# Redress of Grievance – Mega thread [MERGED]



## Nomadfl (28 Jan 2005)

Question # 1, Can you do a Redress of Grievance after retiring?

Question # 2, What is the time limit, if it is possible to Redress a Grievance


----------



## garb811 (28 Jan 2005)

If you are already retired you cannot submit a redress.   The following is extracted from this: CFAO 19-32


> RELEASE - EFFECT ON COMPLAINTS
> 8.        Because only an officer or NCM may seek redress, a member must
> submit a complaint before the member's release from the Canadian
> Forces (CF). However, a former member may, in respect of a
> ...


----------



## big_johnson1 (4 Feb 2005)

http://www.cfga.forces.gc.ca/pubs/contact_e.asp

You can redress the day you are getting out, however once you are retired, that's it, no more chances. The redress process will go on regardless of whether you are in the forces or not. The new streamlined system is supposed to make things faster, with less Authorities in the chain, however often if the initial authority does not act favorably towards you and you pass your greivance up to the final authority (CDS or CF grievance board/adjudicator), you could be waiting quite a while. As in years. As for the time limit, well, you have up to six months, although I'd get started on it much before that if you can. Make sure you get the help of someone who is good at writting memos. A grievance needs to be well worded, and just as importantly, needs to remain respectful. Remember that it may end up in the hands of the CDS.

You cannot grieve after your release, but you can submit one on your last day if you so desire. Check the above link for more info, it's very straightforward and easy to read.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Highland Lad (4 Feb 2005)

Actually, under certain certain circumstances, you can request a redress after release (if that grievance is about the circumstances of release). I know this, 'cause I did it... When CFGA agreed that my grievance could be heard, I thought "Hey, if you have to be a member to be able to file for redress, then they have just decided that I am a member, so I must have already won!" (my grievance was that I was released improperly)... Despite that, I lost, but the final decision was that my release was irregular, but still administratively OK... It took them 6 yrs to reach that decision!!! (It did make it all the way up to the CDS) In the end, because of the circumstances of my release (and some screw-ups on my grievance), I was told that I would be able to re-join the Primary Reserve without prejudice, meaning that, as of last week, I have in my hot little hands an offer that, even after all this time, I get to keep my rank and all qualifications and put on the uniform that some pencil-necked twit of a clerk took away from me because he was a lazy little **** (sorry, not the time for a rant...)

BTW, in spite of common usage, a soldier cannot "file a redress". What you are doing in that case is filing a request for redress of a grievance. You have a grievance, and you would like it redressed (solved in your favour). This is one of my pet peeves - improper use of the English language...


----------



## someguyincanada (6 Feb 2005)

when i was doing my redress of grievance, i sent it may 25, it came back june 17, two days before i was suppose to be released, very fast turn around if you ask me...


----------



## Nomadfl (8 Feb 2005)

Thanks guys, lot's of good buddys out there to help with information when needed. I am not a virgin when it comes to redresses, I have had 3, one was when my officer commanding gave me "loss of annual leave" as a punishment...overturned by the Comannding Officer of the unit, 2nd was when I redressed a medical order in the 60's to allow vasectomies, my major,and base admin. tried to laugh it off, when it went to the Base Commander, London, people got reprimanded for not processing it in due course. My Dental Officer, a major told the Base Commander, that he was a dental officer and he knew nothing about redresses. The Federal Cabinet made an Order in Council to change that medical order to allow vasectomies...ummm...maybe, I should have got a royalty payment for everyone done in the military. The 3rd and final one was when I redressed a full Col., my Commanding Officer over a travel claim. A temporary duty trip he had sent me on. It was for 2 weeks originally, at the higher rate of POMC, it lasted for 10 weeks, then he wanted to pay me only the lower rate. He took the redress personally, told me it would affect my career, which it did, he stalled the redress, had me austrized in the unit, forbid me to talk with anyone without his personal permission, sent me to Egypt in 74 on 4 days notice, took the other sgt. off the trip and inserted me to get rid of as a punishment. Well thank goodness there were good officers over there, I was attached to a Med Unit, Lt.Col Slavic passed the redress on to Gen. Holmes the Canadian Commander, and it was sent on to the CDS in Ottawa......My Col. in Montreal was told to pay the total claim......I won the battle.....but my career was screwed....would I do it again.....yes.....I got principles....never bag licked in my life.

