with marks greater than 90% for a diner (after each exams).  He would announce when he gave the exams back who would go for dinner.  Very small gesture that most people appreciated greatly.  Way better than a piece of paper telling you you are doing well.



This is not university.  Our troops don't need a 'token pat on the head'.  They need proper Course Reports, proper filing of their achievements in their Pers files, and often that piece of paper to hang on their walls.  If you haven't noticed, in today's world, our Government places a lot of worth in those pieces of paper that people hang on their walls, but NOTHING for that "atta boy pat on the back".



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In the end, because we are mandated to do it doesn't mean it's the right way to do it.  I personally find PDRs a bit of a waste of time, even though I do them....



Again, I point out to you and your organization, the PDR and PER system are not what is wrong; but your complacency and lazy act of not properly keeping documentation on your personnel is what is truly wrong.


----------



## MJP

I have two PDRs in 5 years and I don't feel slighted in the least.  I have always known exactly where I stood because I have been told what to improve through verbal feedback, usually this feedback is in real time and relevant.  That is wayyyyyyyy more important than some useless piece of paper that tries to encapsulate the last 3-5 months of my work.  IMHO that is way to late to be conducting feedback.  I think the lazy CoCs are the ones that depend on the PDR as the prime piece of feedback rather than on the spot mentoring.  

I certainly don't think of my CoC as lazy as some have alluded to on the thread.  They are hard working folks that realize that there is a time and place for some administration and react accordingly.


----------



## cld617

MJP said:
			
		

> I have two PDRs in 5 years and I don't feel slighted in the least.  I have always known exactly where I stood because I have been told what to improve through verbal feedback, usually this feedback is in real time and relevant.  That is wayyyyyyyy more important than some useless piece of paper that tries to encapsulate the last 3-5 months of my work.  IMHO that is way to late to be conducting feedback.  I think the lazy CoCs are the ones that depend on the PDR as the prime piece of feedback rather than on the spot mentoring.
> 
> I certainly don't think of my CoC as lazy as some have alluded to on the thread.  They are hard working folks that realize that there is a time and place for some administration and react accordingly.



Face to face mentoring and evaluations are all fine and dandy at the unit level, but people are not promoted to progress in their careers at the unit level. The PER process is essential to the success of a members career, and as an extension of that, following the PDR process is essential to bolster the PER. If a member is given an area to improve on in the first 6mo of the year, and actually follows through with rectifying the shortcoming and this can be confirmed it is much easier to justifying those bubbles moving right. In trades where even mediocre members are right dressed because they can tie their boots this isn't too important, however in the RCAF where you rarely have MCpl's these days who needed a firewalled PER to be promoted, it is essential that their PER is an accurate reflection of their performance. Accurately documenting their actions throughout the year ensures the right person gets promoted, and not the slackers who skated by all year but were 2 I/C  to the 2 I/C entertainment on the mess committee.


----------



## MJP

cld617 said:
			
		

> Face to face mentoring and evaluations are all fine and dandy at the unit level, but people are not promoted to progress in their careers at the unit level. The PER process is essential to the success of a members career, and as an extension of that, following the PDR process is essential to bolster the PER. If a member is given an area to improve on in the first 6mo of the year, and actually follows through with rectifying the shortcoming and this can be confirmed it is much easier to justifying those bubbles moving right. In trades where even mediocre members are right dressed because they can tie their boots this isn't too important, however in the RCAF where you rarely have MCpl's these days who needed a firewalled PER to be promoted, it is essential that their PER is an accurate reflection of their performance. Accurately documenting their actions throughout the year ensures the right person gets promoted, and not the slackers who skated by all year but were 2 I/C  to the 2 I/C entertainment on the mess committee.



Right we are and I am talking about PDRs.  PERs are a mechanism to get people promoted.  I am not arguing about the how we get people promoted via PERs.  I am intimately familiar with it and how a few corps and branches do their promotions.  While one can feed the other (PDR into PER) again I feel generally they don't because as Max has alluded to we overscore our folks just to keep them competitive.  IMHO PDRs and more inporatntly face to face mentoring/leading are the real developers of folks.


----------



## TCM621

MJP said:
			
		

> I have two PDRs in 5 years and I don't feel slighted in the least.  I have always known exactly where I stood because I have been told what to improve through verbal feedback, usually this feedback is in real time and relevant.  That is wayyyyyyyy more important than some useless piece of paper that tries to encapsulate the last 3-5 months of my work.  IMHO that is way to late to be conducting feedback.  I think the lazy CoCs are the ones that depend on the PDR as the prime piece of feedback rather than on the spot mentoring.
> 
> I certainly don't think of my CoC as lazy as some have alluded to on the thread.  They are hard working folks that realize that there is a time and place for some administration and react accordingly.



Face to face mentoring is the informal process and PDRs are the formal process. They go hand in hand. If used properly a PDR isn't useless at all, it is a valuable reporting and evaluation tool. 

And you're right,  your CoC probably isn't lazy. They either don't care about PDRs or don't know the value. That is a failure of their previous supervisors. However,  at the end of the day whether they think it is useful or not is irrelevant because they are mandatory. Not filling out PDRs is a failure to do their job and not enforcing them is a leadership failure. That part is black and white and not up for argument. We do not get to choose which orders we follow.


----------



## MJP

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Face to face mentoring is the informal process and PDRs are the formal process. They go hand in hand. If used properly a PDR isn't useless at all, it is a valuable reporting and evaluation tool.
> 
> And you're right,  your CoC probably isn't lazy. They either don't care about PDRs or don't know the value. That is a failure of their previous supervisors. However,  at the end of the day whether they think it is useful or not is irrelevant because they are mandatory. Not filling out PDRs is a failure to do their job and not enforcing them is a leadership failure. That part is black and white and not up for argument. We do not get to choose which orders we follow.



Meh.  I ain't getting all worked up over it.  My bosses know what orders are useful and what is fluff.  Pretty damm sure as a collective group they produce excellent leaders.  Regardless, I am bowing out because quite frankly what you (and others) think of their leadership matters not a wit to me or them.  I only came on to echo that Max's situation/posts is not unique and is more common then our valiant orders are orders posters in this forum think.   :nod:


----------



## Navy_Pete

I find them good to use as a tracking tool, plus you can get the juniour members used to the forms by getting to fill out the tombstone data, what their goals are (ie different courses/training they want to do)  and things like that.  That way you can reference it during the formal interview and it doesn't get forgotten about as tends to happen with informal chats.  Plus, gets people thinking along the lines that they need a plan.

They are a bit of work to be useful, but most of the drafting can be done by the member with the supervisor filing in the appropriate sections and noting strengths/weaknesses with a plan.  The act of writing it out forces you to think through it a little, which may or may not get done otherwise with the million other things always on the go.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Unless you shine (good or bad  ^-^) now, your PER and even theatre PDR is pretty much blank paper.  Whats the point?


----------



## cld617

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Unless you shine (good or bad  ^-^) now, your PER and even theatre PDR is pretty much blank paper.  Whats the point?



That trails into another excellent point. Should a mbr either change locations or have their supervisor changed some time  throughout the year the PDR is documentation for the new supervisor to use to write the mbrs per. I've definitely seen some brag sheets that embellish the actual accomplishments of the mbr, and some from rock stars who simply don't wish to talk themselves up and let the system run its course. PDR's level oit the playing field in that regard, as they're typically not as much fluff as a PER needs to be.


----------



## SupersonicMax

PDRs are not used to write PERs.  Where the CoC wants the member to rank will write the PER.  You will use events in the member's bragsheet and add some crafty words (less so now) to substantiate the dots...


----------



## George Wallace

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> PDRs are not used to write PERs.  Where the CoC wants the member to rank will write the PER.  You will use events in the member's bragsheet and add some crafty words (less so now) to substantiate the dots...



PDRs are a tool for the supervisors to draw on when writting PERs.  The supervisor should be sitting, with their troops files and justifying them at the Merit Boards where the CoC while sort out the rankings of the troops.  Prior to the creation of PDRs, I witnessed strong supervisors defend the higher ranking of their troops over better troops whose supervisors were weak in their defence, or even silent, at Merit Boards.  At least with PDRs, there is the possibility that those flaws can be corrected.  Without them, then the strongest argument by the strongest/most vocal supervisor will get that supervisors troops higher scoring and the higher PERs; possibly over-ranking lesser troops above better personnel.  

I have always hated PERs, but have to admit that it is the fairest system humanly possible to rank our personnel.  If we want to leave PERs to be sorted out by the strongest supervisors, condemning all the troops under the weak supervisors to limbo, then don't bother documenting at all; leave it all to arguments presented orally over a round table.   

[sarcasm on]I am sure moral will never take a hit. [sarcasm off]


----------



## SupersonicMax

That's what it is right now: the supervisor that has the best ability to defend his guys and to some extent, make some deals will win.  We decide who ranks where before PERs are written.  What is in the narrative is of very little importance as it could be anything and there would be a way to justify Capt X to master something....


----------



## George Wallace

Actually the strongest and most vocal supervisor will rank their pers higher than they should by just being a stronger willed, more vocal, Type A type than a weaker, less vocal supervisor at Merit Boards.  Those pers who have the luck to be under that weak supervisor suffer when all the unit is being ranked on verbalization's over a table in the OC's/CO's office in order to set the PER rankings.  Is that really fair?  That is BS, and why we have systems in place to document personnel work habits, achievements, etc.  You want to troops to sit back and bitch about how they are getting screwed over; then carry on with the best "debater" promoting their troops above all others.  If it seems to be unfair, troops will bitch.  If it shown to be fair (as humanly possible) they will accept the facts as presented.


----------



## MJP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually the strongest and most vocal supervisor will rank their pers higher than they should by just being a stronger willed, more vocal, Type A type than a weaker, less vocal supervisor at Merit Boards.  Those pers who have the luck to be under that weak supervisor suffer when all the unit is being ranked on verbalization's over a table in the OC's/CO's office in order to set the PER rankings.  Is that really fair?  That is BS, and why we have systems in place to document personnel work habits, achievements, etc.  You want to troops to sit back and ***** about how they are getting screwed over; then carry on with the best "debater" promoting their troops above all others.  If it seems to be unfair, troops will *****.  If it shown to be fair (as humanly possible) they will accept the facts as presented.



That can happen regardless of how many PDRs there are because often at a merit board one only has 1-2 mins to compare one soldier to another.  There is no digging out of PDRS to substantiate a soldier.  Good prep by CoC make it easier to state one's case for or against another soldier.  Good control of a board allowing all to present their top 10% or so makes it less of an issue, but it is a something that can happen.


----------



## SupersonicMax

George,

I am talking about formations, not units.  This is how it is done and how it was done in all formations I have been part of.

I'd argue you have more time at the unit level to debate who we are going to push comes the formation board than at the board itself.  If a supervisor is well prepared, regardless of PDRs, their pers will do well.


----------



## TCM621

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Unless you shine (good or bad  ^-^) now, your PER and even theatre PDR is pretty much blank paper.  Whats the point?


That is another discussion all together. The new PER system only makes it easier for the people writing them. I haven't seen one argument that makes sense on how it actually helps members. 

We all know that the PER/PDR system is broken. A lot of it comes down to improper use of the tools given to us.  You can't blame anyone, really. We aren't formally taught how to use it properly,  no one truly enforces it's proper use and senior leadership is complacent (at best) in the constant misuse of the system. 

Just look at this thread, we have a number of people who actively defend not giving PDRs.  I understand their point of view, it doesn't work so let's ignore it in favour of a home grown solution that works. And their examples do work,  and are as important as a formal evaluation and reporting tool. 

But how can we truly say it doesn't work when a. We aren't taught how to properly use it and b.  Even the things we know we are supposed to do get ignored on a regular basis? I would say I have a fairly good understanding of the system based on reading the help file and such but I know that I could learn a lot more and I am probably not using it to its full capabilities. Unless we teach a standard and enforce it,  the system won't be able to be effective.


----------



## MJP

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> That is another discussion all together. The new PER system only makes it easier for the people writing them. I haven't seen one argument that makes sense on how it actually helps members.



PERs at the end of the day are not really for helping the mbr but rather the institution in deciding who should be considered for promotion full stop.  PDRs, mentoring and other informal feedback are what help mbrs.

It also helps the institution because we focus our efforts on the mbrs that matter right now for the CAF.  This doesn't mean that an SND soldier doesn't matter, but rather leaders focus their finite time into writing up the soldiers who by virtue of time, experience and excellence are in the zone and are promotable.  We use to spend inordinate amounts of time writing up PERs that didn't really matter.  The process was so broken we started almost 6 months before they were due because that is how long it took.  The last two years have been relatively painless IMHO.  Magically for the most part soldiers that should have been promoted were and we didn't spend 4-6 months rewriting a bunch of garbage verbage.


----------



## BinRat55

Both Max and MJP are of the strong opinion that PDRs are either irrelevant or a considerable waste of time. As I stated earlier, everyone is entitled to their opinion. What seems fair and right to some, doesn't necessarily reflect the sum of the audience. 

It's been said that PDRs have nothing to do with PERs. I disagree and here's why - when I teach my subordinates about PDRs I ask them to take Cpl Bloggins for example. If they were to write a PER right now on Cpl Bloggins, where would the dots be? Now, the dots at an AA or M, write a statement on that in the 5A. The dots at a S or even a D, write a statement on that in the 5B. During the interview, we explain to the Cpl that we saw good behaviour / quality here, however to get it (the dot) to an AA or an M we must improvise a solution (the 5C). If this is followed (by BOTH supervisor & subordinate) we can expect a good result. When I write my PDR part 1s, they mirror the 16 PER bullets. That way, when the PDR is written, it loops back to the Part 1, reaching back to the PER. Loop achieved. Member is directly responsible for the movement of his/her PER score and I have the meat / justification on paper to prove it.

Again, I started out by saying the system is not perfect, but it's still in place for us to use. It's a disservice to any soldier to not have something tangible for them to "prove" their worth if it becomes necessary (a redress for example). If I show up to a court of law with evidence "from memory" it's called hearsay and promptly dismissed. Circumstantial at best. The PDR has three signature blocks for a reason.

CFPAS is directed at the National level, and it states that every member will receive at minimum 2 feed back sessions documented by a PDR and capped by the PER. This should not be up for debate. Because it is only shows me that one of the reasons the system is flawed in the first place is because supervisors, CoCs and apparently even formations do what ever they want. How can I keep up with that?


----------



## BinRat55

MJP said:
			
		

> ... often at a merit board one only has 1-2 mins to compare one soldier to another.  There is no digging out of PDRS to substantiate a soldier.  Good prep by CoC make it easier to state one's case for or against another soldier.  Good control of a board allowing all to present their top 10% or so makes it less of an issue, but it is a something that can happen.



I definitely agree with the good prep part of your statement, but the 1-2 mins? No digging for PDRs? I have had many heated discussion with another - often times we end up dragging in other supervisors not originally involved. This is NOT a poorly run board, it facilitates great points. If everyone was given a minute to tell the table (at times consisting of 10 - 15 other strong Sr NCOs) why their soldier was better than theirs without evidence, we would not end up with a very good product.


----------



## BinRat55

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> So, we do PDRs so people can get out of the office and brag?



There is a difference between bragging and pride. I would hope that among the many reasons I do PDRs, one is to instil a little pride and professionalism in my troops. Yes, I do this an other ways too, but in writing means a lot to them. Always has, always will.


----------



## BinRat55

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Or you can award the Person of the month award for whatever level you lead.  Or you can do this verbally with the individual on a regular basis.  PDRs are a lazy way to recognize your people.



How about awarding a "Person of the Month" and then mentioning it in the PDR? Adds a bit of weight when you write the PDR, huh? What about when you have H&A? How do you justify these? If I have 12 Cpl / Ptes with no write-ups what-so-ever, someone is gonna shiv me in the hall (tongue in cheek of course but you see my point?)


----------



## SupersonicMax

I successfully wrote people up for H&As before and never did I reference PDRs in the write-up. 

I have never seen anybody gleaming with pride because of a PDR...


----------



## MJP

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Both Max and MJP are of the strong opinion that PDRs are either irrelevant or a considerable waste of time. As I stated earlier, everyone is entitled to their opinion. What seems fair and right to some, doesn't necessarily reflect the sum of the audience.



PDRs aren't irrelevant nor if done correctly a waste of time, they just aren't the right tool for improving people.  Surprisingly for some in this thread I do write PDRs on my folks, however I am very clear when people work with me that I don't consider it their primary piece of feedback and that face to face talks are my preferred COA to conduct any sort of counselling (good or bad).  



			
				BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I definitely agree with the good prep part of your statement, but the 1-2 mins? No digging for PDRs? I have had many heated discussion with another - often times we end up dragging in other supervisors not originally involved. This is NOT a poorly run board, it facilitates great points. If everyone was given a minute to tell the table (at times consisting of 10 - 15 other strong Sr NCOs) why their soldier was better than theirs without evidence, we would not end up with a very good product.



You are misinterpreting a bit.  People prepped for the boards by doing whatever local plan they have.  I have seen elaborate PER merit boards files done and I have seen very simple ones.  Both can be effective.  Most effective ones I have seen have sub unit prerank their people with their proposed PER scores.  It gets inputted into a master spreadsheet, sorted and everyone in the room sees where their soldiers rank compared to others.  At that point you just start at number 1 and decide who should be there.  That is where the 1-2 minutes comes from.   At the unit level there aren't a ton of people in the room.  Sub unit commanders, their CSM/WOs (or whatever) and a few other odds and sods.  Really you are only there for the top 30% and again that is where you focus the majority of your time.  No one gets a minute to compare one SND soldier to another because at the end of the day it doesn't matter.


----------



## MJP

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> What about when you have H&A? How do you justify these?



H&A is generally for a stand alone event/performance, or excellence over a period of time.  While the event might be mentioned in a PDR, I wouldn't use a PDR to justify H&A.


----------



## BinRat55

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I successfully wrote people up for H&As before and never did I reference PDRs in the write-up.
> 
> I have never seen anybody gleaming with pride because of a PDR...



Why is it so hard for you to believe that a soldier can feel good about something that was written about them in a positive manner? I never said "GLEAMING with pride". I also never said bragging...


----------



## BinRat55

MJP said:
			
		

> PDRs aren't irrelevant nor if done correctly a waste of time, they just aren't the right tool for improving people.  Surprisingly for some in this thread I do write PDRs on my folks, however I am very clear when people work with me that I don't consider it their primary piece of feedback and that face to face talks are my preferred COA to conduct any sort of counselling (good or bad).
> 
> You are misinterpreting a bit.  People prepped for the boards by doing whatever local plan they have.  I have seen elaborate PER merit boards files done and I have seen very simple ones.  Both can be effective.  Most effective ones I have seen have sub unit prerank their people with their proposed PER scores.  It gets inputted into a master spreadsheet, sorted and everyone in the room sees where their soldiers rank compared to others.  At that point you just start at number 1 and decide who should be there.  That is where the 1-2 minutes comes from.   At the unit level there aren't a ton of people in the room.  Sub unit commanders, their CSM/WOs (or whatever) and a few other odds and sods.  Really you are only there for the top 30% and again that is where you focus the majority of your time.  No one gets a minute to compare one SND soldier to another because at the end of the day it doesn't matter.



PDRs aren't the ONLY tool for developing people. Just like one could argue that an IC, RW and C&P isn't the right tool for development, an RDP is the way to go. Or vice-versa. It's all a matter of how you USE that tool, because in the end it is a tool. Still, my point is that we can't just dismiss the PDR as some have stated here because it is directed.

And yes, I do agree that while PDRs are not necessary at a merit board, they are quite helpful when you need to keep certain ducks in a row. I have never seen a board where SNDs were on a list. By the time it gets to the Branch or Formation level all that other work is done and it becomes like picking fly **** out of pepper.


----------



## SupersonicMax

PDRs are the only OFFICIAL tool for developing people.  If you truly think it is the only tool, I would question you supervisory and leadership skills.


----------



## George Wallace

Psssst!   Max.

He said: "aren't"


----------



## MJP

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> PDRs are the only OFFICIAL tool for developing people.  If you truly think it is the only tool, I would question you supervisory and leadership skills.



And this is where the line is.  It is clear that Binrat is a dedicated NCO and wants to do the best for his soldiers.  I don't question his supervisory and leadership skills, and I applaud that he takes the time to acquaint his subordinates to the CFPAS system early in their career.  I disagree withhim that it needs to be religiously followed in all cases much like you do.  But, you like a few others on this board have a habit of making asinine leaps of judgement of other posters and post ridiculous crap like the above.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I did say if he truly thinks (which I do not think he does).  It is a moot point since I misread his post anyways.

George:  Thanks, I'll out my glasses on next time.


----------



## BinRat55

MJP said:
			
		

> And this is where the line is.  It is clear that Binrat is a dedicated NCO and wants to do the best for his soldiers.  I don't question his supervisory and leadership skills, and I applaud that he takes the time to acquaint his subordinates to the CFPAS system early in their career.  I disagree withhim that it needs to be religiously followed in all cases much like you do.  But, you like a few others on this board have a habit of making asinine leaps of judgement of other posters and post ridiculous crap like the above.



MJP - I think the fact that the CFPAS needs to be "religiously followed" as you put it, because it's an order. In ALL cases. Yes, there are pros and cons - much like anything the CF puts into an order. Do you agree with everything in the Code of Service Discipline? I don't. But alas, it's an order. 

I have not judged one person on this board. Read my posts. I have actually gone out of my way to make it known that I truly believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. As am I.


----------



## BinRat55

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> PDRs are the only OFFICIAL tool for developing people.  If you truly think it is the only tool, I would question you supervisory and leadership skills.



Max - I get that you misread my post, and that's all well and good, however I still want to weigh in on something else you said. PDRs are the only OFFICIAL tool for developing people. Keying in on the fact that you did misread "aren't", I have to question your next statement - only official. You had to have misread the whole post, and have gone through your entire career without ever receiving or administering an IC, RW or a charge under the CSD. These are also official development tools, no? After all, an IC is not a punishment, is it? Just because they hold a negative connotation doesn't mean they are not developmental...


----------



## TCM621

Slow night shift, so I was digging through the CFPAS help file to get more SA on this topic. Here are a few quotes from the help file regarding PDRS.



> Units are reminded of the importance of the PDR process and of the fact that it is mandatory for all ranks.
> 
> The performance rating section provides for quantitative assessment on each of a number of specific factors relevant to the individual's observed work and leadership skills and is derived from the individual's PDR.
> 
> It is the responsibility of the parent unit to collect and collate all PDRs and other related documents from all other units, detachments or locations where their personnel are/have been employed and incorporate them into the Annual PER.
> 
> [CO is responsible to] ensure all personnel are afforded the developmental opportunities made available by the full implementation of the PDR process;
> 
> In assessing performance the supervisor reviews observed work behaviours and information pertaining to the subordinate that is applicable for the current reporting period and contained in the PDR forms and other personnel documents such as letters of appreciation and course reports which are typically stored in the personnel file.


----------



## BinRat55

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Units are reminded of the importance of the PDR process and of the fact that it is mandatory for all ranks.



 :nod:

Mandatory:

1. Authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory.

2. Pertaining to, of the nature of, or containing a command. 

3. Law. permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified.

Not to be sarcastic, but it is what it is...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

All this policy is great; however what is the point if the practice of 'situating the estimate' isn't eliminated?


----------



## BinRat55

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> All this policy is great; however what is the point if the practice of 'situating the estimate' isn't eliminated?



Situate the estimate - to design the mission to fit available resources rather than to respond to actual demands.

Well, this is kind of what I am trying to say - firstly, PDRs absolutely NEED to be done. The culmination of this process is the PER. Many, many over-inflated, high priced / undervalued, taxed to S*** PERs. Procedure needs to be followed, honesty needs to be applied and allow the CFPAS to work. It's a start. Does that make sense?


----------



## ModlrMike

Part of the problem with CFPAS is that people don't know how it really works. They use the PDR as a terms of reference without establishing a performance benchmark. My approach has always been:

1. The NCMGS and MOC specifications tell you what a member is supposed to be able to do at a given level of training;
2. From there you construct the Terms of Reference for the member's position. You correlate the requirements to what the member is supposed to be capable of;
3. You write the initial PDR that lays out how well you expect the member to complete those tasks in the TOR; and finally
4. You complete the PER as a reflection of how well the member met the performance requirements of the PDR.

To my mind, CFPAS is a four step system. If you don't do the first two, you can't do the second two.


----------



## BinRat55

Exactly.

Part 1 - 16 bullets found in the performance section of the PDR (otherwise known as job description) using adjectives from the WPB  - 

1. SUPERVISING: Member confidently provides guidance and direction to subordinates, concerned for their well being and consistently ensures all tasks given are completed to a high standard... (this is called the "benchmark")

Part 2 - Initial Action Plan would be a measurable task in which I can apply these benchmarks - achievable and confidence building.

Parts 3 and 4 are self explanatory. 

Part 5A - reach back to the part 1 bullets. Use 3 or 4 strong examples of where the member would be found at an ES or an M.
Part 5B - reach back to the part 1 bullets. Use 2 or 3 FAIR examples of where the member would be found at an S or a D. 
Part 5C - Note the 5B points verbally with member. Devise COAs, solutions and a way ahead to improve those points so they could end up in the 5A.

At the end of the cycle, you have 2, 3 or 4 or even more PDRs with all kinds of good meat on them. All signed by the member acknowledging his / her abilities and needs to improve. Redress that? Impossible.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Situate the estimate - to design the mission to fit available resources rather than to respond to actual demands.
> 
> Well, this is kind of what I am trying to say - firstly, PDRs absolutely NEED to be done. The culmination of this process is the PER. Many, many over-inflated, high priced / undervalued, taxed to S*** PERs. Procedure needs to be followed, honesty needs to be applied and allow the CFPAS to work. It's a start. Does that make sense?



Sure it makes sense...it is reality is the real question.


----------



## SupersonicMax

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Mandatory:
> 
> 1. Authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory.
> 
> 2. Pertaining to, of the nature of, or containing a command.
> 
> 3. Law. permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified.
> 
> Not to be sarcastic, but it is what it is...



Many things are mandatory but disredarded.  According to flying orders, I shall use my checklist to carry out any procedure in the aircraft..  Guess what, it doesn't happen.  

If it isn't enforced by the CoC (all the way up) then it loses its Strenght, which is the case with PDRs.


----------



## BinRat55

Eye in the Sky - you're deep. I like it.

SupersonicMax -   :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I've just witnessed the 'ol "who do we want where?  okay these are the PERs they are getting this year then" game for long enough to know you can modify CFPAS, you can ever REPLACE CFPAS but the real change that needs to be made is to stomp out the days where that practice happens.

Until then, its all for not IMO.  I've said it before, I'll say it again; all the changes of the past few years to CFPAS did nothing other than lighten the workload.  I saw theatre PDRs that were less than 1 full line.  What's the point?

I also do NOT like the change to the requirements for theatre PERs on 3+month CJOC gigs.  That was a bullshit change IMO.  I threw in the 'I give a shit towel' when I saw that change late last winter.

Over the course of many years (been around 26 and change now), I've seen the CAF in general take the CFPAS system which would likely have worked well if it had been implemented and monitored better (IMO), watch it be bastardized and manipulated into the creature it is today.  I don't believe the system was the problem, I believe it was the users in this case.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> SupersonicMax -   :facepalm:



In all honestly, I can't say I disagree with SSM.  There are MANY orders and regulations that are paid lip service, or ignored, or enforced in a non-standard manner across the CAF.  I have witnessed the general discipline (or various kinds) slip and degrade over the years, and with no self-discipline there is usually less imposed discipline.

Anyone who thinks that this is just a Jnr NCO/Jnr Officer failing needs only to go look at the decisions on the MEGRC website to see it is not, it is at the senior ranks too.  

In my  :2c:, there is a lowered amount of discipline and GSK in the Forces from years ago, and people are making bad decisions more often.  CFPAS is a symptom of that overall problem.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In all honestly, I can't say I disagree with SSM.  There are MANY orders and regulations that are paid lip service, or ignored, or enforced in a non-standard manner across the CAF.  I have witnessed the general discipline (or various kinds) slip and degrade over the years, and with no self-discipline there is usually less imposed discipline.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that this is just a Jnr NCO/Jnr Officer failing needs only to go look at the decisions on the MEGRC website to see it is not, it is at the senior ranks too.
> 
> In my  :2c:, there is a lowered amount of discipline and GSK in the Forces from years ago, and people are making bad decisions more often.  CFPAS is a symptom of that overall problem.



So it is a systemic problem that few, if any, want to correct.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So it is a systemic problem that few, if any, want to correct.


"
I believe so, yup.  There are more important issues to the snr CAF leadership.  People will still get promoted, there is supposed to be a new system coming in, improvements are being made to reduce the CFPAS workload...etc etc etc and ok, move on to the next point" are likely the comments if this comes up in a briefing.  

Are promotions, postings, PD etc being severly or even moderately handicapped by any real or perceived CFPAS issues?  No, not IMO.  It's not really that squeaky of a wheel to get a lot of grease.  I have a big 'to-do' list every day/week at the Sqn, I have to prioritize.  I certainly don't have or won't invest my time to staff a "EITS thoughts on CFPAS" document to the Sqn Exec.  I guess I just assume everyone is in the same state with "more important nails to hammer".


----------



## BinRat55

I can't trivialize it that easily. Are promotions, postings, PD etc being severly or even moderately handicapped by any real or perceived CFPAS issues? Maybe not severely, but yes I beleive so. How many techs are being promoted way too early these days? It's a conversation I have (sadly) had numerous times. I have a really good MCpl. He's going places, this guy. Still has things to learn, but man he's a great MCpl. I write PDRs / PERs as such. Now, the supervisor next door, she has a good MCpl too. In my opinion (and others) not quite as good as my MCpl. She writes HER MCpl higher that I do mine. HER CoC backs it. How do I fight that? By inflating my MCpl's PER so that his is better once again. We end up with leaders newly promoted in a bad position because they have little to no experience and knowledge!

All ficticious, of course but inflating the PERs of those who rightfully deserve to be on top in order to GET them on top is genuinely FLAWED. We get it right much of the time, but eventually there will be no room left. I have seen (time and time again - way too much now) first year Cpls actually redressing a PER because they never went out READY!!! First PER. Why? Because of the CoC that never properly managed expectations through CFPAS (PDRs) allowing that Cpl to think their s*** don't stink because anothe young Cpl's CoC was really gone on them.

Flawed a little is still flawed.


----------



## Lumber

I say let them grieve it. If their representations don't fit the word pictures, they won't win the grievance.


----------



## SupersonicMax

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So it is a systemic problem that few, if any, want to correct.



Absolutely.  Perhaps it is the system (development/evaluation) system that is broken and needs fixing.  If the organization, as a whole, generally disregard a process then we need to question why this process exists and what is its intended goal.  If there are other processes that can achieve the same effect while still achieving the goal and is more "user friendly" (read people will use it), then you need to change it.

If you are not willing to change the process for whatever reason, you need to hold people accountable for not using it.

BinRat:  I agree with the PER system being messed up...  Overranking has always bothered me as, amongst other thing, weaknesses are rarely discussed in the assessment.


----------



## BinRat55

Lumber said:
			
		

> I say let them grieve it. If their representations don't fit the word pictures, they won't win the grievance.



Well... that would be a wrap... checkmate maybe?

How would their representations fit the word picture book if in some worlds we don't USE the PDR system? Hard to refute anything then... WE won't win the greivance.


----------



## Lumber

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Well... that would be a wrap... checkmate maybe?
> 
> How would their representations fit the word picture book if in some worlds we don't USE the PDR system? Hard to refute anything then... WE won't win the greivance.



I'm not I get what you mean by those who don't use the PDR system? Doesn't everybody use the PDR/PER system? Even if they didn't use PDR, they still submit PERs at the end of the year. If you gave a member an ES on say, Working with Others, and he grieves it saying he derserved a Mastered, he has to have verifiable examples of him Working with Others that fit the word picture for Mastered. Even if he provides examples, his supervisors can present their own representations as to why the example better fits the word picture for ES and not M. 

Maybe I just don't understand your point?  If so, sorry :facepalm:


----------



## BinRat55

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I had a grand total of 0 PDRs written on me in my 15 years and I do not feel cheated or that my supervisors did a bad job of mentoring me. They just had a different approach.



Need I say more?


----------



## BinRat55

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> PDRs are not used for career advancement (read promotion boards).  ....  PDRs are a lazy way to recognize your people.


----------



## BinRat55

MJP said:
			
		

> I have two PDRs in 5 years and I don't feel slighted in the least.  I have always known exactly where I stood because I have been told what to improve through verbal feedback, usually this feedback is in real time and relevant.  That is wayyyyyyyy more important than some useless piece of paper that tries to encapsulate the last 3-5 months of my work.  IMHO that is way to late to be conducting feedback.  I think the lazy CoCs are the ones that depend on the PDR as the prime piece of feedback rather than on the spot mentoring.
> 
> I certainly don't think of my CoC as lazy as some have alluded to on the thread.  They are hard working folks that realize that there is a time and place for some administration and react accordingly.


----------



## TCM621

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm not I get what you mean by those who don't use the PDR system? Doesn't everybody use the PDR/PER system? Even if they didn't use PDR, they still submit PERs at the end of the year. If you gave a member an ES on say, Working with Others, and he grieves it saying he derserved a Mastered, he has to have verifiable examples of him Working with Others that fit the word picture for Mastered. Even if he provides examples, his supervisors can present their own representations as to why the example better fits the word picture for ES and not M.
> 
> Maybe I just don't understand your point?  If so, sorry :facepalm:



This is the real issue. If a supervisor does not issue PDRs what document does he have to back up his version of events? If you don't give him an initial PDR with expectations based on the members position how do you argue that he did or didn't meet or exceed a standard? There must be a standard set for one to exceed it.

As other have said, there are much bigger problems with the system than whether or not someone gets a PDR. However, you personally may not be able to stop the other ones but you can make sure your subordinates recieved what they are entitled to and is mandated for you to give.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I can't trivialize it that easily. Are promotions, postings, PD etc being severly or even moderately handicapped by any real or perceived CFPAS issues? Maybe not severely, but yes I beleive so. How many techs are being promoted way too early these days? It's a conversation I have (sadly) had numerous times. I have a really good MCpl. He's going places, this guy. Still has things to learn, but man he's a great MCpl. I write PDRs / PERs as such. Now, the supervisor next door, she has a good MCpl too. In my opinion (and others) not quite as good as my MCpl. She writes HER MCpl higher that I do mine. HER CoC backs it. How do I fight that? By inflating my MCpl's PER so that his is better once again. We end up with leaders newly promoted in a bad position because they have little to no experience and knowledge!
> 
> All ficticious, of course but inflating the PERs of those who rightfully deserve to be on top in order to GET them on top is genuinely FLAWED. We get it right much of the time, but eventually there will be no room left. I have seen (time and time again - way too much now) first year Cpls actually redressing a PER because they never went out READY!!! First PER. Why? Because of the CoC that never properly managed expectations through CFPAS (PDRs) allowing that Cpl to think their s*** don't stink because anothe young Cpl's CoC was really gone on them.
> 
> Flawed a little is still flawed.



An good, and IMO, realistic post of the reality of our CFPAS system.  

I think the 'failed to manage the mbr's expectation' is part of a possible leadership issue.  It is also (again, IMO) part of the newer 'sense of entitlement' generation.  I know of someone who OTd, and while still on, but had not yet completed, their new MOSID QL3 yet the CFPAS year ended.  The mbr received a Developing (Cpl) PER and was pretty upset.  This person was a MS when their OT went thru and couldn't comprehend how they could get a Developing.  

This example is indicative of the problem we've created with inflated assessment, the whole concept of Ready doesn't actually equate to Ready to be promoted, it means something else now.  Why is it so impossible to be a 3 year Cpl and still get a Developing?  Is every Cpl *ready* to be promoted to MCpl after 3 years in rank?  Hell, I know some Jacks who were in the rank for 5 or more years who still weren't "ready" to for the appointment.

We are reaping what we`ve sewn over the past decade+ and IMO, as an organization there needs to be a change in mentality more than their needs to be a change in CFPAS.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lumber said:
			
		

> I say let them grieve it. If their representations don't fit the word pictures, they won't win the grievance.



*OR*, we embrace our responsibility as leaders at various levels, and provide the mbr with some informal or formal PD and educate them on the GSK they are lacking.

I think its been mentioned but IF the mbr received an initial PDR and the CFPAS process was followed i.e. interview with the mbr throughout the CFPA cycle, they wouldn`t be surprised with the D or even a low-middle R and wouldn`t feel the need to grieve.

If they are a IPC1 Cpl and act like an IPC1, written up like an IPC1 Cpl and think they `have the skillz of a IPIC4 WO`, then ya let them grieve.   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> This is the real issue. If a supervisor does not issue PDRs what document does he have to back up his version of events? If you don't give him an initial PDR with expectations based on the members position how do you argue that he did or didn't meet or exceed a standard? There must be a standard set for one to exceed it.
> 
> As other have said, there are much bigger problems with the system than whether or not someone gets a PDR. However, you personally may not be able to stop the other ones but you can make sure your subordinates recieved what they are entitled to and is mandated for you to give.



Let`s take it a step further.  Why are the superiors who are NOT doing PDRs and PERs not being held accountable across the board.  The QR & O Vol 1, Ch 1, Art 1.02 *Definitions* makes clear what the word SHALL means.  I believe the CFPAS policy states PDRs shall be written.

Next:

From QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 4.

4.01 - RESPONSIBILITY OF OFFICERS TO SUPERIORS

An officer is responsible to his immediate superior for the proper and efficient performance of his duties.

(M)

4.02 - GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICERS

(1) An officer shall:
a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce:i.the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act,
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the officer's duties;

b.afford to all persons employed in the public service such assistance in the performance of their duties as is practical;
c.promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all subordinates;
d.ensure the proper care and maintenance, and prevent the waste, of all public and non-public property within the officer's control; and
e.report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline when the officer cannot deal adequately with the matter.

Seems pretty clear.  

Next, from Ch 5.:

5.01- GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS

A non-commissioned member shall:
a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce i.the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act, (5 June 2008)
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties;

(See articles 1.22 – Accessibility of Regulations, Orders and Instructions and 4.26 – Publicity of Regulations, Orders, Instructions, Correspondence and Publications.)
b.afford to all persons employed in the public service such assistance in the performance of their duties as is practical;
c.promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all who are subordinate to the member;
d.ensure the proper care and maintenance and prevent the waste of all public and non-public property within the member's control; and
e.report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.

(M) (9 May 2008 effective 5 June 2008)

Again clear to me.

And the `all other regulations...`part covers the CFPAS ones doesn`t it?  We have DAODs that cover Conduct and Performance deficiencies.  We have tools in the DAODs like Remedial Measures that offer options to correct those Conduct and Performance deficiencies, and the last I read they applied to ALL CF members.

What I see is a whole bunch of people not willing to implement, follow and enforce policy that is already implemented, which of course is contrary to the articles above from Vol 1, Ch's 4 & 5.  Too many people are 'doing what they want, not what they are supposed to', at all levels, and not being accountable for it.

Back when I was a Cl A PRES type say, my Sqn followed the CFPAS policy.  We did PXRs after a weekend ex.  We did initial PDRs, one PDR review as a minimum and PERs.  We had troop files with all this stuff in it.  When Tpr Bloggins got his PER, it was no surprise because he/she got regular feedback on their performance.