Can a redress screw up your career.....yes....some people in authority have long memories and close friends at the same rank level......Maybe it's different in the Forces now...I don't know...I retired in 1980


----------



## spud (27 Mar 2007)

I have read (several times) the pertinent info on filing a grievance, so if the format/makeup/composition of the grievance is there I have missed it.

Is it supposed to be in the form of a memo? Any ideas?  

Thanks in advance,

Spud


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Mar 2007)

Memo format with supporting documentation.  At least that's what I used.  Haven't had a reply since Nov 06 when it was forwarded on to the next level (past my CO).  :-\


----------



## 284_226 (27 Mar 2007)

The first level grievance authority is always the unit CO; therefore, the document will remain within the unit and should be in the form of a memorandum.  At the IA level and beyond, it becomes service letter format.

In a nutshell, the format is basically:

a) what is being grieved
b) substantiation for why the matter is being grieved
c) requested steps to remedy the matter being grieved.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Mar 2007)

Mine was submitted in memo format to the CO, who forwarded it on to the next level with a service letter (composed by the CO, himself) attached.


----------



## 284_226 (27 Mar 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Mine was submitted in memo format to the CO, who forwarded it on to the next level with a service letter (composed by the CO, himself) attached.



Yup, that's right.  When the grievance analyst at the IA level finishes investigating your grievance, they'll send you a disclosure package, which includes their evaluation of the grievance and recommendations.  You'll then have 30 days to make additional comment (in service letter form, because it's sent directly to the IA) before the whole package is sent for adjudication by the IA.


----------



## spud (27 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Yup, that's right.  When the grievance analyst at the IA level finishes investigating your grievance, they'll send you a disclosure package, which includes their evaluation of the grievance and recommendations.  You'll then have 30 days to make additional comment (in service letter form, because it's sent directly to the IA) before the whole package is sent for adjudication by the IA.



PMedMoe and 284_226, thank you for the info, it's a big help. 

Spud


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Yup, that's right.  When the grievance analyst at the IA level finishes investigating your grievance, they'll send you a disclosure package, which includes their evaluation of the grievance and recommendations.  You'll then have 30 days to make additional comment (in service letter form, because it's sent directly to the IA) before the whole package is sent for adjudication by the IA.



http://www.cfga.forces.gc.ca/pubs/griev_instruments/manual_e.asp

284-226..........

Disclosure means first ensuring the Grievor receives a copy of the written information that the deciding authority will use to make the decision.

Disclosure will be done when there is additional information that has been obtained from other sources which the grievor has not seen or had a chance to comment on.  If Cpl Bloggins submits a grievance about such and such a thing having been done to him and that this is contrary to regulation such and such........ then there is really no need for disclosure.

which includes their evaluation of the grievance and recommendations.... NO!

Of the 25-30 odd grievances I have handled in the last year.... only truly had to do disclosures once.


----------



## 284_226 (28 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> http://www.cfga.forces.gc.ca/pubs/griev_instruments/manual_e.asp
> 
> 284-226..........
> 
> ...



Yes, there is.  At the IA level of most grievances, and at the CDS level (DGCFGA), the investigation isn't done by the actual adjudicator...there are analysts that do the investigation.  They'll seek additional information as required, and make a recommendation based on all the information found.  The additional information and the recommendation are then disclosed to the grievor, who can then address anything disclosed.  That gets sent back to the IA/FA, and one of two things happens.  It gets further investigation, with additional disclosure and opportunity for comment by the grievor, or it gets passed to the adjudicator for decision.



> which includes their evaluation of the grievance and recommendations.... NO!



Every IA/FA grievance I've dealt with (as both a grievor and as an assisting member) has followed this path under the streamlined grievance process, including the one sitting in front of me that's at CDS level.  I just finished making comment on the grievance analyst's investigation and recommendations to the FA.  I suspect that the grievance analyst will have additional commentary, which will be sent back to me again for further comment - and round and round we go until neither of us has anything to add, at which point it goes to the adjudicator.



> Of the 25-30 odd grievances I have handled in the last year.... only truly had to do disclosures once.



Were they all at the CO's level?