This was on Cl A time; 3 hours a week, one or two weekend ex's a month.  After a weekend ex, each crew commander wrote up the PXRs on his crew.  20-30 min's tops.  Initial PDRs, we had templates for Obs, Driver, Crew Commander, Ptl Commander, etc.  You took the template, edited it and voila, initial PDRs in quick time.  Did the Critical Task/Expected Results for the Tp WO change much from year to year?  Or the Tp WO's driver, who was usually the Snr Driver and had responsibilities in garrison and the field at times like O Grps where he would be left to oversee the work (garrison) or crew level battle procedure?  Templates made it work and work well.

If Cl A types can follow the CFPAS process (and we did, because we were directed to by the Sqn leadership and it was supervised like anything else we did by our superiors...aka leadership acted like leadership), then the rest of the CF can.  It doesn't matter 'how busy you are, or think you are'.  We made it happen in the limited timelines we were operating under because we made it efficient at all levels, and the leadership at all levels did their job as leaders.  

CFPAS wasn't broken.  OUR (the general CAF membership OUR, at all levels) application of it was.  You bring in a new system to replace it, you better make it clear it SHALL be followed or we are just pissin' away tax dollars, and I'd rather see those monies turned into better combat boots & bullets, YFR and gas for ships.   :2c:


----------



## BinRat55

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Let`s take it a step further.  Why are the superiors who are NOT doing PDRs and PERs not being held accountable across the board.  The QR & O Vol 1, Ch 1, Art 1.02 *Definitions* makes clear what the word SHALL means.  I believe the CFPAS policy states PDRs shall be written.
> 
> Next:
> 
> From QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 4.
> 
> 4.01 - RESPONSIBILITY OF OFFICERS TO SUPERIORS
> 
> An officer is responsible to his immediate superior for the proper and efficient performance of his duties.
> 
> (M)
> 
> 4.02 - GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICERS
> 
> (1) An officer shall:
> a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce:i.the National Defence Act,
> ii.the Security of Information Act,
> iii.QR&O, and
> iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the officer's duties;
> 
> b.afford to all persons employed in the public service such assistance in the performance of their duties as is practical;
> c.promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all subordinates;
> d.ensure the proper care and maintenance, and prevent the waste, of all public and non-public property within the officer's control; and
> e.report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline when the officer cannot deal adequately with the matter.
> 
> Seems pretty clear.
> 
> Next, from Ch 5.:
> 
> 5.01- GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS
> 
> A non-commissioned member shall:
> a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce i.the National Defence Act,
> ii.the Security of Information Act, (5 June 2008)
> iii.QR&O, and
> iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties;
> 
> (See articles 1.22 – Accessibility of Regulations, Orders and Instructions and 4.26 – Publicity of Regulations, Orders, Instructions, Correspondence and Publications.)
> b.afford to all persons employed in the public service such assistance in the performance of their duties as is practical;
> c.promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all who are subordinate to the member;
> d.ensure the proper care and maintenance and prevent the waste of all public and non-public property within the member's control; and
> e.report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.
> 
> (M) (9 May 2008 effective 5 June 2008)
> 
> Again clear to me.
> 
> And the `all other regulations...`part covers the CFPAS ones doesn`t it?  We have DAODs that cover Conduct and Performance deficiencies.  We have tools in the DAODs like Remedial Measures that offer options to correct those Conduct and Performance deficiencies, and the last I read they applied to ALL CF members.
> 
> What I see is a whole bunch of people not willing to implement, follow and enforce policy that is already implemented, which of course is contrary to the articles above from Vol 1, Ch's 4 & 5.  Too many people are 'doing what they want, not what they are supposed to', at all levels, and not being accountable for it.
> 
> Back when I was a Cl A PRES type say, my Sqn followed the CFPAS policy.  We did PXRs after a weekend ex.  We did initial PDRs, one PDR review as a minimum and PERs.  We had troop files with all this stuff in it.  When Tpr Bloggins got his PER, it was no surprise because he/she got regular feedback on their performance.
> 
> This was on Cl A time; 3 hours a week, one or two weekend ex's a month.  After a weekend ex, each crew commander wrote up the PXRs on his crew.  20-30 min's tops.  Initial PDRs, we had templates for Obs, Driver, Crew Commander, Ptl Commander, etc.  You took the template, edited it and voila, initial PDRs in quick time.  Did the Critical Task/Expected Results for the Tp WO change much from year to year?  Or the Tp WO's driver, who was usually the Snr Driver and had responsibilities in garrison and the field at times like O Grps where he would be left to oversee the work (garrison) or crew level battle procedure?  Templates made it work and work well.
> 
> If Cl A types can follow the CFPAS process (and we did, because we were directed to by the Sqn leadership and it was supervised like anything else we did by our superiors...aka leadership acted like leadership), then the rest of the CF can.  It doesn't matter 'how busy you are, or think you are'.  We made it happen in the limited timelines we were operating under because we made it efficient at all levels, and the leadership at all levels did their job as leaders.
> 
> CFPAS wasn't broken.  OUR (the general CAF membership OUR, at all levels) application of it was.  You bring in a new system to replace it, you better make it clear it SHALL be followed or we are just pissin' away tax dollars, and I'd rather see those monies turned into better combat boots & bullets, YFR and gas for ships.   :2c:



 :bravo: 

And if I could find an emoticon with a 100,000 people in a full on cheer I would have put that there to!!

Well said Eye in the Sky!


----------



## George Wallace

The whole organization has gotten lazy when it comes to administration.  UERs are no longer kept, because everything is on Monitor Mass or the members MPPR.  Yeah!   Right!  They do not accurately reflect the members actual employment, rank, etc. for that time period.  We used to keep Gun Logs for our tanks, and Maintenance Logs.  Those were done away with.  Troop and Platoon WOs and Officers used to keep detailed info on all their troops in their pockets, in Attendance books, and conduct regular face to face interviews with their subordinates.   Digitalization has made us lazy.   Everything was supposed to be entered onto a database and easily accessible.  Yeah!  Right!  How many times have we found people too lazy to enter the data, or just not knowledgeable to do data entry?  How many times have we seen database programs changed, deleted, replaced by newer databases, incompatible databases that did not communicate with or link to other databases, corrupted files, programs that were not backwards compatible, and so many other problems with the ever changing advances in technology?   Then we have the "Good Idea Faerie" who has some grandiose scheme to bring in change.      

This whole discussion has proven how far the administration done by supervisors has degraded.

We have also covered many similar arguments in other threads on leadership and how OP ORDERS were once done on a couple pages of a Field Message Book, now becoming hundreds of pages long.  

It would seem that our steps towards making everything digital, we have not made our jobs simpler, but more complex and inefficient.   ???


----------



## BinRat55

George raises some very valid points -  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The whole organization has gotten lazy when it comes to administration.  ... Digitalization has made us lazy.   Everything was supposed to be entered onto a database and easily accessible.  Yeah!  Right!  How many times have we found people too lazy to enter the data, or just not knowledgeable to do data entry?
> 
> This whole discussion has proven how far the administration done by supervisors has degraded.
> 
> It would seem that our steps towards making everything digital, we have not made our jobs simpler, but more complex and inefficient.   ???



I especially like the one about being knowledgeable... This is indicative IMO of an aging CoC (not a bad thing at all) not being educated properly. You take the grumpy Warrant who joined in 1974 and did as George stated - put everything on an FMP. Now he is a CWO (very well earned BTW) looking for his FMP, not quite getting this new CFPAS program, so how is he supposed to enforce it? He won't. 

I have had Sexual Misconduct Training shoved down my throat 6 ways to Sunday over the past three months. More training (a whole Op stood up for this...) and discussion groups and PD sessions in a month than ALL combined training, learning and teachable moments WRT CFPAS and PERs in general. That HAS to say something. We need to not only DO, but educate as well. The programs we grow into need to be taught and THEN enforced. Monitor Mass is a great example. Some swear by it, some have never heard of it. All I know is that it's only as good as the sum of it's users - no more, no less. CFPAS is similar. If not everyone knows how to use it, I can't ever see it working properly.

Lazy - but with an excuse. I was never taught. Now as we all know, there is no excuse for ignorance. It's not like we (as a society) have never even discussed a PDR, the CFPAS, Monitor Mass - who knows how to operate an FMP?


----------



## Blackadder1916

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> ... This is indicative IMO of an aging CoC (not a bad thing at all) not being educated properly. You take the grumpy Warrant who joined in 1974 and did as George stated - put everything on an FMP. Now he is a CWO (very well earned BTW) looking for his FMP, not quite getting this new CFPAS program, so how is he supposed to enforce it? He won't.



I think you may have the age factor backwards.  It is not (IMO) an aging CoC of Luddites.  The COs and RSMs of today are (to my knowledge anyway, which could be in error) usually rising to those positions in the same time frame as back in my era (I, like your example, enrolled in the 70s).  Most LCols (especially the streamers who usually get the command slots) reached that rank well before they turn 40 and it was unusual (back in my day) to find an RSM (often the first job as a CWO) over the age of 45 (often younger).  So instead of viewing the normal CoC as someone who was 17 to 20 years old in 1974, you should be thinking of them as 17 to 20 year olds in 1994.  If they haven't figured out what a computer is, then not only would I question their competency as officers and warrant officers, but I would wonder how they even passed their version of the CFAT.  I will, however, shake my head at the over-dependence of digitalization.  Like GW,  I carried around the basic career history (including the all important clothing and footwear sizes) and the recent performance history (including a record of all meetings to discuss or review that performance) of every member of my platoon and later company in a notebook.  When my pencil broke, I just sharpened it with my penknife.  When my laptop broke (and it actually did once while on ex in Wainwright just after completing two weeks of work drafting comments for my CO about the "proposed" DART), I was f**ked.


----------



## MJP

RAAUZYUW RCCPJAQ1006 2361518-UUUU--RCCBMUA.
ZNR UUUUU ZOC
R 201400Z AUG 15
FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA//MPMCT//
TO AIG 1742//ADMIN O//
BT
NATO UNCLAS MPMCT 001
SUBJ: UER CANCELLATION
REF:  HTTP://UPKPROD.DESC.MIL.CA/HRMSP/ENG/DATA/TOC.HTML

1.MPMCT HAS RECEIVED NUMEROUS QUESTIONS FROM UNITS DURING OUR DATA CLEAN UP VISITS AND THROUGH THE MHRRP(A-PM-245)POSITIONAL MAILBOX QUESTIONING WHEN WE WOULD CANCEL THE UER AND THE MHRRP TOPIC ON THE UER

2.UERS ARE NO LONGER BEING CREATED NOR MAINTAINED. WITH THE ROLL OUT OF HRMS 7.5 IN 1996, THE ELECTRONIC RECORD PROVIDED ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE UER EXCEPT FOR THE 743A USED IN THE PROMOTION FROM PTE TO CPL. IN ADDITION, THE UER WAS SPECIFIC FOR REGULAR FORCE MEMBERS AND MEMBERS ON CLASS C SERVICE, NOT RESERVE FORCE MEMBERS

3.WITH THE TRANSITIONING FROM PEOPLESOFT 7.5 TO 9.1 (GUARDIAN) AND THE TOTAL FORCE RECORD, WE ARE REVIEWING ALL CURRENT PROCESS AND PROCEDURES. THEREFORE, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE UER IS CANCELLED AND THE MHRRP UER TOPIC HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH ADDITIONAL DETAILS. UERS HELD BY UNITS OR FOUND IN THE CF 478 ENVELOPE ARE TO BE GIVEN TO THE MEMBER WHO MUST SIGN A DND 728 ON RECEIPT

4.TO ALL SUPT CLK, PLEASE PASS ON THIS GUARDIAN INFORMATION TO YOUR SUBORDINATE FORMATIONS/UNITS AND PLEASE INCLUDE IN YOUR ROUTINE ORDERS.

END OF ENGLISH TEXT/DEBUT DE TEXTE FRANCAIS


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I have staffed multiple memo's over 7-8 years, to at least 3 URSs to have a simple change on my MPRR done WRT training history and national qual's.  The changes never got done.  My UER is, however, up to date and accurate.

My UER will continue to be updated.  The MPRR system is BROKEN and I am simply fucking tired of drafting up a new memo with the original memos, follow on memo's and all ref's attached to have SFA done about it.

Policies and systems don't mean shit until the people who are supposed to be using them start using them correctly.  

Our support systems are inefficient, time consuming and built around a "talk wagging the dog"mentality;  medical, admin, and supply.  Can't speak for every geo location but those are my observations, certainly over the past decade.  

I am an operator.  I go to work to (1) operate (2) try to become better at #1 and (3) help trg subordinates in #s 1 & 2.  I waste more time chasing my tail with useless BS than I do of #s 1, 2 and 3 atleast 25% of the time.

SNAFU has become "ops normal".


----------



## BinRat55

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Policies and systems don't mean crap until the people who are supposed to be using them start using them correctly.



Case and point - CFPAS, PeopleSoft, DRMIS... much much more...



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Our support systems are inefficient, time consuming and built around a "talk wagging the dog"mentality;  medical, admin, and supply.  Can't speak for every geo location but those are my observations, certainly over the past decade.
> 
> I am an operator.  I go to work to (1) operate (2) try to become better at #1 and (3) help trg subordinates in #s 1 & 2.  I waste more time chasing my tail with useless BS than I do of #s 1, 2 and 3 atleast 25% of the time.
> 
> SNAFU has become "ops normal".



Which is unfortunate because no one learns that way. Your final statement - SNAFU has become "ops normal" - is soooo true.


----------



## dapaterson

If personal equipment doesn't work, file a UCR - it's a tool to escalate problems to a point where they can be addressed.

If your MPRR isn't being updated by the URS, then use a similar tool to escalate.  Either get your CoC engaged, or send the next memo to the next level above where things were stalled.

I like using email (with read receipt) for such things.  It's a great way to forward supervisors the chain of what happened when you're seeking help in unbefuckling a situation.


----------



## KuroKuma

After over a year of keeping my mouth shut I feel I have to say something even if it won't change anything, I'll feel a bit better. So back in 2013 I started to work at the WO & Sgts Mess here on base. It was great I had an awesome Supervisor that not only made feel like I was an essential member of the team but also showed me respect and had faith in me. We worked together in the same office and work with really fun. I had never had this in my entire career and did my best to exceed expectations. 

Fast forward a few months and my supervisor had a medical incident that was accidental but with rumors flying around about her being an alcoholic (which were untrue and unfounded), she was removed from the mess and I was given a new Supervisor. Once everything got sorted out I went on leave for two weeks with the family, only to come back and find out that my desk and the contents of it were put down in the basement and I had to bring it all upstairs to the storage closet in the bar and that was to be my new office. 

After a few weeks I had to know why I was removed from the office and was told that my supervisor wanted space so he could have meetings. I let it go but things started to get worse, the privileges I had earned were taken away, my responsibilities were changed so I no longer ran the bar I just did the paperwork, restocked the bar, and did a bunch GD work even though we had pats. 
To sum it up I was treated like I was nothing, no matter how hard I worked, long hours I would work, professional development I would do it never met his standards. I would wake up every morning and dread going in to work. I became severely depressed and it started to affect other aspects of my life, to the point where my spouse was thinking of taking my children and leaving me. So after over a year of never getting any positive feedback, being given demeaning tasks to do, and knowing no matter who I talked to especially mental health that it wouldn't change anything. 

So one day after having my supervisor give me my PDR that made me look like I didn't know how to do my job I went home and attempted to take my life. I woke up in the hospital the next day with my Padre in the room with me before I was escorted to the psych ward. Once I got out of the hospital I knew I had a tough road ahead but what happened was unexpected. I was treated like everything that led me to do what I did was all my fault. I was also placed on a mental fitness and suicide awareness course. The first question the instructor asked when we got to the suicide awareness portion was how everyone felt about suicide. Nothing like sitting in a room having people say that people like you are selfish, weak, a coward, and a disgrace. After having to go back to working with the same Supervisor for a few more months I was told I was going to be posted out. I was so happy and so was the family only to find out just before it was supposed to happen that it was cancelled. But my spouse couldn't take being here anymore so her and the kids packed up and went back out west. I got moved to another position on the base with a little help from the ombudsman's office. But then the PER I received was so horrible that even my Major was confused about how I went from getting a high ready the year prior to developing.

Anyway my conclusion is after everything I went through in the last few years I got screwed over while my old supervisor received an award for all the hard work he had done in his short time there. I left some details out because I didn't want this to drag out to long but I think what happened to me was wrong and that more should have been done to help me. Now I have a whole bunch of medication I have to take to try and be normal because all I have left is my job. 

To whomever read this the whole way through, I appreciate you taking the time. 

Thank you


----------



## CountDC

Read it.  Hopefully things will improve for you.


----------



## mariomike

Like CountDC said. 



			
				S.Y.F. said:
			
		

> I went home and attempted to take my life.



Good to hear you survived.


----------



## motorhead1

I just recently got word that Im to be posted, how can I turn it down?


----------



## Halifax Tar

You can't.  

You can plead your case and maybe you reasons are good enough that the powers that be will cancel it but the reality is that it's not up to you.


----------



## PuckChaser

motorhead1 said:
			
		

> I just recently got word that Im to be posted, how can I turn it down?



Voluntary Release. Or have a real good compassionate reason to not go (career implications here).


----------



## Maxadia

motorhead1 said:
			
		

> I just recently got word that Im to be posted, how can I turn it down?



Why would you want to turn it down?


----------



## mariomike

motorhead1 said:
			
		

> I just recently got word that Im to be posted, how can I turn it down?



See also,

discussion on refused postings  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/69503.50
3 pages.

Postponing a Posting  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/106017.0/nowap.html

Posting question : Can a posting be delayed?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/100902.0

Posting Evasion & Promotion Cancellation  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/57698.0


----------



## Tibbson

Last time one of my guys refused a posting the CO just said "ok, sign here" as he handed over some release forms.  The member signed them and was out in due time.  

Now, if someone wants to try to explain why they would prefer not to take a posting and ask, with valid reasons, for the location to be reconsidered then fine...it may be considered.  But if it's not then be prepared to get out or go on the posting.

Just last summer we had a senior member posted to a remote location requiring a screening.  He failed the screening due to some issues with his children and their medical state.  He was given the opportunity to accept the posting himself and go on IR or make a career decision.


----------



## CombatMacguyver

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Just last summer we had a senior member posted to a remote location requiring a screening.  He failed the screening due to some issues with his children and their medical state.  He was given the opportunity to accept the posting himself and go on IR or make a career decision.



Jesus!  He legitimately fails the screening but his options are to still be posted or out?  That's wonderful.  Wtf the is point of the screener then?

This is why we have retention problems ffs.


----------



## PuckChaser

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> Jesus!  He legitimately fails the screening but his options are to still be posted or out?  That's wonderful.  Wtf the is point of the screener then?
> 
> This is why we have retention problems ffs.



Depends on how senior the member is. If there's only X number of positions across the CAF for them in succession planning, and they've timed out of the spot they're in, I can absolutely see an IR, Commission or Release ultimatum. The CM should have been looking to swap a position, however.