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2007)

nope........ if you refer to my profile


----------



## 284_226 (28 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> nope........ if you refer to my profile



Well, all I can tell you is what's supposed to happen.  Whether it does or not where you work is a whole 'nother question.

Is there something I'm supposed to see in your profile, other than the fact that you've had three MOCs and have 35 years service?


----------



## Danjanou (28 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Well, all I can tell you is what's supposed to happen.  Whether it does or not where you work is a whole 'nother question.
> 
> Is there something I'm supposed to see in your profile, other than the fact that you've had three MOCs and have 35 years service?



Umm maybe where he works.


----------



## 284_226 (28 Mar 2007)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Umm maybe where he works.



I still don't see a connection here.  He works at LFQA HQ.

According to http://www.agfc.forces.gc.ca/pubs/griev_instruments/manual_e.asp, the IAs are determined by the table at para 14:

Career Administration - DGMC
PER - DGMC
Posting - DGMC
Promotion - DGMC
Release - DGMC
Financial Benefits - DGCB
Medical/Dental - DGHS
Training - Relevant ECS (Environmental Chief of Staff)

....and I don't believe any of those officers hang their hat at LFQA HQ.  LFQA HQ is not even in the "chain" under the streamlined grievance process.


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2007)

you forget....
where DMCARM does it for the Regs, the area comander will be an IA in the case of reservists.


----------



## 284_226 (28 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> you forget....
> where DMCARM does it for the Regs, the area comander will be an IA in the case of reservists.



You may well be correct.  There are 4 major IAs, and 47 minor IAs - and I have to assume that some of them are area commanders for reservists.  In the context of the discussion, however, you dismissed the notion that analysts investigate and make recommendations to the IA/FA, when your experience in the matter is limited to how the reservists handle grievances.

In any event, the vast majority of Reg Force grievances that go to the IA/FA level end up going before an analyst, who will carry out an investigation and make disclosure of any new evidence found, as well as their recommendations to the IA/FA.  It may well be that the structure of the reserves allows an individual to be both analyst and adjudicator, but it just doesn't work that way for the Reg Force.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Yup, that's right.  When the grievance analyst at the IA level finishes investigating your grievance, they'll send you a disclosure package, which includes their evaluation of the grievance and recommendations.  You'll then have 30 days to make additional comment (in service letter form, because it's sent directly to the IA) before the whole package is sent for adjudication by the IA.



Is there supposed to be some point where I am notified it has been received at the next level?  I was told it was hand delivered (mid-November) but for all I know it could be sitting at the bottom of somebody's In basket.  I checked with the grievance process on line and they only have receipt from my CO (which I also have), nothing further.  Unfortunately, I am in Borden on course, and unable to make inquiries in person.  I emailed my supervisor and asked him to check with the CO (or DCO, if necessary).  Guess I just have to wait... :


----------



## 284_226 (28 Mar 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Is there supposed to be some point where I am notified it has been received at the next level?  I was told it was hand delivered (mid-November) but for all I know it could be sitting at the bottom of somebody's In basket.  I checked with the grievance process on line and they only have receipt from my CO (which I also have), nothing further.  Unfortunately, I am in Borden on course, and unable to make inquiries in person.  I emailed my supervisor and asked him to check with the CO (or DCO, if necessary).  Guess I just have to wait... :



You're supposed to get an "Acknowledgement of Receipt" from the IA as soon as it arrives at the IA's office.  From the Grievance Manual:



> 16. Once received, the IA formally, in writing, acknowledges the date of receipt of the grievance to the Grievor. If the IA is not the CO of the Grievor, this acknowledgement is sent to the Grievor through the Grievor’s CO.



The written notification could be sitting at your CO's office, awaiting your return from course.  However, since the time limits are so strict on the grievance process now, I would expect that your CO would have made an attempt to notify you, even in your absence from the unit.  Inquiring about it is probably a good idea at this point...


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> You may well be correct.  There are 4 major IAs, and 47 minor IAs - and I have to assume that some of them are area commanders for reservists.  In the context of the discussion, however, you dismissed the notion that analysts investigate and make recommendations to the IA/FA, when your experience in the matter is limited to how the reservists handle grievances.
> 
> In any event, the vast majority of Reg Force grievances that go to the IA/FA level end up going before an analyst, who will carry out an investigation and make disclosure of any new evidence found, as well as their recommendations to the IA/FA.  It may well be that the structure of the reserves allows an individual to be both analyst and adjudicator, but it just doesn't work that way for the Reg Force.



Huh?..... 
DMCARM does not do very much for reservists (at present) though that is liable to change

Submitted by the individual to his CO, the CO will either act on the grievance if he has the power to reverse a decision taken by one of his subordinates... else it is passed on to the next Commander - who should be in a position to reverse the decision being grieved... either the Bde CCmdt or the Area GCmdt...
The GCmdt will pass grievance to the analyst (me) who will review, determine exactly what has been done and what the grievor wants to have done.  We determine the appropriate  rules & regs that apply, if & when necessary, obtain statements from other involved parties *(requiring disclosure & oportunitoy for observations here*).
Grievance file is analysed and recommedations made to resolve for / against the grievor - submitted to the GCmdt for decision.

*The analysis file isn't sent to the grievor though... * 

The decision is signed off & forwarded to the Grievor (thru his CO), his CO and the appropriate authorities for action.  CO is supposed to explain the decision to the individual - the grievor signs off on having received the decision - after which he can appeal the decision to (DGAGFC )the director general for grievances.


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2007)

Since last August (Aug 06) all grievances submitted (regardless of IA) is supposed to be registered with the Director General CF grievance authority

CO has 10 days to receive and forward to IA
IA has 14 days to acknowledge receipt & effect disclosure of documents that may come up and upon which the grievor has not had the chance to comment on - but will be used in making decision.  
Once a possible IA has received & reviewed the grievance, he must obtain a unique number from the Director general for grievances.
IA has 60 days to receive process and decide on grievance - else he has to request an extension... (could be +/- 60 day slices - depending on complexity of greivance & time required for disclosures & observations)
Once the IA has issued his decision, the grievor has 90 days to appeal the decision to the Final authority (DGCFGA).... but once the grievance gets there.... there is no time limit.  I have seen decisions come back after 1, 2 and 3 years - ya gotta be patient & you might as well permit the IA to do his thing.


----------



## 284_226 (28 Mar 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Huh?.....
> DMCARM does not do very much for reservists (at present) though that is liable to change



I didn't claim they did.  I just wasn't aware that reservists were a factor in the discussion.



> Submitted by the individual to his CO, the CO will either act on the grievance if he has the power to reverse a decision taken by one of his subordinates... else it is passed on to the next Commander - who should be in a position to reverse the decision being grieved... either the Bde CCmdt or the Area GCmdt...
> The GCmdt will pass grievance to the analyst (me) who will review, determine exactly what has been done and what the grievor wants to have done.  We determine the appropriate  rules & regs that apply, if & when necessary, obtain statements from other involved parties *(requiring disclosure & oportunitoy for observations here*).
> Grievance file is analysed and recommedations made to resolve for / against the grievor - submitted to the GCmdt for decision.
> 
> *The analysis file isn't sent to the grievor though... *



Now there's where things may differ between regs and reserves.  I know firsthand that DMCARM and DGCFGA are disclosing grievance analyses, as I've currently got a 30-odd page analysis here on my desk to which I just sent a response.


----------



## geo (28 Mar 2007)

ok...........

I have also seen a number of decisions coming out from DGCFGA (FA) ... no analysis file being sent to the individual ... but will take your word for it.

Note that, even if we did send the analysis to the individual, wouldn't make much of a difference in the end product - though it would make it virtually impossible to close 'er up in 60 days... 

(BTW - have you ever seen a serious grievance get settled in 60 days?...)


----------



## 284_226 (28 Mar 2007)

I've never seen *any* grievance solved in under 60 days.  If it's gone to paper, it's six months at least   ;D


----------



## kratz (28 Mar 2007)

Thank you to both of you (284_226  & geo) on this discussion. I have seen part of the grievance process in action and could not put all the parts together. I am not involved in one nor is anyone that I know. The knowledge on how the process actually works between the levels and groups (RegF & ResF) reduces the misinformation that flies through the lower decks.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (24 Aug 2007)

Good morning, I am looking for a template for a memo that I have to draft to my CO.  I have read the proper Admin Orders but I cannot find the type of info I will need to gather for my redress or what should be on the memo.