----------



## McG

For those who have started working on PERs for 15/16, note that the annual ammendments to the system have just been announced:


> CANFORGEN 014/16 CMP 011/16 281603Z JAN 16
> CHANGES TO CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (CAF) MILITARY PERSONNEL EVALUATION REPORT (PER) FOR THE 2015/2016 REPORTING YEAR
> 
> REF: A. CANFORGEN 220/14 CMP 102/14 181519Z DEC 14
> B. CFPAS HELP FILE
> C. CANFORGEN 120/15 CMP 055/15 061540Z JUL 15 (CAF ANNUAL SELECTION BOARDS FILE REMOVAL DUE TO EXPIRED FITNESS)
> 
> 1.  REF A IS CANCELLED. ALL UPDATES PROVIDED AT REF A HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE CANADIAN FORCES PERSONNEL APPRAISAL SYSTEM (CFPAS) HELP FILE AT REF B. THE UPDATES TO REF B AND ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ANNUAL EVALUATION PROCESS THAT FOLLOW REMAIN A PART OF DEFENCE RENEWAL TEAM (DRT) INITIATIVE TO MODERNIZE THE CAF CAREER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPLACEMENT FOR CFPAS.
> 
> ...
> 
> PART III - CFPAS UPDATES FOR 2015/16 REPORTING YEAR
> 
> 5.  NARRATIVE RESTRICTIONS (NINE LINE LIMIT ETC) WERE GENERALLY WELL RECEIVED ACROSS THE CAF AND AT SELECTION BOARDS. SOME COMMENTED THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY THE HIGHER SCORED EVALUTATIONS WITHIN LIMITED SPACE, BUT THESE COMMENTS WERE INFREQUENT AND NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE QUALITY OF PERS WRITTEN BY SOME WITHIN THE DIRECTED LIMITATIONS. SELECTION BOARDS PROGRESSED WELL WITH THE NEW LIMITATIONS AND THIS WILL BE RETAINED FOR THE UPCOMING EVALUATION YEAR AND WILL FORM THE FOUNDATION FOR NARRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR FUTURE CFPAS REPLACEMENT
> 
> A.  DUE TO FREQUENT SELECTION BOARD COMMENTS RELATING TO MCPL AND CPL READY PERS, THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS ARE TO BE MADE TO PER PROCESS FOR 15/16 EVALUTATION YEAR:
> 
> (1) MCPL AND CPL READY PERS SHALL NOW CONTAIN A SECTION 5 (POTENTIAL) NARRATIVE THAT IS LIMITED TO FIVE LINES OF TEXT.
> 
> (2) THIS ADDITIONAL TEXT IN MCPL AND CPL READY PERS SHALL INCLUDE COMMENTS JUSTIFYING OUTSTANDING PF S, WITHIN SPACE LIMITATIONS. A COMMENT ON PROGRESSION AND FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CAN ALSO BE INCLUDED IN SECTION 5
> 
> B.  PRESCRIBED NARRATIVE LIMITS WILL BE IMPOSED IN THE COMING EVALUATION YEAR. PERS THAT EXCEED NARRATIVE LIMITS WILL BE RETURNED FOR AMENDMENTS. TO ACHIEVE THIS, SHORT BULLETED SENTENCES AND TEXT WRAPPING ARE NECESSARY. EXAMPLES OF PROPER STYLE WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE DMCSS 2 WEBSITE
> 
> C.  OPTING OUT, ANOTHER DRT INITIATIVE, HAS PROVEN VERY POPULAR AND HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN MANAGING PER WORKLOADS AND INDIVIDUAL EXPECTATIONS. IAW REF B ARTICLE 125, OPT OUT REMAINS AN OPTION FOR PERSONNEL WHO DO NOT WISH TO HAVE AN ANNUAL PER. PERSONNEL WHO OPT OUT, DO NOT NEED TO RESUBMIT EACH YEAR, BUT UPON POSTING SHOULD INFORM THEIR NEW CO OF THEIR ELECTION TO OPT OUT. TO ENSURE EFFICIENT UNIT PER ADMINISTRATION, A MBR SHOULD SIGNAL THEIR INTENTION TO OPT NLT END OF JANUARY 2016. MEMBERS AND COMMAND TEAM ARE ENCOURAGED TO REVIEW ARTICLE 125 OF REF B FOR OPT OUT PROCESS IMPLICATIONS AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
> 
> 6.  THE NEXT UPDATE OF REF B WILL BE AVAILABLE IN FEBRUARY 2016 AND WILL REFLECT THE CHANGES INCLUDED IN THIS CANFORGEN.  ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Pass that on to my TC on Tuesday but we still have to wait for Regiment and Squadron to issue the new instructions....


----------



## cld617

Hopefully this will assist board members to pick the best candidates for promotion in trades where as few as one or two ready's put you in the window.


----------



## Mediman14

I often see friends do PER on their subordinates who are close friends outside of work. Often those PERs are inflated to the point that they get promoted with very little experience under their belts! Is this really helping anyone?? Except for the person's pocket? Does this show the consequence later down the road??
  I see this quite often, and I have to say that I think it is not fair to the harding working soldiers out there. Then I see people who can't work with other people because they do not like them on a personal level and they walk away with MOIs, is it deserving? What makes a person outstanding if they could only work with certain people.?


----------



## MedCorps

You asked, "Does this show the consequence later down the road??" 

There is a concept in management theory called the Peter Principle. This is not exactly it, but helps explain some of the things you are describing. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

MC


----------



## DAA

MedCorps said:
			
		

> You asked, "Does this show the consequence later down the road??"
> 
> There is a concept in management theory called the Peter Principle. This is not exactly it, but helps explain some of the things you are describing.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
> 
> MC



 :goodpost:

That pretty much sums up our "never to be perfect" assessment/promotion system.


----------



## Kat Stevens

People rise to the level of their incompetence.  After that, their godfather gives them a push.


----------



## Brasidas

I've known a guy who was a good corporal, an ok master corporal, and was drowning at last sighting as a sergeant major. 

Another that I'm in more regular touch with is a sergeant who is effectively afraid of people- can not even effectively get a work detail of two privates to do a series of simple, repetitive tasks. Believes in doing everything as well as possible, does everything (that they perceive to be) possible to accomplish the mission, and completely incapable of seeing the forest. Over twenty years in grade, never understood the concept of "the perfect is the enemy of the good" or that getting outside the comfort zone long enough to fake and become an effective leader is necessary to accomplish a task efficiently. The sergeant is underappreciated, given their dedication, but is ineffective- period.

On the other hand, I know one corporal where the world is orderly enough such that the entire chain of command knows that it would be a horrible mistake to give him any leadership opportunities *and* he is self-aware enough to have not the slightest bitterness over never being promoted. He's cheerful, hardworking, and everybody loves him (though they sometimes mutter over the new depths of stupid he manages to find). If he were a sergeant, he'd be miserable and self-loathing.

I really wish that there was a mechanism to separate leadership and technical ability. You've been a Cpl for twenty years? No pay raise. You've got outstanding skills and no leadership ability? Best thing for you is to promote you to the point that you're ineffective at your job description. I've known excellent, colourful corporals (and plenty of mediocre ones) who bring something to a unit, but neither the unit nor the individual gains anything by "helping them" with a bad promotion. If they fail spectacularly enough (perhaps by failing PLQ, perhaps by making it blatantly obvious that they'll never grow into the role), maybe they get sent back to where they belong. It doesn't happen often enough, though.

After one blatant failure, which I don't think the sergeant I described even fully understood, a decision was made to hand out tasks to undermine them to the point that they would quit. Safety and environmental briefings to audiences of dozens (stuttering all the way until discovering the trick of pointing at someone and telling them to read the powerpoint). crap taskings. They took it and just kept their mouth shut. Still kicking, seven years later, and the entire rest of the CoC that damned them has left the unit.

Ideally, someone recognizes a subordinate's strengths and weaknesses and is able to help them improve. That's great. Sometimes its not possible. Short of that, demoting them to a rank commensurate with their leadership ability is probably the best course of action functionally. To avoid humiliating them for what is no way their own fault (its the goddamned leaders who put them where they shouldn't have been), you'd probably have to OT them. Its easier for someone who's already demonstrated good technical strengths to train in something else than it is for someone who's already manifestly demonstrated their inability to overcome their leadership weakness to do more than bang their head against the wall.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Now if only they could stop telling me what the bubbles will be for my guys we could get on with the honesty.


----------



## PuckChaser

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Now if only they could stop telling me what the bubbles will be for my guys we could get on with the honesty.



Or stop linking performance with potential. I should be able to rate someone as outstanding for the potential bubbles but with skilled performance, and vice versa. The whole problem with the PERs the way they are is the promotion recommendation is linked solely to potential, not performance. It should be a total score on the PER that generates the recommendation. I think we'd see a lot less Immediates out there if we did that.


----------



## TCM621

I would like to hear some comments from people who think the new system actually benefits the members. I can see how it makes writing PERs easier but I can't for the life of me figure out how this helps provide a more accurate assessment of a members performance. 

It particularly harms people who need the most feedback ie developing personnel. They get zero official feedback as to why they score how they do. I know we tend to think of PERs as only for promotion but they are also part of the larger process which is about development. Less feedback means less chance for development. 

I also am concerned that the new rules make it easier to promote who you want rather than who deserves it the most.  Over the years I have seen some pretty out there stuff done like false statements (and in some cases flat out lies) on Pers and acting lacking members getting virtually perfect PERs (no language profile).  The narrative was where this stuff was caught.  I am concerned the new system does away with that double check of ensuring the dots match the narrative. 

I am keeping an open mind but so far the only benefits I am seeing are to the people writing and scoring them.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The PDR is designed to flesh out what the member needs to improve upon.


----------



## Fluff

There is also a theory similar to the Peter Principle called the Dilbert Principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_principle. This basically says you promote them because they are incompetent, so they cause less damage to the immediate workflow. Normally this is meant for more technical tasks (you promote the worst surgeon to management in order to get him out of surgeries). However, in general, the idea of this is that the more someone screws up the more you want them managing more general aspects of people and the less you want them doing hands on work that has larger ramifications when it goes wrong. So to go off your last point Brasidas 



> Short of that, demoting them to a rank commensurate with their leadership ability is probably the best course of action functionally. To avoid humiliating them for what is no way their own fault (its the goddamned leaders who put them where they shouldn't have been), you'd probably have to OT them.



the idea is that the best course of action would actually be to promote them further in order to get them more removed from any process that they can hurt. It is an interesting idea but is also an explanation sometimes for when you have cases of



> I've known a guy who was a good corporal, an ok master corporal, and was drowning at last sighting as a sergeant major.



because almost certainly someone else who has decision making power has noticed the same thing. (I've also read of this principle being used with where you get posted as well, I remember reading a post a while back where a colonel was causing problems so he got promoted and put somewhere where he couldn't cause as much damage).


----------



## mariomike

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I often see friends do PER on their subordinates who are close friends outside of work. Often those PERs are inflated to the point that they get promoted with very little experience under their belts! Is this really helping anyone?? Except for the person's pocket? Does this show the consequence later down the road??
> I see this quite often, and I have to say that I think it is not fair to the harding working soldiers out there. Then I see people who can't work with other people because they do not like them on a personal level and they walk away with MOIs, is it deserving? What makes a person outstanding if they could only work with certain people.?



Is this ^ in regards to this discussion?

Redress PER  
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/118372/post-1357259.html#msg1357259


			
				Mediman14 said:
			
		

> My particular unit has a lot of corruption that is never dealt with. atleast it seems that way!


----------



## George Wallace

Fluff said:
			
		

> There is also a theory similar to the Peter Principle called the Dilbert Principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert_principle. This basically says you promote them because they are incompetent, so they cause less damage to the immediate workflow. Normally this is meant for more technical tasks (you promote the worst surgeon to management in order to get him out of surgeries). However, in general, the idea of this is that the more someone screws up the more you want them managing more general aspects of people and the less you want them doing hands on work that has larger ramifications when it goes wrong. So to go off your last point Brasidas
> 
> the idea is that the best course of action would actually be to promote them further in order to get them more removed from any process that they can hurt. It is an interesting idea but is also an explanation sometimes for when you have cases of
> 
> 
> because almost certainly someone else who has decision making power has noticed the same thing. (I've also read of this principle being used with where you get posted as well, I remember reading a post a while back where a colonel was causing problems so he got promoted and put somewhere where he couldn't cause as much damage).



Seems to be the way that our Political System has gone.  Have we had any really "Statesmen" since Peason and Diefenbaker?  Have we had any "Nation Builders" since the St Laurent years?  This trend is bring us into "Decay".  We have to go back a half century or so, and have the gonads to "FIRE" the incompetent.  Our drifting towards "molly coddling" our population is our destruction.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

In my regiment and squadron we are trying to stop this "anyone with a heart beat" getting on courses too early and promoted to fast train....if we have to no fill seats on PLQ courses we will no fill them ....


----------



## MJP

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I would like to hear some comments from people who think the new system actually benefits the members. I can see how it makes writing PERs easier but I can't for the life of me figure out how this helps provide a more accurate assessment of a members performance.
> 
> It particularly harms people who need the most feedback ie developing personnel. They get zero official feedback as to why they score how they do. I know we tend to think of PERs as only for promotion but they are also part of the larger process which is about development. Less feedback means less chance for development.
> 
> I also am concerned that the new rules make it easier to promote who you want rather than who deserves it the most.  Over the years I have seen some pretty out there stuff done like false statements (and in some cases flat out lies) on Pers and acting lacking members getting virtually perfect PERs (no language profile).  The narrative was where this stuff was caught.  I am concerned the new system does away with that double check of ensuring the dots match the narrative.
> 
> I am keeping an open mind but so far the only benefits I am seeing are to the people writing and scoring them.



The institution spent an inordinate amount of time writing flowery PERs on all members above Cpl regardless of their potential for promotion every year.  It was the better part of a four-six month process in some units.   At the end of the day the PER is an institutional tool to manage promotions.  Dot score is what gets you to the board period.   Why waste time writing a PER for someone that won’t be seen by the board?  Put in a dot score so the institution can track their progress over the next few years and be done with the process.  For those that make it to the board because the dot scores are all relatively sits at the right side of god (right linedish) it is, the jobs you have done in the past (tactical, instructional, staff, joint etc), your language profile and whatever other criteria your particular board considers important  (AOC, JSPC, not wearing sunglasses all the time) is what gets scored by the board  IAW their scoring scrit.  The benefit in this process is the institution isn't wasting time.


I have seen your specific complaint quite often though. The unintended consequence of the old system of writing PERs is it made everyone (ok most people) who got PERs happy because it was always sunshine and lollipops. Except for an adverse PER it was rare to see bad stuff on a PER.  When this new system came out lots of folks were like this doesn’t tell my subordinates how they are doing.  Problem is the PER wasn't grounded in reality anyway.  The other problem is writing all that great flowery language takes time and on a tool intended for the institutional it is a waste of the institutional leaders time.  I tell my folks that PDRs, daily interaction, timely verbal feedback and mentoring is where we develop our soldiers/subordinates full stop.   If they need a PER with flowery useless language to tell them where they stand and how they are doing then WE aren’t doing out jobs.



			
				Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Now if only they could stop telling me what the bubbles will be for my guys we could get on with the honesty.


There is nothing wrong with normalizing scores across a vast organization.  Sgt A might have a rock star Cpl who should be MOI but is only ESAAR because Sgt A is a hard ***.  Meanwhile Sgt B a pushover has a decent Cpl but writes them up as MOI.  In meriting this kind of thing should be caught.  Sgt A’s soldier should come up to be ranked with peers that are also MOI and Sgt B’s soldier come down to the SND/ESAAR area.  
How exactly they gather the scores and then normalize them is different across the board.  I have a seen a variety of methods.  Most common is at the Coy level they hold a big merit session where everyone comes with their subordinate’s dot scores.  They then put them up and argue the merits of their soldiers.  IMHO it works well because no one works in isolation and you can catch the cases were a soldier that one person is talking up is actually a bag of crap and counter arguments can flow.  Conversely a soldier that is under ranked can be brought up considerably.
If nothing like that happened ie you gave no initial dot scores and there was no merit board then I would question how the scores were determined.  

* edited because words are hard


----------



## Just-wondering

Does anyone know if there are references for writing a PER for members that remustered through VOT mid way through the reporting year? Do you include previous trade and information? What do you do in the case of relinquishment of rank? Is the old rank also included. If the person was in a leadership position in old trade and just ql3 qualified in new trade how do you fairly write when leadership etc has not been observed in new trade?


----------



## MJP

Just-wondering said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if there are references for writing a PER for members that remustered through VOT mid way through the reporting year? Do you include previous trade and information? What do you do in the case of relinquishment of rank? Is the old rank also included. If the person was in a leadership position in old trade and just ql3 qualified in new trade how do you fairly write when leadership etc has not been observed in new trade?



I have written PERs on new VOTs and have used their old jobs.  If they had PDRs I used them plus I usually called their old supervisor to get any other points.  I treated it no different than someone posted in or cross posted in an organization.  You don't have to directly observe their leadership as long as someone has.  This is where people writing PERs have to due their due diligence and make those emails and calls to previous supervisors.


----------



## mariomike

For future reference, perhaps this discussion will be merged with,

CFPAS (PERs & PDRs), Assesment Process, Honest Assesments, & Unjust Career Advancement (Merged Topic  
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/25156/post-1417767/topicseen.html#new


----------



## BinRat55

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I would like to hear some comments from people who think the new system actually benefits the members. I can see how it makes writing PERs easier but I can't for the life of me figure out how this helps provide a more accurate assessment of a members performance.
> 
> It particularly harms people who need the most feedback ie developing personnel. They get zero official feedback as to why they score how they do. I know we tend to think of PERs as only for promotion but they are also part of the larger process which is about development. Less feedback means less chance for development.
> 
> I also am concerned that the new rules make it easier to promote who you want rather than who deserves it the most.  Over the years I have seen some pretty out there stuff done like false statements (and in some cases flat out lies) on Pers and acting lacking members getting virtually perfect PERs (no language profile).  The narrative was where this stuff was caught.  I am concerned the new system does away with that double check of ensuring the dots match the narrative.
> 
> I am keeping an open mind but so far the only benefits I am seeing are to the people writing and scoring them.



I think you nailed my thoughts / opinions in your last sentence. Too often, the better Cpl and MCpl will get their MOI tossed or not given the respect it deserves because supervisors do not know HOW to write a PER. I am not generalizing, however I have been in the game a long time and have seen many doozies. As flawed as I think this new format is (Did x - y happened) it will give the soldier a more fair shake - in the writing of it at least.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

MJP said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with normalizing scores across a vast organization.  Sgt A might have a rock star Cpl who should be MOI but is only ESAAR because Sgt A is a hard ***.  Meanwhile Sgt B a pushover has a decent Cpl but writes them up as MOI.  In meriting this kind of thing should be caught.  Sgt A’s soldier should come up to be ranked with peers that are also MOI and Sgt B’s soldier come down to the SND/ESAAR area.
> How exactly they gather the scores and then normalize them is different across the board.  I have a seen a variety of methods.  Most common is at the Coy level they hold a big merit session where everyone comes with their subordinate’s dot scores.  They then put them up and argue the merits of their soldiers.  IMHO it works well because no one works in isolation and you can catch the cases were a soldier that one person is talking up is actually a bag of crap and counter arguments can flow.  Conversely a soldier that is under ranked can be brought up considerably.
> If nothing like that happened ie you gave no initial dot scores and there was no merit board then I would question how the scores were determined.
> 
> * edited because words are hard



I vehemently disagree 100%. Who the fuck is the CO or OC to tell me how good or shitty my guys are. Other then PT what actual interaction does he have with my guys?  Zero is the answer. As the system is right now you could right them up basically because they are telling you how many ES's etc the member has. How the fuck does anyone but me and the other immediate supervisors know where this meme we should merit?  The answer is they don't. For the Cpls the MWO, WO, Sgt and I sat down and discussed each member line by line as to where they should be and provided examples as to why or why not they got the score they did. THEN corporate has the nerve to say we graded them to hard when in reality they were graded fair. If a troop doesn't have an ES or does have a NI then they shouldn't be told otherwise by those who have no clue. 

*also edited because I was cooking and writing at the same time.


----------



## MJP

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I vehemently disagree 100%. Who the frig is the CO or OC to tell me how good or shitty my guys are. Other then PT what actual interaction does he have with my guys?  Zero is the answer. As the system is right now you could right them up basically because they are telling you how many ES's etc the member has. How the frig does anyone but me and the other immediate supervisors know where this meme we should merit?  The answer is they don't. For the Cpls the MWO, WO, Sgt and I sat down and discussed each member line by line as to where they should be and provided examples as to why or why not they got the score they did. THEN corporate has the never to say we graded them to hard when in reality they were graded fair. If a troop doesn't have an ES or does have a NI then they shouldn't be told otherwise by those who have no clue.



Meh then we agree to disagree.  FWIW I use to have the same opinion as you but have gradually come around.  Nothing is perfect and we can't please everyone.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Fair enough but how anyone can be fine with writing a person that doesn't represent the facts is part of the problem of having people in positions that's above their scope. 

I'd also like to add that the CO has decreed that no Cpl will be written to have not observed any of the leadership bubbles. Fucking dog shit meddling is what it is.


----------



## TCM621

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I vehemently disagree 100%. Who the frig is the CO or OC to tell me how good or shitty my guys are. Other then PT what actual interaction does he have with my guys?  Zero is the answer. As the system is right now you could right them up basically because they are telling you how many ES's etc the member has. How the frig does anyone but me and the other immediate supervisors know where this meme we should merit?  The answer is they don't. For the Cpls the MWO, WO, Sgt and I sat down and discussed each member line by line as to where they should be and provided examples as to why or why not they got the score they did. THEN corporate has the never to say we graded them to hard when in reality they were graded fair. If a troop doesn't have an ES or does have a NI then they shouldn't be told otherwise by those who have no clue.


This can be a problem but it can also be a good thing. If higher says you need to provide better justification for a score that should at least give you the chance to justify it it properly hence,  at least under the old system,  would give them a better chance at being successful at the board. 


MJP,  you pretty much emphasized my point.  The benefits to the institution are easier to see as are the benefits to the people writing them. We had a lot of stupid rules for the narrative that added unnecessary work and,  in many ways, undermined the process. If we have to write on every bubble but we must always be positive how do we write for the guy who can't be left unsupervised while eating lest he stab himself in the eye with a fork? Not to mention how many times you ended up in a grammar argument with a superior who may or may not understand the proper use of the comma. 

However, the PER process is also part of developing personnel. In 20 years in the CF, across multiple environments and units, I have seen regular,  formal feedback maybe a handful of times. It is the exception not the norm.  I am pretty sure the standard now is 1 initial PDR,  1 follow up and then the PER. If we are updating the CFPAS system we need to balance the needs of the CoC with the needs of the members. Right now,  all I am seeing is benefit to the CoC. I am sincerely seeking benefits this system has to the members.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Fair enough but how anyone can be fine with writing a person that doesn't represent the facts is part of the problem of having people in positions that's above their scope.
> 
> I'd also like to add that the CO has decreed that no Cpl will be written to have not observed any of the leadership bubbles. Fucking dog shit meddling is what it is.



In my regiment Cpl's except those on Class B or ranked in the top 10 will not not get a PER....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> This can be a problem but it can also be a good thing. If higher says you need to provide better justification for a score that should at least give you the chance to justify it it properly hence,  at least under the old system,  would give them a better chance at being successful at the board.
> 
> 
> MJP,  you pretty much emphasized my point.  The benefits to the institution are easier to see as are the benefits to the people writing them. We had a lot of stupid rules for the narrative that added unnecessary work and,  in many ways, undermined the process. If we have to write on every bubble but we must always be positive how do we write for the guy who can't be left unsupervised while eating lest he stab himself in the eye with a fork? Not to mention how many times you ended up in a grammar argument with a superior who may or may not understand the proper use of the comma.
> 
> However, the PER process is also part of developing personnel. In 20 years in the CF, across multiple environments and units, I have seen regular,  formal feedback maybe a handful of times. It is the exception not the norm.  I am pretty sure the standard now is 1 initial PDR,  1 follow up and then the PER. If we are updating the CFPAS system we need to balance the needs of the CoC with the needs of the members. Right now,  all I am seeing is benefit to the CoC. I am sincerely seeking benefits this system has to the members.



In the Log world here the highers give out the overall score. They don't tell you what bubble is ES or S or NI but they tell you how many of each he or she gets. There is no debate with them.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> In the Log world here the highers give out the overall score. They don't tell you what bubble is ES or S or NI but they tell you how many of each he or she gets. There is no debate with them.



Same in my Regiment...except the say here is the score, make the bubbles fit...


----------



## MJP

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> MJP,  you pretty much emphasized my point.  The benefits to the institution are easier to see as are the benefits to the people writing them. We had a lot of stupid rules for the narrative that added unnecessary work and,  in many ways, undermined the process. If we have to write on every bubble but we must always be positive how do we write for the guy who can't be left unsupervised while eating lest he stab himself in the eye with a fork? Not to mention how many times you ended up in a grammar argument with a superior who may or may not understand the proper use of the comma.
> 
> However, the PER process is also part of developing personnel. In 20 years in the CF, across multiple environments and units, I have seen regular,  formal feedback maybe a handful of times. It is the exception not the norm.  I am pretty sure the standard now is 1 initial PDR,  1 follow up and then the PER. If we are updating the CFPAS system we need to balance the needs of the CoC with the needs of the members. Right now,  all I am seeing is benefit to the CoC. I am sincerely seeking benefits this system has to the members.



The problem with this line of thinking is only conceptualizing the PDR as the only piece of feedback.

From above

_PDRs, daily interaction, timely verbal feedback and mentoring is where we develop our soldiers/subordinates full stop.   If they need a PER with flowery useless language to tell them where they stand and how they are doing then WE aren’t doing out jobs._

We benefit our members everyday in how we shape and develop them both by example (good or bad) and by informal and formal feedback.  The formal piece, the  PDR just captures the salient highs and lows for the member over a time period.  The PER captures the members performance and potential for the institution.  

The biggest issue we have is we are afraid to tell people they suck either via PDR or face to face.  That has bled into when you actually give decent feedback IE: you are good at X but need to improve at Y & Z some people freak out, thinking they are done because they haven't seen real constructive feedback before.

I have rarely gotten a PDR in the last 5 years since I came back to the field force and not once have I sat around wondering how I am doing and what I need to do to improve.  My bosses and sometimes my peers have given me that direction.  Is it always the case?  No, see above where sometimes various chains of command are hesitant or maybe don't know how to give decent feedback.



			
				Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I'd also like to add that the CO has decreed that no Cpl will be written to have not observed any of the leadership bubbles. ******* dog crap meddling is what it is.



That Cpl has never been given a small party task with other people under them?  Never led PT?  Never asked how they would do a task?  Never developed a plan even low level?

If the answer is no then the issue is with his leadership not giving him opportunities to develop those skills and be observed.  That is a sweeping statement and I mean no disrespect by it, but when I have subordinates come to me asking to write non observed I ask very similar questions.  I can't recall the last time I saw a non observed and haven't been allowed nor have I allowed anyone to use that option.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Sorry. That's what I was trying to say. Also I'd like to add, if I'm junk I expect to be written up as such.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Perhaps my (and bosses) view is a different from yours. I suppose observing even if they are a soup sandwich counts. 

By virtue of my work and section we all do everything physically and picking up bullets and setting up issues as well as processing salvage doesn't lend itself to a lot of leading from the Cpl's.


----------



## TCM621

MJP said:
			
		

> The problem with this line of thinking is only conceptualizing the PDR as the only piece of feedback.
> 
> From above
> 
> _PDRs, daily interaction, timely verbal feedback and mentoring is where we develop our soldiers/subordinates full stop.   If they need a PER with flowery useless language to tell them where they stand and how they are doing then WE aren’t doing out jobs._
> 
> We benefit our members everyday in how we shape and develop them both by example (good or bad) and by informal and formal feedback.  The formal piece, the  PDR just captures the salient highs and lows for the member over a time period.  The PER captures the members performance and potential for the institution.
> 
> The biggest issue we have is we are afraid to tell people they suck either via PDR or face to face.  That has bled into when you actually give decent feedback IE: you are good at X but need to improve at Y & Z some people freak out, thinking they are done because they haven't seen real constructive feedback before.
> 
> I have rarely gotten a PDR in the last 5 years since I came back to the field force and not once have I sat around wondering how I am doing and what I need to do to improve.  My bosses and sometimes my peers have given me that direction.  Is it always the case?  No, see above where sometimes various chains of command are hesitant or maybe don't know how to give decent feedback.
> 
> That Cpl has never been given a small party task with other people under them?  Never led PT?  Never asked how they would do a task?  Never developed a plan even low level?
> 
> If the answer is no then the issue is with his leadership not giving him opportunities to develop those skills and be observed.  That is a sweeping statement and I mean no disrespect by it, but when I have subordinates come to me asking to write non observed I ask very similar questions.  I can't recall the last time I saw a non observed and haven't been allowed nor have I allowed anyone to use that option.


The problem with this is that IAW the CFPAS system, there is supposed to be a minimum of 2 feedback sessions. One is a PDR and one is the annual PER interview. For all your other points,  I completely agree. We need to give (and receive) timely feedback face to face. We need to criticize when required and praise.  But you know as well as I do that if anything goes sideways, if it isn't on paper it never happened. This goes for good or bad. 

I don't know how many times I have seen people utterly confused as to where they stand in their progress. 1 PDR and a PER with next to nothing on it doesn't give a lot of help especially when you may be getting it from someone who doesn't have any reasons to give you as to why you are where you are.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

BTW you can use the Part 5 of the PDR at anytime to record good or bad points....I use to do that as a Section Commander....


----------



## TCM621

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> BTW you can use the Part 5 of the PDR at anytime to record good or bad points....I use to do that as a Section Commander....


That would be a great thing if it was used more but it is used infrequently enough that in almost 20 years of service I have seen it done twice and never for anything good.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> That would be a great thing if it was used more but it is used infrequently enough that in almost 20 years of service I have seen it done twice and never for anything good.



I argue against this method.  The 5B is not meant for corrective action.  That is what the IC is for.  The 5B is meant for areas of a members profression that needs to be improved.


----------



## TCM621

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I argue against this method.  The 5B is not meant for corrective action.  That is what the IC is for.  The 5B is meant for areas of a members profression that needs to be improved.


I just know how little will get done if you don't mandate it. For ever person who uses the system to its fullest,  you have 10 who only do what their CoC forces them to. 

We have a very small military,  it takes forever and a day to replace a trained member and we consistently ask the world of our people. It is in the best interests of the military to provide ample opportunity from personal development.  Sadly, the formal development system is often the only one used therefore it must be robust and as in depth as possible without becoming a burden to the CoC. 

I liked the idea of quarterly assessments with the 4 one being an annual assessment. I think it is still reasonable to provide write ups on all personnel if we set realistic guidelines. A brand new corporal doesn't need the entire performance and potential sections filled up completely. However,  even the newest corporal could have a short blurb detailing his situation. For example,  "Cpl Bloggins was recently promoted to Cpl.  Since his promotion he has been actively learning his new duties." Cpl Bloggins leadership potential is on par with a newly promoted Cpl. He is beginning to search for opportunities to lead. "


----------



## PuckChaser

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I argue against this method.  The 5B is not meant for corrective action.  That is what the IC is for.  The 5B is meant for areas of a members profression that needs to be improved.


What's wrong with a 5B for something sufficiently minor? Sometimes you get a guy that needs to be set straight but doesn't warrant climbing the IC chain. You can also use the 5A for attaboy comments as well, I've told my MCpls to write some of those almost as many as 5Bs. If it's good enough for you to brag to me how good your Cpl did something, it's good enough to write down so it makes it into the PER.


----------



## MJP

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I argue against this method.  The 5B is not meant for corrective action.  That is what the IC is for.  The 5B is meant for areas of a members progression that needs to be improved.



Whoa!  I know what you are saying but an IC an an administrative action that is essentially saying do this a few more times and you could be released.  A 5B is a non-permanent way of formalizing that you sucked at or did something bad and here is how to do better.  If the action or deficiencies is severe enough then yes remedial measures are the way to go, but aren't the first stop IMHO.



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> That would be a great thing if it was used more but it is used infrequently enough that in almost 20 years of service I have seen it done twice and never for anything good.



It is fairly common vernacular in the Western third of the field force.  Posted to 3 units in the past 2 years and in all of them it was a fairly common occurrence.


----------



## BinRat55

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> In the Log world here the highers give out the overall score. They don't tell you what bubble is ES or S or NI but they tell you how many of each he or she gets. There is no debate with them.



I'm sorry but I have been in the Log world 26 years. Been writing PERs for the past 16. I was give a number to draft against only once in my career, and that was with a combat arms unit. So as there are many facets of Logistics it does not happen in the Supply world. I have fought for specific overall scores and got beat out fair and square, won a few times but the _was _ a board to debate this on.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well come to Shilo then. Because they tell you how many of each the member gets. You're given the privilege of placing the bubbles where though. This way each rank fits there overall plan


----------



## BinRat55

Hmmmm... Shilo you say? Double hmmmm (insert chin-scratch / narrowed eyes here...)

There Their "overall" plan begins at the lowest level possible. Ammo is an extremely small trade compared to Supply or RMS maybe it just seems that way?

See what I did there?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Hmmmm... Shilo you say? Double hmmmm (insert chin-scratch / narrowed eyes here...)
> 
> There Their "overall" plan begins at the lowest level possible. Ammo is an extremely small trade compared to Supply or RMS maybe it just seems that way?
> 
> See what I did there?



The Ranks are all competing with each other as a whole as well as trade specific.


----------



## GreenMarine

Reading over the reg's, orders and this thread.

I have two questions!

1. Anyone have a referance or imput on who is suppose to write a members PER?

I myself have been farmed around, attached here, deployed there, TD somewhere and finally just told to report to my current task by my last Coxn. 

As far as I'm aware the person responsible is the supervisor as of March 31th, however given turn overs both for myself and the new supervisor. He'll would only have about a month over me when March comes, unless I'm farmed out again.

2. Is there a option that another person (like passed supervisor ) can write the PER, based on more time with member?

I'm also trying to contact my home unit, to verifly or answer these question but as of yet have heard nothing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Are you on the BTL (i.e. still 'untrained') in your new MOC [I recall you remustered].

If you haven't completed QL3 yet, the short answer is you should receive a PER Exemption.  If you are QL3 quald, the unit you are posted to is responsible for your PER (according to the Help File) and should seek input from the various units you've worked for to write your PER with.


----------



## BinRat55

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Are you on the BTL (i.e. still 'untrained') in your new MOC [I recall you remustered].
> 
> If you haven't completed QL3 yet, the short answer is you should receive a PER Exemption.  If you are QL3 quald, the unit you are posted to is responsible for your PER (according to the Help File) and should seek input from the various units you've worked for to write your PER with.



EIT - I think GreenMarine is referring to himself (or another) as the drafter, not the reciever...


----------



## BinRat55

GreenMarine said:
			
		

> Reading over the reg's, orders and this thread.
> 
> I have two questions!
> 
> 1. Anyone have a referance or imput on who is suppose to write a members PER?
> 
> I myself have been farmed around, attached here, deployed there, TD somewhere and finally just told to report to my current task by my last Coxn.
> 
> As far as I'm aware the person responsible is the supervisor as of March 31th, however given turn overs both for myself and the new supervisor. He'll would only have about a month over me when March comes, unless I'm farmed out again.
> 
> 2. Is there a option that another person (like passed supervisor ) can write the PER, based on more time with member?
> 
> I'm also trying to contact my home unit, to verifly or answer these question but as of yet have heard nothing.



According to CFPAS:

"...where it is in the best interest of the CF, the units and person involved to have the PER written by the employing unit and not the parent unit..."

In actual fact, you would not find it written anywhere the exact answer you are searching for because on the PER form it says in Part 4 (rated by Supervisor) and in part 5 (rated by Reviewing Officer). I have always written my direct subordinates and had them write their subs (depending... Cpls do NOT write PERs. But they can certainly draft for a review as practice) And as you stated, if they (or I) were the supervisor at the time, then the responsibility should lie there but I always seek  the assistance of those who have spent the most time with the member. A fair and honest assessment is warranted and you can't write what you don't know. If previous supervisors were really good with PDRs then that's have the battle. 

But I implore you (and anyone else drafting a PER / PDR) grammar, punctuation and structure is paramount!

For realsies!


----------



## GreenMarine

Sorry Yes I should of clarified, I would be the reciever, and as a CPL/LS with 10 years in Rank this is the first time I've come into a PER season where my supervisor has had little time over me. 

However that said I suppose I could pick apart ther Review and ask for examples as well as provide some when it comes to points that I dont agree with.


----------



## BinRat55

GreenMarine said:
			
		

> Sorry Yes I should of clarified, I would be the reciever, and as a CPL/LS with 10 years in Rank this is the first time I've come into a PER season where my supervisor has had little time over me.
> 
> However that said I suppose I could pick apart ther Review and ask for examples as well as provide some when it comes to points that I dont agree with.



Ahhh... I sit corrected.

In that case (everything I stated earlier still applies) you can help yourself by keeping (and giving) copies of your past PDRs to your (now present) supervisor. A detailed part 3 would be quite handy as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

GreenMarine said:
			
		

> Sorry Yes I should of clarified, I would be the reciever, and as a CPL/LS with 10 years in Rank this is the first time I've come into a PER season where my supervisor has had little time over me.
> 
> However that said I suppose I could pick apart ther Review and ask for examples as well as provide some when it comes to points that I dont agree with.



I know you did an OT recently;  are you trained QL3 or above yet in your new MOC?  It changes things if you have, or have not completed trg yet.

- if you are not QL3 qual'd, or OFP as defined by your trade, then technically you are on the BTL (Basic Training List) still.  IAW CFPAS, mbr's on the BTL (including OTs) do not receive a PER, they receive a PER Exemption.


----------



## GreenMarine

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know you did an OT recently;  are you trained QL3 or above yet in your new MOC?  It changes things if you have, or have not completed trg yet.
> 
> - if you are not QL3 qual'd, or OFP as defined by your trade, then technically you are on the BTL (Basic Training List) still.  IAW CFPAS, mbr's on the BTL (including OTs) do not receive a PER, they receive a PER Exemption.



3's, 4's and OFP... waiting on my 5's but that said Career Manager Omitted given my total time in even a Low Ready may Merit me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

In that case, unless things have changed the unit you are posted to is responsible to write your PER, and to solicit feedback from the places you were employed for PER 'meat'.

Might be worth while to check the current CFPAS help file for updated info.


----------



## armyvern

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Well come to Shilo then. Because they tell you how many of each the member gets. You're given the privilege of placing the bubbles where though. This way each rank fits there overall plan



F'n army.


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I argue against this method.  The 5B is not meant for corrective action.  That is what the IC is for.  The 5B is meant for areas of a members profression that needs to be improved.



5Bs and IC, RW, C&P can be done jointly and/or independant of themselves and are 100% acceptable.

5Bs are better utilized to deal with corrective points on matters that do not warrant tracking for the entirety of a member's career (and they were done frequently at the last Unit we served in together ... in our own Tp even).


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 5Bs and IC, RW, C&P can be done jointly and/or independant of themselves and are 100% acceptable.
> 
> 5Bs are better utilized to deal with corrective points on matters that do not warrant tracking for the entirety of a member's career (and they were done frequently at the last Unit we served in together ... in our own Tp even).



Absolutely I remember them being done.  I am simply of the opinion that the 5B is the "lazy" way to take corrective action.  And I am the opinion that 5Bs are meant for professional development and to point out areas of one profession that should be improved on in order to succeed and grow.  

Behavior, Conduct and Discipline failures, while professional failings as well, should be addressed through the IC, RW, C&P process as I this is what it is designed for and is under utilized.  Too many shit pumps have just been passed along without the proper admin action being taken which has led to a continued waste of rations on people who should be dealt with.  

Sometime we get to share a table at the Sgts&WOs again I will tell you of the last little misguided sailor we had


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Absolutely I remember them being done.  I am simply of the opinion that the 5B is the "lazy" way to take corrective action.  And I am the opinion that 5Bs are meant for professional development and to point out areas of one profession that should be improved on in order to succeed and grow.
> 
> Behavior, Conduct and Discipline failures, while professional failings as well, should be addressed through the IC, RW, C&P process as I this is what it is designed for and is under utilized.  Too many shit pumps have just been passed along without the proper admin action being taken which has led to a continued waste of rations on people who should be dealt with.
> 
> Sometime we get to share a table at the Sgts&WOs again I will tell you of the last little misguided sailor we had



The LS who came in  as an OS and whom didn't have QL4s.  Who had supervisors who expected her to just osmose into a competent Cpl overnight despite her having come in with SFA in the way of TI, Army experience or Supply experience.  She certainly had issues to correct, but in her case she also had some supervisors who couldn't mentor a stone (who received some of their own aforementioned paperwork due to such basic leadership failure ...).