Thank you in advance
-M-


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Aug 2007)

My suggestion is to write it like a standard memo. Start with the first paragraph stating your intent. The second and succeeding paragraphs should itemize each point you wish to contend. The last paragraph should state the resolution you desire. Write it up and then find the person you want as an assisting officer to help you polish it before submission to the CO.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (24 Aug 2007)

Thank you.


----------



## armyvern (24 Aug 2007)

404SqnAVSTeach said:
			
		

> Thank you.



Here's one laid out for you:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34891/post-275373.html#msg275373



> PROTECTED B (1st line of page)
> 
> Memorandum
> 
> ...


----------



## BC Old Guy (25 Aug 2007)

Make certain that you are clear on what your grievance is about - it should be something that has in your opinion harmed your or caused an injustice.

Also, make certain you detail what redress you want - how to address the harm / injustice  that has been done to you.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (27 Aug 2007)

Thanks you very much guys.  I've more info here in less than a week, than I have here in over a couple months.

Very appreciated
-M-


----------



## armyvern (27 Aug 2007)

Do NOT forget to request an Assisting Officer if one is not offered up to you. Many people are unaware that they can have one assigned in a Redress of Grievance situation.

You are also allowed the AO of your choice, if that particular individual is willing, available, and uninvolved in the circumstances of the Grievance.


----------



## pte4life (24 Jun 2008)

I cant seem to find the CF Grievance Manual. Is it an annex in a daod, or qr&o? I've searched google, and CF sites, but i cant find a link or the document itself. 

Thank you for your help!


----------



## RHFC_piper (24 Jun 2008)

pte4life said:
			
		

> I cant seem to find the CF Grievance Manual. Is it an annex in a daod, or qr&o? I've searched google, and CF sites, but i cant find a link or the document itself.
> 
> Thank you for your help!



http://www.cfga.forces.gc.ca/pubs/griev_instruments/manual_e.asp


----------



## pte4life (24 Jun 2008)

Awesome, thank you very much!


----------



## pte4life (24 Jun 2008)

After reading the first page in the manual, it states :

"Officers and non-commissioned members of the CF who believe they have been aggrieved by a decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CF for which no other process for redress is provided under the NDA, and that is not specifically precluded in the NDA or QR&O, have the right to submit a grievance." 

Is there a difference between a redress and a grievance? If there is i would imagine that a redress is a less aggressive approach. I'm simply redressing/ grieving a PER that left out several of my courses and training details for the last Fiscal Year. I've referenced the grievance memo template, is this the course of action i should be taking. I dont want to upset anyone, only have an accurate PER.

Thanks again!


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jun 2008)

"Grievance" ought to be self explanatory; when you feel someone has done something which has, unfairly, caused problems for you then you *may* have a grievance; you are the aggrieved party.

Redress (which can be a verb or a noun) is the act of providing relief or satisfaction or the satisfactory outcome, itself. In fact, redress need not be 100% satisfactory (in your view) - redress might involve nothing more than a good explanation of why you were not unfairly harmed.

Does that help?


----------



## Neill McKay (24 Jun 2008)

To add a little bit, we often use "Redress" in a way that's not quite correct and is probably confusing to some: we talk about submitting a "redress of grievance" when in fact what we are submitting is a memo asking for a redress, i.e. solution, to our grievance.


----------



## Harris (24 Jun 2008)

Personally, I'd try sending a memo to your boss first and ask to have the PER edited to include the additional courses/training.  If that doesn't work, then I'd go the grievance route.  Is there some reason they weren't included, and did you mention it when you signed your PER?


----------



## RHFC_piper (24 Jun 2008)

Harris said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd try sending a memo to your boss first and ask to have the PER edited to include the additional courses/training.  If that doesn't work, then I'd go the grievance route.  Is there some reason they weren't included, and did you mention it when you signed your PER?




This is probably the best way to start...  Talk to you CoC first and address it through normal admin routes first.

This is even suggested in the manual;



> 2.2 Informal Resolution
> 
> The benefits of adopting an informal approach to complaint resolution are significant. *Informal resolution of a complaint can take less time and be far less stressful*. Where individuals undertake to resolve a complaint informally, they retain more control over the outcome, and the solutions reached are often more satisfying and more durable than those that are imposed by a third party or through more formal means. Therefore, all parties are encouraged to seek a solution to their concerns in the least formal and most appropriate means possible. The right to grieve does not preclude a verbal request for resolution directly to the Commanding Officer (CO) prior to submitting a grievance. Even after a grievance is submitted, grievors may still withdraw or have their grievances put in abeyance in favour of pursuing an informal resolution.
> 
> ...