Now you know why that particular unit screens only Cpls and above for support positions. And, that was in effect before her posting in.  Imagine my shock to come back from tour to find the other Snr Tech (from outside the unit) had arranged to have her posted in to us to fill an immediate gap" while I was away. Not amused.

Oh, and she was posted, not to pass her off, but because she was (emphasis *was*) part of a Married Service Couple careers was trying to keep together.  And, to be certain, there was traffic between her gaining unit and myself prior to her posting (and after too!).


----------



## BinRat55

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Absolutely I remember them being done.  I am simply of the opinion that the 5B is the "lazy" way to take corrective action.  And I am the opinion that 5Bs are meant for professional development and to point out areas of one profession that should be improved on in order to succeed and grow.
> 
> Behavior, Conduct and Discipline failures, while professional failings as well, should be addressed through the IC, RW, C&P process as I this is what it is designed for and is under utilized.  Too many crap pumps have just been passed along without the proper admin action being taken which has led to a continued waste of rations on people who should be dealt with.
> 
> Sometime we get to share a table at the Sgts&WOs again I will tell you of the last little misguided sailor we had



This is where it becomes a matter of common sense. I disagree with your assessment of "the lazy way". I have soldier A who needs a little reinforcement but I don't want something following them around like an IC, nor do I think my CoC need be a big part of it. As a capable Sr NCO I can adequately handle it on my own (of course notifying my 1 up). I have soldier B, who was much like soldier A a few months ago but my 5B approach was not successful. An IC maybe? Sure why not?

It's called leadership. Now, don't get me wrong - there are those who go right to IC, don't pass GO and don't collect 200 bucks. But what if that soldier needed something different? This is called leadership style.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The LS who came in  as an OS and whom didn't have QL4s.  Who had supervisors who expected her to just osmose into a competent Cpl overnight despite her having come in with SFA in the way of TI, Army experience or Supply experience.  She certainly had issues to correct, but in her case she also had some supervisors who couldn't mentor a stone (who received some of their own aforementioned paperwork due to such basic leadership failure ...).



You did have leaders who tried to address the issue but they were shunted aside and made out to be meanies.  But that is not who I was alluding too. 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Now you know why that particular unit screens only Cpls and above for support positions. And, that was in effect before her posting in.  Imagine my shock to come back from tour to find the other Snr Tech (from outside the unit) had arranged to have her posted in to us to fill an immediate gap" while I was away. Not amused.
> 
> Oh, and she was posted, not to pass her off, but because she was (emphasis *was*) part of a Married Service Couple careers was trying to keep together.  And, to be certain, there was traffic between her gaining unit and myself prior to her posting (and after too!).



I think the DAGing was great and I wish we would do that in Halifax so we would stop getting people who want to be in Halifax but suddnly develope "NATO knee" when their posting to a HMC Ship arrives.  Why does sailing scare people so much ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> This is where it becomes a matter of common sense. I disagree with your assessment of "the lazy way". I have soldier A who needs a little reinforcement but I don't want something following them around like an IC, nor do I think my CoC need be a big part of it. As a capable Sr NCO I can adequately handle it on my own (of course notifying my 1 up). I have soldier B, who was much like soldier A a few months ago but my 5B approach was not successful. An IC maybe? Sure why not?
> 
> It's called leadership. Now, don't get me wrong - there are those who go right to IC, don't pass GO and don't collect 200 bucks. But what if that soldier needed something different? This is called leadership style.
> 
> Just my opinion.



No fight with me on this.  You are correct it all comes down to leadership style.  If I cant fix a minor problem with a conversation and some corrrective instruction my next move move is IC.  Again just my "style" as you say.  I have found keeping my CoC in the loop has worked in my favor when things start to spin out of control. Just my style. 

Remember that an added beifit of an IC is a tracking of behavior so future leaders can see if this has track record or if this is a one off occurance.


----------



## BinRat55

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> No fight with me on this.  You are correct it all comes down to leadership style.  If I cant fix a minor problem with a conversation and some corrrective instruction my next move move is IC.  Again just my "style" as you say.  I have found keeping my CoC in the loop has worked in my favor when things start to spin out of control. Just my style.
> 
> Remember that an added beifit of an IC is a tracking of behavior so future leaders can see if this has track record or if this is a one off occurance.



Gotcha. But you did kinda start this when you said



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I argue against this method.  The 5B is not meant for corrective action.  That is what the IC is for.  The 5B is meant for areas of a members profression that needs to be improved.



My point here IS exactly as you stated above "... a conversation and some corrrective instruction..." and a 5B are one in the same.


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> You did have leaders who tried to address the issue but they were shunted aside and made out to be meanies.  But that is not who I was alluding too.



I'll call BS on that statement right here and now.  The only one who thought any of them a meanie was perhaps the LS herself.  

Those leaders who think they may have been shunted aside, are probably the same ones who walked into my office wanting her charged etc for not being able to do tasks like the Cpls were (undirected and unsupervised) when she was NOT one of those Cpls. She was a no-hooked OS.  Mentor her for fuck sakes. Lead her.  That was their job and, as I already stated, some of them didn't do a very good job of it.  'Tis sad really.  No one learns by osmosis ... but they certainly expected it of that troop.  Thank heavens that
 those leaders weren't led by same type as themselves when they were brand new into the CAF.


----------



## BinRat55

Can you imagine if you were given an IC every time you made a mistake Vern? What would you be doing today?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Can you imagine if you were given an IC every time you made a mistake Vern? What would you be doing today?



CFB Shilo... that's where you'd be! (or Wainwright perhaps)


----------



## Halifax Tar

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Can you imagine if you were given an IC every time you made a mistake Vern? What would you be doing today?



I think we may need to separate this into another topic, no ? 

See I think this is our difference.  I define a mistake as something very minor and if not repeated not necessary to be recorded at all.  As simple verbal and non formal conversation with the instruction on how to fix the mistake is all that is necessary.  I see a mistake, in our terminology as a supply mistake, like not putting manifests on the sea containers or something minor that easily correctable like that.  And if it was repetitious behavior I would call that insubordination.

But when you get into behavior and conduct areas that is not 5B material in my opinion.  

The 5B seems to be an avenue that the Navy doesn't use.  As when I have talked about it as a corrective measure they rest of my messmates find it novel.  And I have yet to see one handed out since returning in June of last year.


----------



## BinRat55

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think we may need to separate this into another topic, no ?
> 
> See I think this is our difference.  I define a mistake as something very minor and if not repeated not necessary to be recorded at all.  As simple verbal and non formal conversation with the instruction on how to fix the mistake is all that is necessary.  I see a mistake, in our terminology as a supply mistake, like not putting manifests on the sea containers or something minor that easily correctable like that.  And if it was repetitious behavior I would call that insubordination.
> 
> But when you get into behavior and conduct areas that is not 5B material in my opinion.



So my progression goes something like this - the first one's on me (depending on the infraction of course) we will have a discussion. The second one will be noted on a PDR part 5B (with a follow up in a timely manner noted in a 5C) The third one then becomes official.

Now again I have to stress that in some instances I wholeheartedly agree with you on an IC. Soldier misses a dental I get a call. Second appt missed? 5B. Third? Systemic behaviour. Still, rather minor. Soldier explains the exact way to get somewhere in no uncertain terms to the Capt or SSM - IC for sure - maybe even charged! Severity dictates.

This is just how I do business and thus far I think I have been fairly successful. I have written many 5Bs - some have gone on to become excellent Sr NCOs. Some have gone to Club Ed.


----------



## Halifax Tar

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> So my progression goes something like this - the first one's on me (depending on the infraction of course) we will have a discussion. The second one will be noted on a PDR part 5B (with a follow up in a timely manner noted in a 5C) The third one then becomes official.
> 
> Now again I have to stress that in some instances I wholeheartedly agree with you on an IC. Soldier misses a dental I get a call. Second appt missed? 5B. Third? Systemic behaviour. Still, rather minor. Soldier explains the exact way to get somewhere in no uncertain terms to the Capt or SSM - IC for sure - maybe even charged! Severity dictates.
> 
> This is just how I do business and thus far I think I have been fairly successful. I have written many 5Bs - some have gone on to become excellent Sr NCOs. Some have gone to Club Ed.



If it works, use it!  Right ?   Its just slightly different paths to the same end.  I think we have pretty much beaten this to death


----------



## BinRat55

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> If it works, use it!  Right ?   Its just slightly different paths to the same end.  I think we have pretty much beaten this to death



 :deadhorse:

Agreed to disagree!


----------



## Lumber

I think we need to differentiate between the two seperate deficienes: conduct and performance.

Remedial measures for a conduct deficiencies should only be used if a member demonstrates an inability to perform the assigned tasks.

If the member is simply performing the given task poorly, then that is when a 5B is used. Use of the PDR part 5 is especially important when it comes to LS/Cpl and above, as it provides justification for PERs down the road. People have redressed their PERs because at no time during the year did their supervisors let them know that they they felt the member was performing poorly, and therefore did not have an opportunity to corret their definciencies. You can hand out as many PDRs during the year as you want; just make sure they are accurate. 

In terms of performance deficiencies, I echo what others have said here and it ties in generally with the way I view conduct deficiencies. Conduct that is unacceptable must go on an IC (but perhaps an offline chat would be the best initial action). However, conduct that is undesirable but not necessarily unacceptable, can and should be dealt with on a 5B, as that is an official assessment of the member's conduct. 

"You're kind of an a**hole when you are delegating tasks to subordinates. Be firm and clear; theres no need to be angry." - PDR Part 5B

"In plain sight and ear shot of his peers, you told OS Bloggins that if he was f**king useless and that if he didn't un-f**k himself you have him doing cleaning stations all f**king day, every day."  -Record Warning, Conduct Deficiency


----------



## BinRat55

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think we need to differentiate between the two seperate deficienes: conduct and performance.
> 
> Remedial measures for a conduct deficiencies should only be used if a member demonstrates an inability to perform the assigned tasks.
> 
> If the member is simply performing the given task poorly, then that is when a 5B is used. Use of the PDR part 5 is especially important when it comes to LS/Cpl and above, as it provides justification for PERs down the road. People have redressed their PERs because at no time during the year did their supervisors let them know that they they felt the member was performing poorly, and therefore did not have an opportunity to corret their definciencies. You can hand out as many PDRs during the year as you want; just make sure they are accurate.
> 
> In terms of performance deficiencies, I echo what others have said here and it ties in generally with the way I view conduct deficiencies. Conduct that is unacceptable must go on an IC (but perhaps an offline chat would be the best initial action). However, conduct that is undesirable but not necessarily unacceptable, can and should be dealt with on a 5B, as that is an official assessment of the member's conduct.
> 
> "You're kind of an a**hole when you are delegating tasks to subordinates. Be firm and clear; theres no need to be angry." - PDR Part 5B
> 
> "In plain sight and ear shot of his peers, you told OS Bloggins that if he was f**king useless and that if he didn't un-f**k himself you have him doing cleaning stations all f**king day, every day."  -Record Warning, Conduct Deficiency



That make more sense to me. After I read your post I went through (in my head of course) as many of the 5Bs I could recall and the theme IS as you put it - mainly performance related. I very rarely had conduct issues (luck or leadership either one works!) but I can't recall ever putting a conduct issue on a PDR in ANY form.

See? I can still get stuff!!

And I think that's kind of what you were saying Halifax.


----------



## Halifax Tar

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> That make more sense to me. After I read your post I went through (in my head of course) as many of the 5Bs I could recall and the theme IS as you put it - mainly performance related. I very rarely had conduct issues (luck or leadership either one works!) but I can't recall ever putting a conduct issue on a PDR in ANY form.
> 
> See? I can still get stuff!!
> 
> And I think that's kind of what you were saying Halifax.



Yup


----------



## GreenMarine

I had my question more or less answered today, when I got a call from my "boss on paper" from my home unit saying he is investigating and if need be will write my PER after I submit a brag sheet to cover the year.

And looking at the topic about IC vs 5B (pdr)... in the past writing for one or no hooks, I was told to include only 3 Strength's, 3 weaknesses and 3 areas for development. In other cases I've experience or heard that everyone has strength's, weak', and AoDs... so include at least one in each, yet seen where someone had the Strength's filled, the Weakness empty and one AoDs on nonwork related item.

I have a feeling the CAF Leadership may of flowed away the original idea and started do thing own thing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

That's what's called a shit sandwich. Good-bad-good. Can't hurt anyone's feelings.


----------



## BinRat55

GreenMarine said:
			
		

> I had my question more or less answered today, when I got a call from my "boss on paper" from my home unit saying he is investigating and if need be will write my PER after I submit a brag sheet to cover the year.
> 
> And looking at the topic about IC vs 5B (pdr)... in the past writing for one or no hooks, I was told to include only 3 Strength's, 3 weaknesses and 3 areas for development. In other cases I've experience or heard that everyone has strength's, weak', and AoDs... so include at least one in each, yet seen where someone had the Strength's filled, the Weakness empty and one AoDs on nonwork related item.
> 
> I have a feeling the CAF Leadership may of flowed away the original idea and started do thing own thing.



See that's just it - those of us who practice the use of 5Bs are done just in that manner - a 5B (with of course a 5C to assist the members shortcoming solution) without a 5A. What you are referring to (3, 3 and 3) doesn't make sense to me and here's why - there is no area on the PDR for "weaknesses". A normal PDR session is a 5A (Strengths) 5B (Areas for Development) and 5C (Action Plan).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Rare would it be where a Snr NCO can lay charges.  They may recommend them.

Same goes for RMs.  Usually, the ability to recommend is there, but the CO would normally be the signature (or the officers he/she delegates this down to;  Adjt, Coy Commanders, what have you0.

Just some perspective on the abilities, and limitations, of Snr NCOs.   ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Where I am only the RSM can charge someone (mind you I'm sure the CO could as well).


----------



## Lumber

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Where I am only the RSM can charge someone (mind you I'm sure the CO could as well).



You've got it backwards. Only the CO is authorized to lay a charge; however, he can delegate that authority (and he usually does).


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Lumber has the right of it. At the risk of a tangent, QR&O 107.02 lays out Authority to Lay Charges. Specifically, the following people can lay a charge:

a.   a Commanding Officer (CO) 

b.   an officer or NCM authorized by a Commanding Officer to lay charges

c.   a member of the Military Police assigned to investigative duties with the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.

The authority for those in a unit other than the CO, therefore, comes from the CO. Commanding Officers will rarely, however, actually lay a charge as they could likely be the Presiding Officer for the trial. COs will appoint in writing who has the authority to lay a charge. I have seen some give the authority widely while others hold it more tightly. A unit would typically assign the RSM, DCO equivalent, DSM/TQSM equivalent, sub-unit OCs and CSMs/SSMs at a minimum. In a big unit or training institution I would expect to see the list get longer (Captains, WOs and Sgts depending). Ultimately, the CO will decide based on the expert advice of his RSM and other members of the " short hallway."

As an OC or Regimental 2IC I generally stayed clear of the charging process. My SSM would conduct the investigation and consult if required with the JAG - he would keep me in the loop in that I knew that an investigation was ongoing but I would be kept in the dark regarding the details. This would allow me to the hear the trial without predjudice.  

Bottom line, your unit should publish a letter signed by the CO designating who can lay charges and everyone should know. A good place for this is Routine Orders.

Cheers,


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Sorry. I misspoke. I meant to say that the RSM is the lowest rank here that can lay a charge.


----------



## Lumber

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Rare would it be where a Snr NCO can lay charges.  They may recommend them.
> 
> Same goes for RMs.  Usually, the ability to recommend is there, but the CO would normally be the signature (or the officers he/she delegates this down to;  Adjt, Coy Commanders, what have you0.
> 
> Just some perspective on the abilities, and limitations, of Snr NCOs.   ;D



How did this end up in the thread anyhow, EITS?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Lumber said:
			
		

> How did this end up in the thread anyhow, EITS?



Just for clarity, as the wordings in the wording of the some of the posters might lead people to believe NCOs lay charges or are Initiating Authorities for RMs.


----------



## MJP

Anyone have the password for the CFPAS they can PM me?  I just need to touch up a few PERs and loathe going to work on my leave.


----------



## DAA

MJP said:
			
		

> Anyone have the password for the CFPAS they can PM me?  I just need to touch up a few PERs and loathe going to work on my leave.



PM sent.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MJP said:
			
		

> Anyone have the password for the CFPAS they can PM me?  I just need to touch up a few PERs and loathe going to work on my leave.



I do not go into work, or work, on leave.  Makes it so easy!!   ;D


----------



## DAA

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I do not go into work, or work, on leave.  Makes it so easy!!   ;D



Eye In The Sky, don't ever think about transferring over to the Reserves for a Class B contract then.  Working while on leave, is an occupational hazard.


----------



## MJP

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I do not go into work, or work, on leave.  Makes it so easy!!   ;D



Meh, considering this is for my troops and in this particular case I am the reason the work has to be done I don't mind.  There are hills I die on; this isn't one of them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

DAA said:
			
		

> Eye In The Sky, don't ever think about transferring over to the Reserves for a Class B contract then.  Working while on leave, is an occupational hazard.



I used to do the Cl B (A) gig, and didn't go to work when I was on leave then either.  My leave is my leave.   :nod:


----------



## FailTrace

Hey would anyone mind please PMing me the password for CFPAS? I've got some corrections to make and I can't make it into the office. Any help would be much appreciated.


----------



## AKa

Has anyone here opted out of the PER process?

I'm looking for the downside but having trouble seeing one.  I won't be promoted regardless.  My trade is yellow and my CM assures me that it would not prevent me from receiving a new TOS that will take me to 35 yrs.  (If I should choose to stick it out to the bitter end.)

Am I missing something?

Thanks all!


----------



## PuckChaser

Thats the whole point. If you don't want to be promoted, you opt out, and your only career implication is you're not getting promoted. You can still get posted, go on tour, but no promotion until you opt in. Only thing is, you start from scratch once you opt back in, so if you typically need 3x High Ready PERs to get promoted, you'll be waiting for those 3 PERs, they won't use your old ones.


----------



## AKa

Thank you.

Seems like the perfect way to avoid an unproductive and angst-ridden ordeal.

Cheers!


----------



## Haggis

Having CFR'd from CWO to Captain, I, too am considering opting out.  I am no longer in anyone's succession plan so opting out means that the remaining younger and succession planned captains in my unit can be ranked/merited without my influence on the numbers or standing.


----------



## George Wallace

Haggis said:
			
		

> Having CFR'd from CWO to Captain, I, too am considering opting out.  I am no longer in anyone's succession plan so opting out means that the remaining younger and succession planned captains in my unit can be ranked/merited without my influence on the numbers or standing.



But you have to remember that in the PRes, a Succession Plan is only good for the day it was drafted, and sometimes trash once it is published.  Reservists are highly mobile after they graduate from university, as most PRes Junior Officers are, and tend to leave for full-time employment far from the unit's location.  The number of people who can really be counted as "long-term prospects to become CO" may be a very short list.


----------



## Haggis

George Wallace said:
			
		

> But you have to remember that in the PRes, a Succession Plan is only good for the day it was drafted, and sometimes trash once it is published.  Reservists are highly mobile after they graduate from university, as most PRes Junior Officers are, and tend to leave for full-time employment far from the unit's location.  The number of people who can really be counted as "long-term prospects to become CO" may be a very short list.



Understood completely, George.  But, even if the whole Officer's Mess were to be taken out by a meteor, I'm not getting promoted or course loaded again in this lifetime.


----------



## ModlrMike

I'm pretty much in the same boat. I'll age out before I am a serious contender for XO. The only fly in the ointment is that the other two Lt(N)s in the unit don't want the job and are openly voicing that sentiment.

I still haven't decided if opting out is the right thing to do.


----------



## BinRat55

I opted out 2 years ago. A 3B release was inevitable and therefore promotion was impossible. You still receive PDRs and a PERX, but as stated prior, a little more "room" was made for those behind me on the merit list. It doesn't have to be a permanent thing - yes, opting back in is possible if circumstances change but we all know that there are times when we are sure they won't!

And you don't have to opt out every year. The first memo stays on your file until you recind it. Or not.


----------



## sloganc

Always been curious how this works. Is the protected B info left off till back at the office ? And is it brought back to work with a USB stick and then scrubbed .. or emailed through the firewall?


----------



## 031441

Can someone PM me the password as well please?
Should have brought the work laptop home forgot I didn't have CFPAS installed on my home machine.


----------



## dangerboy

Just wondering why there is a password on this program. It is not like you can do anything with the program except write PERs/PDRs, there is nothing sensitive on it. I guess you can make the claim that if someone finds a bunch of PER files they could read them at home, but it think that it is a stretch. Seems like judging by the number of people asking for passwords that it is just hindering the intended users.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

How do you save the draft if you can't use the same thumb drive in your pers computer and army computer?


----------



## sidemount

You should be issued a protected B usb drive and just scrub it when you go into the office. There should be scrubbers there, I usually just to the LCIS shop right next to mine as they always had a scubber handy.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I don't think it's kosher to have/process Protected B information on your personnal computer...  

Also, once a media is labelled a certain protection/classification level, you can't downgrade it without doing some significant work to it.  You can't plug Protected B media into your personnal computer.


----------



## PuckChaser

SSM is right.

I don't get why everyone is desperate for CFPAS at home. Write what dots you have, take them home. Type yourself an email with a narrative in it, and take 5 minutes copy/pasting it into the PER format at work, and you're done. Worked for me for 7 years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Put your narratives and scores in MS Word. Cut and paste the narratives and copy the dots. Way easier to modify and correct, in MS Word, also.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don't think it's kosher to have/process Protected B information on your personnal computer...
> 
> Also, once a media is labelled a certain protection/classification level, you can't downgrade it without doing some significant work to it.  You can't plug Protected B media into your personnal computer.



Reservists don't have the luxury of doing it at work. Lack of computers and time preclude it. The only way to complete them is at home. That's why they made the CFPAS program downloadable to your home PC.


----------



## BinRat55

I print out the dots at work and write the narritive at home in an email. Hit that little airplane up in the corner and it waiting for my the next morning! I redact as I go (MCpl Xxxxxxx) and I do this with the right amount of letters. Not so necessary now, but when we were filling the whole page, if I typed Cpl X at home 3 times and then copied and pasted at work - Cpl X became Cpl Laughtenschlager. Bring on the yellow!

Plus I have a Mac. There is no CFPAS option for us Mac users!


----------



## macaronicaesar

Recently reformatted my PC and lost my CFPAS install as a result. 

Can someone kindly PM the download password.


----------



## AKa

macaronicaesar said:
			
		

> Recently reformatted my PC and lost my CFPAS install as a result.
> 
> Can someone kindly PM the download password.



PM Sent.  Cheers!


----------



## SupersonicMax

recceguy said:
			
		

> Reservists don't have the luxury of doing it at work. Lack of computers and time preclude it. The only way to complete them is at home. That's why they made the CFPAS program downloadable to your home PC.



I am fairly certain you cannot process Protected B information on personnal computer.  Using Word and not using identifiable information is probably the best way to go. Being a reservist doesn't absolve someone from adhering to security directives/instuctions.


----------



## Lumber

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I am fairly certain you cannot process Protected B information on personnal computer.  Using Word and not using identifiable information is probably the best way to go. Being a reservist doesn't absolve someone from adhering to security directives/instuctions.



There is actually specific instructions that allow you to use CFPAS at home. You can fill out the dots and complete the narrative. As long as you don't fill out any of the tombstone data, nor use the member's name in the narrative, then the document is not PROB. You can then email it back to your work computer, finish processing it, and save it PROB to a stick.

It's not because he's a reservist, it's because it's within the rules.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Learn something everyday!


----------



## PuckChaser

Key words are the document is Protected B "when completed". Not complete without tombstone.


----------



## macaronicaesar

AK said:
			
		

> PM Sent.  Cheers!



Received.  

Thank you greatly.


----------



## Lumber

All of the references (yes, the CFPAS help guide) say that we are to use "bulleted lists". However, in the "Performance" section of the guide, it gives two examples, both the same sentences, with one using bullets and no-text wrap, and the other example has no bullets and does use text-wrap. At my last unit, we did not actually use bullets (dashes 'd'), but apparently, at my new unit, they did use bullets last year. 

So I directed everyone here to NOT use bullets, but now I've been directed that unless I can find something that says NOT to use bullets, I'm to get everyone to re-write their PERs with bullets (dashes) in them.

If anyone can clarify this or even better provide with an actual reference it'd be much appreicated.

Cheers


----------



## Sub_Guy

I can't help you.  But I didn't use bullets this year and I know we didn't last year either.

It never ceases to amaze me how our organization can always fuck up the simplest things.  We actually work really hard at it.


----------



## armyvern

No bullets used here either.

Although I did see PERs from units that did use them.  Either way is acceptable.

To be clear, '_whatever_' unit standard is chosen - I didn't see PERs from the same unit using _both_ standards rather each unit's PERs were all of one _or_ all of the other.


----------



## PuckChaser

This should be covered in your unit's annual PER instruction. I think I only did bullets the first year we went to 9 lines, but it's been cause and effect short sentences since.


----------



## Lumber

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> This should be covered in your unit's annual PER instruction. I think I only did bullets the first year we went to 9 lines, but it's been cause and effect short sentences since.



I did include it my instructions at the annual PER meeting/presentation... except certain people weren't there and they are now questioning my decisions...


----------



## PuckChaser

Lumber said:
			
		

> I did include it my instructions at the annual PER meeting/presentation... except certain people weren't there and they are now questioning my decisions...



Ack.

The only clarifications I've seen have been CANFORGENs, each issued around Jan/Feb for the last 3 years making slight changes. I'm not at work or I'd be able to pull some up. I'm sure the one from last year or 2014 said point form was out, sentences were cause and effect without AF and PF identified.


----------



## Lumber

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Ack.
> 
> The only clarifications I've seen have been CANFORGENs, each issued around Jan/Feb for the last 3 years making slight changes. I'm not at work or I'd be able to pull some up. I'm sure the one from last year or 2014 said point form was out, sentences were cause and effect without AF and PF identified.



Yes, I've read them all. The confusions lies in the fact that the instructions always use the term "bulleted lists", but only half the written examples actually use "bullets" (dashes, really), and from what I've seen, most units aren't using bullets.


----------



## Good2Golf

So were you responsible for drafting the Unit PER Instruction? Under whose signature did the instruction go out?  What did the CO say he/she wanted to see, re: CFPAS direction?  Who is telling you to do it differently?  ???

Something that applies in many, many, many cases in the CAF: "Sort out the C2 and the rest will follow..." :nod:

Sounds like that's what needs to happen.

:2c:

Regards 
G2G


----------



## TCM621

And whether or not the points are bulleted has a huge impact at the boards so you better get it right.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> And whether or not the points are bulleted has a huge impact at the boards so you better get it right.



 :facepalm:


----------



## TCM621

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> :facepalm:


In case it wasn't clear that was sarcasm.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> In case it wasn't clear that was sarcasm.



There is an icon for that.....

 :sarcasm:


----------



## TCM621

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> There is an icon for that.....
> 
> :sarcasm:


Not a tapatalk.


----------



## Lumber

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So were you responsible for drafting the Unit PER Instruction? Under whose signature did the instruction go out?  What did the CO say he/she wanted to see, re: CFPAS direction?  Who is telling you to do it differently?  ???
> 
> Something that applies in many, many, many cases in the CAF: "Sort out the C2 and the rest will follow..." :nod:
> 
> Sounds like that's what needs to happen.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Have you ever worked at a reserve unit? Because of the lack of availability of my CO, I (and the TrgO) make a lot of decisions on his behalf (and the XO's for that matter) in order to keep the unit running.


----------



## dapaterson

Lumber said:
			
		

> Have you ever worked at a reserve unit? Because of the lack of availability of my CO, I (and the TrgO) make a lot of decisions on his behalf (and the XO's for that matter) in order to keep the unit running.



Hopefully, the CO (or XO) empowers you to act on his/her behalf when necessary.

Res units I know have a very close relationship between the Reg F officer and the CO, with regular emails & phone calls so they stay on the same wavelength.


----------



## Lumber

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hopefully, the CO (or XO) empowers you to act on his/her behalf when necessary.
> 
> Res units I know have a very close relationship between the Reg F officer and the CO, with regular emails & phone calls so they stay on the same wavelength.



The CO and do, and we frequently talk via text or phone call (not always during working out...sigh...), but I guess I was just saying that he did not give me any specific direction wrt his expectations toward PERs, and that I was not surprised by it.


----------



## Good2Golf

Lumber said:
			
		

> Have you ever worked at a reserve unit? Because of the lack of availability of my CO, I (and the TrgO) make a lot of decisions on his behalf (and the XO's for that matter) in order to keep the unit running.



No, just commanded a RegF unit.  However, you have missed the point and taken things personally.

My point in asking you the questions I did was not as personal critique, but rather to note that the CO either needs to: a) explicitly give direction regarding how the unit will conduct itself for the 15/16 assessment period; or b) approve a recommendation that his/her senior staff propose and present for his/her approval.  

Personnel assessment, whether Regular or Reserve force (and I would add, annual PSPAs for DND civilian employees as applicable) is important enough an issue that the chain of command should be actively engaged.  If it isn't the case of a) above, then it has to be b).  "c)" - staff directing what should be a command policy, while worthy of an initiative dot on the PER, is not how things should be done.  Perhaps the CO said, "I don't give a crap, you write something up and send it out..."  That would be a crappy (and clearly unacceptable) attitude, but...a few of us here has probably seen similar, or even worse.  OTOH, perhaps the CO was task saturated and didn't appreciate that the annual unit direction hadn't gone out yet?  Yes, the CO should be tracking all that, but it is also up to staff officers to support their respective levels of command and provide solutions where appropriate, and that is where "b)" above would come into play.  



> I guess I was just saying that he did not give me any specific direction wrt his expectations toward PERs, and that I was not surprised by it.



It sounds like perhaps the CO could be running a tighter ship, administratively, but are you saying that you didn't ask him about the PER unit direction and just wrote up a unit-level directive on your own, and now you're asking about how to clarify issues arising from not clarifying things with the CO in the first place?

I guess I would go back to the last line of my previous post, where I noted the value in sorting out the C2 (i.e. command-related) issues first.  Perhaps for next year's PER season, you might want to ask the CO if he has any overarching direction prior to your providing him with a draft that you will thereafter ask him to sign, for you to be able to administer and implement the direction.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Lumber

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No, just commanded a RegF unit.  However, you have missed the point and taken things personally.



I appologize for my tone; I didn't take it personally. 

I agree, I would have preferred much more direction. Now, having spent the last year trying to keep my head above water, I'll know what to look/ask for next year.


----------



## Ayrsayle

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No, just commanded a RegF unit.  However, you have missed the point and taken things personally.
> 
> My point in asking you the questions I did was not as personal critique, but rather to note that the CO either needs to: a) explicitly give direction regarding how the unit will conduct itself for the 15/16 assessment period; or b) approve a recommendation that his/her senior staff propose and present for his/her approval.
> 
> Personnel assessment, whether Regular or Reserve force (and I would add, annual PSPAs for DND civilian employees as applicable) is important enough an issue that the chain of command should be actively engaged.  If it isn't the case of a) above, then it has to be b).  "c)" - staff directing what should be a command policy, while worthy of an initiative dot on the PER, is not how things should be done.  Perhaps the CO said, "I don't give a crap, you write something up and send it out..."  That would be a crappy (and clearly unacceptable) attitude, but...a few of us here has probably seen similar, or even worse.  OTOH, perhaps the CO was task saturated and didn't appreciate that the annual unit direction hadn't gone out yet?  Yes, the CO should be tracking all that, but it is also up to staff officers to support their respective levels of command and provide solutions where appropriate, and that is where "b)" above would come into play.
> 
> It sounds like perhaps the CO could be running a tighter ship, administratively, but are you saying that you didn't ask him about the PER unit direction and just wrote up a unit-level directive on your own, and now you're asking about how to clarify issues arising from not clarifying things with the CO in the first place?
> 
> I guess I would go back to the last line of my previous post, where I noted the value in sorting out the C2 (i.e. command-related) issues first.  Perhaps for next year's PER season, you might want to ask the CO if he has any overarching direction prior to your providing him with a draft that you will thereafter ask him to sign, for you to be able to administer and implement the direction.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I certainly agree with the level of importance PERs have - but the lack of availability of a CO does have profound effects on how things typically run in a Reserve Unit.  What Lumber describes is not an unusual occurrence - While I doubt a CO would take the cavalier attitude of "Write it up and send it out, I don't care", he certainly has a limited window in which to handle all Unit business and/or provide direction to his staff.  His staff therefore, out of necessity, often have to fill in the blanks and obtain approval for a final product with minimal input.

Is it ideal? Absolutely not - but having talked to a number of my peers, it is common.

Sorting out C2 would entail having everyone available to "sort it out" - a luxury most Reserve Units do not have.


----------



## dapaterson

Getting the CO's attention is not a problem unique to Reserve units.


----------



## armyvern

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Getting the CO's attention is not a problem unique to Reserve units.



True enough.  But, there are ways!!    >


----------



## Good2Golf

Lumber said:
			
		

> I appologize for my tone; I didn't take it personally.
> 
> I agree, I would have preferred much more direction. Now, having spent the last year trying to keep my head above water, I'll know what to look/ask for next year.



And I genuinely wish you the best during your time at the unit, administrative frustrations aside!  :nod:

Cheers
G2G


----------



## GodinDDMG

could someone send email me or pm me a password for the cfpas dl plz i forgot i dont have it already installed on this comp at home.  

Thanks in advance


----------



## AKa

GodinDDMG said:
			
		

> could someone send email me or pm me a password for the cfpas dl plz i forgot i dont have it already installed on this comp at home.
> 
> Thanks in advance



PM sent with password.

Cheers!


----------



## 525Charlie

Could someone PM me the CFPAS password? Just got a new computer.

Cheers


----------



## turbopseidon

i could also use the password, it was on my computer and it wont reinstall now and i have a PDR due on monday. thanks


----------



## AKa

A word of caution about opting-out; phrase your reasoning carefully or it can be used in a manner that you do not expect.

I attributed my wish to opt-out to my impending retirement.  No specific timeframe was provided.  I have almost 31 years in and I didn't want the unnecessary fuss of PERs for the last 2-4 years.  My Career Manager has chosen to interpret this as a risk that I could submit a 30 day release at any time and has formally amended my posting dates accordingly to mitigate this risk.  While this isn't the end of the world, it is annoying and inconvenient.  And almost ironically, it likely moves my earliest possible release date a year closer as I had no intention of releasing from this position.

Cheers!


----------



## 63 Delta

Re-digging this post up. I have one in trade PER, followed by two PER Exemptions for 2 years in a row do to trades training. I had PER's from my previous trade 3 years ago, and am unsure if they would be used in this circumstance do to the timeframe.

Any insight would be appreciated.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I asked a similar question a few years ago.  I was told they Board will only look at the last 3 PERs or combo of PERs/PERXs.  If you have 1 PERX and 2 PERs, the PERX is removed and they average the 2 PERs.  My former trade PERs were not used in my case.

You had a PER in your current trade, then 2 PERXs while on trg?  I've seen instances where units made decisions about getting a PER/PERX contrary to the CFPAS policy and people not merit when they should have because of this.   :2c:


----------



## Good2Golf

Is not a PERX the members choice, and one that a member need not accept if they don't wish?  Unless a course completely covers a reporting period, does not a PER need to be completed? ???


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Not necessarily the mbr's choice, but in some cases their benefit.  Example, if you OTd recently with a Ready or Immediate prior to your OT, the PERX would be to the mbr's benefit over a Developing.

There are provisions in the CFPAS policy for when a PERX shall be given, but there are instances where the spirit/intent/written policy in CFPAS is replaced with units/other people's opinions about if you get a PER while doing MOC trg beyond initial occ trg.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ...there are instances where the spirit/intent/written policy in CFPAS is replaced with units/other people's opinions about if you get a PER while doing MOC trg beyond initial occ trg.



This is a major issue.  Lack of units' discipline in actually following the policy.  :nod:


----------



## Dey

also need to d/l CFPAS, can anyone provide a password?

Thanks


----------



## AKa

PM sent with password.

Happy to provide the password to anyone who needs it.

Cheers!


----------



## Dissident

What are your experiences with assessing reserve corporal, which are in reserve assigned position, but working alongside RegF counterparts?

While I am a reserve chauvinist, there is a definite technical gap in our trade between the PRes and RegF members. Where I am right now the PRes are being assessed based on the same criteria as all the other corporals, with predictable results. 

I am a little dismayed at the results. I just don't think it's fair to set the same benchmark for everyone. For the record I am in a RegF slot in another rank, so this doesn't affect me.


----------



## George Wallace

My experience was that Reservists were ranked against their peers in their Reserve unit, not against a Reg Force establishment.  If they were on a Class B with the Reg Force, then that would be taken into consideration at their Reserve unit and a check in the box/'Brownie Points' for their external to unit training/experience, as would a Class B or Class C deployment.   For the most part, other than a PER on Tour, the PER is written by the parent Reserve unit, not a Reg Force unit.  That is not to say that a Reg Force unit employing Reservists should not be writing PDRs on the pers they employ, just because they may be Reservists.  Those PDRs would be sent to the Reserve unit for their records/info and writing of their PER on the individual. 

[Edit to add:  I am thinking of the short term Class B cases of 180 days to 360.]


----------



## McG

I have always seen PERs written by the employing unit for PRL reservists.

The ranking box in the left margin is for ranking within occupation, and reservists are different occupations so always ranked separate from Reg F in this location.  However ranking in the narrative of the additional review is supposed to be at the assessed rank across all occupations ... but I have seen this section written to constrain the ranking within component (where it looked better to the benefit of the assessed member).  

All that being said, I think the question was intended to ask about scoring as opposed to ranking.  Performance is scored against the job, so if a reservist is not achieving the job requirements then performance would be scored low.  Potential scoring might be a little difficult.  It could be some traits are more important in a PRes MCpl than in a Reg F MCpl (and vice versa), and it would not be wrong to consider this when scoring.


----------



## 7895123

Friends/Strangers,

Quick question relating to PERs while on tour longer than 180 days.  I've heard from some that while on tour for more than 180 days you receive a tour "PER" vice a tour "PDR".  Contrary to most things I can read in the unclass regs this makes sense to me, as it seems obvious to judge someones actions where they spend a majority of their career during the year.

Is there any merit to this?  Specifically a QR&O on that matter?

Keep in mind I've:

  a) Searched the forums (there should be a custom string search, not a find every "per" in any work like "perfect".)

  b) Have little to no access to the low-side due to said tour.

  c) Have little faith in rumors and I'm looking for total truth in the matter.  My chain said they'd be pumped to write me a PER vs a PDR (because I kick ass, obviously) but I want to know if anyone can allude to whether or not a PER fits this case.  I am going to get time on a low-side in the future but don't want to waste anyone's time if it's not at all true.

V/R,


----------



## DAA

7895123 said:
			
		

> Friends/Strangers,
> Quick question relating to PERs while on tour longer than 180 days.  I've heard from some that while on tour for more than 180 days you receive a tour "PER" vice a tour "PDR".  Contrary to most things I can read in the unclass regs this makes sense to me, as it seems obvious to judge someones actions where they spend a majority of their career during the year.
> Is there any merit to this?  Specifically a QR&O on that matter?
> Keep in mind I've:
> a) Searched the forums (there should be a custom string search, not a find every "per" in any work like "perfect".)
> 
> b) Have little to no access to the low-side due to said tour.
> 
> c) Have little faith in rumors and I'm looking for total truth in the matter.  My chain said they'd be pumped to write me a PER vs a PDR (because I kick ***, obviously) but I want to know if anyone can allude to whether or not a PER fits this case.  I am going to get time on a low-side in the future but don't want to waste anyone's time if it's not at all true.
> V/R,



Have you downloaded the CFPAS PER program to see just what it says within the "Help File"?  I'm sure that will answer all your questions and then some.   Need the PW, send me a PM.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/en/index.asp


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CJOC also has an Admin Instruction that gives additional direction on Theatre PERs.  Example, OP IMPACT; 90+ days requires a Theatre PER, 89 days or less and its a PDR.  The PDR from theatre then _should_ be incorporated into your PER for that reporting year/FY.  

I can't remember the exact CJOC ref name, but if I think of it can post the DWAN link next week when I am back at the Happy House.


----------



## 7895123

DAA said:
			
		

> Have you downloaded the CFPAS PER program to see just what it says within the "Help File"?  I'm sure that will answer all your questions and then some.   Need the PW, send me a PM.
> 
> http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cfpas-sepfc/en/index.asp



That's a great idea!  I should have thought of that...  Thanks a lot!  And please could you PM me the password?  I imagine it's a Google away but my time online is limited for obvious reasons.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> CJOC also has an Admin Instruction that gives additional direction on Theatre PERs.  Example, OP IMPACT; 90+ days requires a Theatre PER, 89 days or less and its a PDR.  The PDR from theatre then _should_ be incorporated into your PER for that reporting year/FY.
> 
> I can't remember the exact CJOC ref name, but if I think of it can post the DWAN link next week when I am back at the Happy House.



And thank you!  That is exactly what I needed to know!  Also 90+!  I didn't realize that either.  There may be a lot more PER's going around than we all initially thought.  I do appreciate the offer on the link but I think that about answers my question, if I can get into CFPAS and find the basics, and get the CJOC info form the LOG here I should be set!

Thanks both!


----------



## Mediman14

I'm just putting this out there on not what to say on a PDR! A colleague of mine received a PDR that made reference to her new diagnosis of a learning disability as four separate "areas of development" points. When the officer (the one who wrote the PDR)was asked about it during the interview - the response was "no biggie - its only a one man thought process about you, if you grievance it, it only shows the lack of leadership that you are unable to take constructive criticism".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

???


----------



## ModlrMike

I suppose you could grieve anything, that being said it may be hard to grieve a PDR. None the less, a "Notice of Intent to Grieve" would sure put a spotlight on the author.


----------



## mariomike

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I'm just putting this out there on not what to say on a PDR! A colleague of mine received a PDR that made reference to her new diagnosis of a learning disability as four separate "areas of development" points. When the officer (the one who wrote the PDR)was asked about it during the interview - the response was "no biggie - its only a one man thought process about you, if you grievance it, it only shows the lack of leadership that you are unable to take constructive criticism".



Re-read some of your previous threads. Would you say the situation is improving, worsening or remains the same?

OP: Mediman14 
Redress PER
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/25156/post-1357332.html#msg1357332
"My particular unit has a lot of corruption that is never dealt with. atleast it seems that way!"

OP: Mediman14 
Complaints/ Investigation  
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/115644/post-1316982.html#msg1316982
2 pages.
Locked.

OP: Mediman14 
What ever happen to the days....  
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/124071/post-1454150.html#msg1454150

OP: Mediman14 
Am I allowed to record conversations at work? 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/career-advice/experts/am-i-allowed-to-record-conversations-at-work/article21877154/

OP: Mediman14 
Court Martial  
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/118186/post-1355145.html#msg1355145

OP: Mediman14 
Leadership  
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/119708/post-1373863.html#msg1373863
"I don't need to be talked to in an aggressive tone."

OP: Mediman14 
Severe Reprimand  
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/121417/post-1406476.html#msg14064

OP: Mediman14 
Advice needed  
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/122517/post-1425963.html#msg1425963
"We all worked in positions that are "soul sucking". But when a position causes mental health issues, is it worth placing a grievance in to the CO?"

OP: Mediman14 
The Better Approach 
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/122861/post-1431943.html#msg1431943
"Gone are the days of being direct and right to the point without someone taking offence."

OP: Mediman14 
Promoted too early?
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/25156/post-1417619.html#msg1417619

etc...


----------



## DAA

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> I'm just putting this out there on not what to say on a PDR! A colleague of mine received a PDR that made reference to her new diagnosis of a learning disability as four separate "areas of development" points. When the officer (the one who wrote the PDR)was asked about it during the interview - the response was "no biggie - its only a one man thought process about you, if you grievance it, it only shows the lack of leadership that you are unable to take constructive criticism".



Why not say this and it's actually a good time to say it!  The PDR Process is there for a reason and that reason is to inform individuals of their current performance, whilst providing sufficient feedback and guidance to allow them to address and be successful by improving on their "observed" weaknesses during the year, so that when the times comes for them to receive their Annual PER, there are NO surprises.

CFPAS Manual, Chap 1, Art 117......

1.  The reporting of other factors in the PER will be done as follows: 

a.  compassionate, administrative, medical and/or disciplinary problems are to be commented on when they result in restricted employment and/or affect the individual's performance, deportment, behaviour and/or bearing.

The Supervisor should and appears to be informing the member that this is a PDR noted problem which could very well end up on the Annual PER.   I don't see anything wrong with this, other than the comments by the Supr that followed when they were challenged.


----------



## GnyHwy

The PDR is for the position, not the person. If persons are distorting that, they are wrong. Some mods are required as the position evolves, but should be minimal and not favour or hinder the person in the position. 

Ironically, the intent of the PDR/PER system was to enable objectiveness and diminish the merit system.

Oops! 

Add in succession planning and it gets really messed up!


----------



## Mediman14

Marionmike - Situation remains the same - "same pile, different shovel"


----------



## mariomike

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Situation remains the same, if anything , it's "same pile, different shovel"



 ;D < Laughing at the expression, NOT you!


----------



## Scoobs

Could someone please PM me the password?

Thanks.


----------



## AKa

PM sent with password.

Anybody who needs the password is welcome to PM me directly.  

Cheers,

AK


----------



## ccwhite2016

Are PER's protected B?  If so, can we post them publicly?


----------



## REDinstaller

If they are his then he can publish them if he wants. If they were yours then no, they must be protected by him.


----------



## ccwhite2016

Thanks!


----------



## Lightguns

Not something I would do!  Issues, issues and hammer home issues but it will help the low info voters.


----------



## DAA

ccwhite2016 said:
			
		

> Are PER's protected B?  If so, can we post them publicly?



Generally speaking, once you enter a Svc # or any other type of personal identifying information on the PER, it will become PB.  If the PER belongs to you, then you can do whatever you want with it.  But I wonder why you would want to post it "publicly"?


----------



## mariomike

DAA said:
			
		

> But I wonder why you would want to post it "publicly"?



For "Likes"?


----------



## BoMoRcEaU

Could someone please PM me the password?

Thank you!


----------



## Broken Tired 031

So the 819 phone number isn't working, can anyone hook me up with the password?


----------



## 211RadOp

Broken Tired 031 said:
			
		

> So the 819 phone number isn't working, can anyone hook me up with the password?





			
				BoMoRcEaU said:
			
		

> Could someone please PM me the password?
> 
> Thank you!



Sent to both of you.


----------



## biron

Good morning, can someone send me the password to downlaod CFPAS pleas




Thank you


----------



## 211RadOp

biron said:
			
		

> Good morning, can someone send me the password to downlaod CFPAS pleas
> 
> 
> Thank you



Sent


----------



## Albator_IIII

Good evening, I require  password as well. 

Thanks.


----------



## CommRsch291

Could I also get the password for the CFPAS download

Thank you!


----------



## murrdawg

I've emailed the folks from the website, no answer yet, definitely need a copy by Friday for when I'm gone on TD to do a PER. Can anyone provide me with the password? I know this is an older thread, but it would be great if someone could help me out!


----------



## Nfld Sapper

murrdawg said:
			
		

> I've emailed the folks from the website, no answer yet, definitely need a copy by Friday for when I'm gone on TD to do a PER. Can anyone provide me with the password? I know this is an older thread, but it would be great if someone could help me out!



Check you pm's.


----------



## Gypsy030

Can someone PM me the password please

Thanks!


----------



## JMesh

Could someone PM me the password as well?


----------



## RobLeBMP

Could someone please PM me the password .. reaching the 819 phone number in Quebec is almost impossible (Voice mail) ;D


----------



## Mediman14

Does anyone know why units hold PER boards in Early Jan or Feb? Are those scores written in stone?  If the reporting period is always from 31 Mar to 1 Apr. Apparently, according to CSM, the scores are set. Just sounds so wrong to me, Also according to him, only the CO can change a PER Score. I hope he is joking!


----------



## McG

You will want to have a look at paragraph 5b of CANFORGEN 010/17.


----------



## Lumber

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Does anyone know why units hold PER boards in Early Jan or Feb? Are those scores written in stone?  If the reporting period is always from 31 Mar to 1 Apr. Apparently, according to CSM, the scores are set. Just sounds so wrong to me, Also according to him, only the CO can change a PER Score. I hope he is joking!



The ranking boards are NOT used to determine PER scores. Supervisors are to assess their personnel as honestly as they can, with obvious room for adjustment pending input from higher supervisors. The ranking boards are only to determine a members section 6 ranking, which is more overall and more general assessment of how the member compares against all other members of their rank in the unit. 

In theory,  you could have the "number 2" corporal at the unit having a higher PER score than the "number 1" corporal if everyone thinks he's superior but number 2's boss/chain of command tend to be more generous with their hard right bullets .


----------



## Navy_Pete

Ideally supervisors go to the ranking board with draft scores and a 'brag sheet' to justify the scores, but they aren't fixed.  If you do them inside the reporting periods (due to opsched etc) it should be with the understanding that the scores/ranking can be adjusted if someone does something above and beyond or gets up to shenanigans, gets promoted, etc.  Some units do actually wait until end March to do the rankings; it really all depends on what's going on, and tends to roll down from higher direction for when things are getting submitted for review for higher authority (if required) or the formation level rankings.

Normally that's run through the PER monitoring organization who also does all the reviewing etc who are typically the POC for all things PERs including changes to scoring and ranking before it goes to the CO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MCG said:
			
		

> You will want to have a look at paragraph 5b of CANFORGEN 010/17.



...and the CFPAS Help File...


----------



## AirDet

That CANFORGEN was given full distribution but the local pecking orders are still happening. I've already seen it and raised the flag. Old habits die very hard.


----------



## Lumber

AirDet said:
			
		

> That CANFORGEN was given full distribution but the local pecking orders are still happening. I've already seen it and raised the flag. Old habits die very hard.



What my fear is this; we have different departments with different supervisors who have different opinions on how to score PERS.

So, we do the ranking board, and we determine Cpl A is the top Cpl at the unit, and Cpl B is the second best at the unit. That will go in the Section 6. 

However, Cpls A and B are from different departments. Cpl A's supervisors give a completely honest assessment of him, and as a result, he has a hard right, but not fully right, PER. Cpl B's department, on the other hand, has supervisors who give you a fully right PER just because they know you are good shit, without really looking at the word pictures and assessing each factor on its merits.

As a result, while the unit determined and agreed as a whole that Cpl A was the "superior" of the two Cpl, his PER is actually lower than the PER of Cpl B.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Lumber said:
			
		

> What my fear is this; we have different departments with different supervisors who have different opinions on how to score PERS.
> 
> So, we do the ranking board, and we determine Cpl A is the top Cpl at the unit, and Cpl B is the second best at the unit. That will go in the Section 6.
> 
> However, Cpls A and B are from different departments. Cpl A's supervisors give a completely honest assessment of him, and as a result, he has a hard right, but not fully right, PER. Cpl B's department, on the other hand, has supervisors who give you a fully right PER just because they know you are good crap, without really looking at the word pictures and assessing each factor on its merits.
> 
> As a result, while the unit determined and agreed as a whole that Cpl A was the "superior" of the two Cpl, his PER is actually lower than the PER of Cpl B.



Sometimes that is justified though, particularly if they are different trades with different scores required to merit nationally.  The question to ask is do this Cpl's deserve to be promoted?  If the answer is yes then the next question is what score is required to do that in there trade?  For example a MSE Op Cpl might only need a 14/2 5/1 and that will do the job.  But for an EO Tech he needs at least two years of 16/6 just to get in the top 5 of his trade....knowledge of national trends is required to situate the estimate.  But that EO Tech Cpl may still only be the #2 Cpl in the the unit and the MSE Op is #1....

Jon


----------



## Lumber

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Sometimes that is justified though, particularly if they are different trades with different scores required to merit nationally.  The question to ask is do this Cpl's deserve to be promoted?  If the answer is yes then the next question is what score is required to do that in there trade?  For example a MSE Op Cpl might only need a 14/2 5/1 and that will do the job.  But for an EO Tech he needs at least two years of 16/6 just to get in the top 5 of his trade....knowledge of national trends is required to situate the estimate.  But that EO Tech Cpl may still only be the #2 Cpl in the the unit and the MSE Op is #1....
> 
> Jon



And that's what the problem is with the whole system. You should ever ask yourself "what scores does he need to get promoted", you should be reading over PDRs, divisional notes and anything else you have on the member, then reading the word pictures, the determining whether his performance more closely matches "Outstanding" or "Above Average". 

If all we did was first determine "should they get promoted" and then determine "what score do they need to get promoted", and simply put that on their PER, then the entire CFPAS process and the PER have been made superfluous.

Which it has...

Which is why when you have an "honest" boss it kind of sucks.


----------



## thetratveller172

Any Chance I could get this password also?


----------



## jkdunbar

Can I get a PM too?


----------



## Laco697

Can I get a password too pls


----------



## xRackemupx

Can i get a PM for password as well


----------



## AKa

Okay, I've PM-ed the password to the last 6 people who requested the password here, as there is no indication whether the info is still required or not.

As I previously noted deeper in this thread, anyone is free to PM me directly to get the password.  

Cheers,

AK


----------



## Patlach

I could use the password!! can you send it to me?


----------



## Robbie

Anyone on right now that can send me the password?

Thank you.


----------



## Lumber

Password please! Thanks all!


----------



## cdnnvyguy

Could someone please pm me with said password as well. TIA


----------



## Queen For A Day

letmein


----------



## AKa

I'm not sure publicly posting the password is appropriate.

While the staff suggested the we share the password widely with *other military personnel,* if they had wanted it available to everybody, I suspect that they would have posted it.  

my  :2c:

AK


----------



## C17 Tech

AK said:
			
		

> I'm not sure publicly posting the password is appropriate.
> 
> While the staff suggested the we share the password widely with *other military personnel,* if they had wanted it available to everybody, I suspect that they would have posted it.
> 
> my  :2c:
> 
> AK



The CDS posted it online in June 2012. Google: "Maple Leaf" & CFPAS. First hit: publications.gc.ca

 The Taliban and ISIL don't get to see the chapters on pecking order, reprisals, and bun tosses though.

Or you could have Googled this:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/password-and-letmein-among-worst-passwords-ever-1.729935


----------



## BCFrenchy

Hi, I did send a request for the password on the CFPAS web site and I didn't received anything and I also tried to call but no chance.  Now I'm stuck at home with 5 PER to write, can someone help me with the password to download CFPAS please.


----------



## Queen For A Day

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/dn-nd/D12-7-15-6-eng.pdf


----------



## BCFrenchy

Thanks, really appreciated  [


----------



## da1root

USS and ISSO here 

If just the information at the top of the PER is filled out technically it's only Protected A. For those that fill out the PER with all the write up but leave the tombstone data out, it's still Protected B and as an ISSO if I had to do an ISSIR on this I would classify it as a security breach.  Please don't try the "but it only says Cpl Bloggins in it", I can tell you that by reading the write-up I will very likely be able to tell you who the PER is for and it should be encrypted.

As for "copies", in accordance with CFPAS there are only two versions allowed to be in existence once the PER is completed and signed by all parties. The original goes on a merit file (the merit file exists in different places for RegF vs NAVRES vs Militia), one copy is made and given to the individual who's PER it is.  That is it, that is all - any other copies are in contravention of CFPAS.

What a member decides to do with their PER is up to them, it's their document and information regarding them.  If they want to scan it and post it to Facebook, all the more power to them.  If anyone else has a copy of it, it's in contravention of CFPAS.  If anyone else an electronic copy of it and it's not encrypted than it's an IS Security Infraction and an ISSIR should be completed.

Advice from an ISSO... encrypt working copies, once they're delivered to the individual, delete all electronic copies and ensure you don't have "working copies."


----------



## Occam

DAA said:
			
		

> But I wonder why you would want to post it "publicly"?



Phallic dimensional comparison?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Buck_HRA said:
			
		

> USS and ISSO here
> 
> If just the information at the top of the PER is filled out technically it's only Protected A. For those that fill out the PER with all the write up but leave the tombstone data out, it's still Protected B and as an ISSO if I had to do an ISSIR on this I would classify it as a security breach.  Please don't try the "but it only says Cpl Bloggins in it", I can tell you that by reading the write-up I will very likely be able to tell you who the PER is for and it should be encrypted.
> 
> As for "copies", in accordance with CFPAS there are only two versions allowed to be in existence once the PER is completed and signed by all parties. The original goes on a merit file (the merit file exists in different places for RegF vs NAVRES vs Militia), one copy is made and given to the individual who's PER it is.  That is it, that is all - any other copies are in contravention of CFPAS.
> 
> What a member decides to do with their PER is up to them, it's their document and information regarding them.  If they want to scan it and post it to Facebook, all the more power to them.  If anyone else has a copy of it, it's in contravention of CFPAS.  If anyone else an electronic copy of it and it's not encrypted than it's an IS Security Infraction and an ISSIR should be completed.
> 
> Advice from an ISSO... encrypt working copies, once they're delivered to the individual, delete all electronic copies and ensure you don't have "working copies."



No encryption needed if it is on a Protected B medium and properly stored.


----------



## Nuggs

I may be mistaken on this one but I believe the treasury board regs require all GC removable media to be encrypted.


----------



## Occam

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> No encryption needed if it is on a Protected B medium and properly stored.



As far as DWAN machines go, Protected A is authorized for processing and storage, while Protected B is only authorized for processing.  Any storage must be PKI encrypted.


----------



## Lumber

Nuggs said:
			
		

> I may be mistaken on this one but I believe the treasury board regs require all GC removable media to be encrypted.



True, however, TB regs also state :



> Only on an exception basis, as per departmental / agency risk tolerance and with formal departmental / agency approval, may unencrypted GC information be stored on a non-password or non-biometric controlled portable data storage device



And the _department_ of National defense makes such an exception:

... 

Can't find it off DWAN. Anyways, the policy from ADM(IM) is pretty much verbatim what the TB policy is, but it adds a para that reads something like: " portable data storage devices, if not intended to contain classified material, are not required to be encrypted". 

I can paste it tomorrow but essentially, if I can store  a hard copy PROB  file in my filing cabinet, why can't I store a PROB USB key containing unencrypted PROB files in the same filing cabinet? 

Don't even get me started on storing encrypted PROB files on hard drive...


----------



## dapaterson

It's worth consulting the DGDS website (DWAN only) for security regulations; I believe that some have been rewritten.


----------



## Lumber

According to MARPAC IS security orders, if you store PROB information on a USB stick _un_encrypted, you store the USB key in a PROB cabinet just like all your other PROB file. If, however, the PROB information_ is _encrypted, then you can store the USB stick in the same manner as a PROA file.

Now that's just one Formation in the RCN; other elements might have different policies, but the policy makes sense to me. Why would we have to lock up _and_ encrypt electronic information when the hardcopies are only locked up?


----------