Unless, of course, you've already tried these routes.


----------



## pte4life (25 Jun 2008)

I dont want to step on anyone's shoes, or upset anyone. It's upsetting receiving the PER which was issued to me, considering the individual left out all of my summer courses and takings. Somehow my unit lost my PDR which stated everything i did over the course of summer prob consisting of over 60% of my yearly attendance. Then my next higher asked for me to provide him with a list of all my courses and trg, and even that never reached my PER. Ironically i was praised for writing such a detailed account of events. 

Despite my frustration, I still want to have this amended in the most informal method possible, since that's likely to be the most productive method to have any sort of praise included within my evaluation. That's why i was asking if there was a difference between a redress and a grievance, even though now i know that a redress of grievance is one and the same, and that there is no separation of that form of complaint. But again, if informal methods are available, and generate acceptable progress, these  are almost always the best route to take.


----------



## RHFC_piper (25 Jun 2008)

pte4life,

I have been in much the same predicament;  For my first 4 years in, no one updated my UER or Pers File (I was listed as a Pte (R) in peoplesoft 2 years after being promoted to Cpl.).  I had no idea there was any issue until I was set to go on a course and decided to take a look at my UER...  It was blank.  It had one course report from my QL2 (BMQ) and thats it. 

Luckily, I had kept every single pay statement I ever received, kept copies of course reports and tracked, on a calendar, every exercise, event, course (including band gigs) I had ever participated in.  So, one day I sat down and updated everything and had the Pipe Major and OC sign off on everything.

So, lesson learned; Keep track of your career, 'cause someone else may not be.  (and it really is your responsibility... )


In your situation, I would suggest the informal route first; talk to you chain of command...if nothing comes of it, write a memo... if nothing comes of it after that, then file a grievance and await a redress.  As long as you don't make it a personal thing (give attitude), then you shouldn't be stepping on toes... This process is is 100% legitimate, and professional... no one should have an issue as long as you proceed without prejudice, emotion or attitude and exude nothing but professionalism... And keep track of everything; dates/times/location/details of conversation, copies of Memos and, if it goes that far; copies of statement of grievance.  
Make sure all your information is accurate and well documented.

Anyway, I hope all works out for you... and just keep a personal account of your career for just such an emergency in the future.   

Good luck.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Jun 2008)

If your PER has not left the unit, the best solution is to go through your chain of command and request to have it rewritten to include the missing information.  Last year, some minor points on my PER got changed after my supervisors and I discussed it.

If this is not the case, you will more than likely have to go through the grievance process.  Normally, you are supposed to submit this within six months of the event occurring, unless there are extenuating circumstances (you were tasked, on tour, posted, etc).  Make sure you get an assisting officer as well.

I just had a very positive conclusion to a grievance that I filed in November 2006.  It may be a long process, but try to be patient!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jun 2008)

I strongly suggest that you try to achieve your aim thru other means first, IAW Article 2.3 of the Manual.  Talk to your Chain of Command first.  If they don't take it serious, submit a memo asking to see your Platoon WO, Lt, whoever is the next highest up from where you are getting the cone of silence.

If you DO submit a grievance, I STRONGLY suggest that you request an Assisting Member IAW Art 5.3 of the Grievance Manaul.  The Assisting Member is not there to assist you in content per say or to advocate on your behalf, but they can be vital in the submission of a well-worded, clear grievance.  They will also advise you on the process, assist you to in tapping into ADR resources, etc etc.

*5.3 The Assisting Member*
The appointment of an Assisting Member is mandatory once a grievor makes a request to the CO (QR&O 7.03(1) (Assistance)). Ideally, the officer or non-commissioned member so assigned should be an individual selected by the grievor. However, if this is not practical, the CO may appoint someone else. The grievor is not obliged to accept or use the substitute offered by the CO.

The role of the Assisting Member is limited to ensuring that the grievor is familiar with the grievance rules and procedures and to helping the grievor to articulate clearly, completely and concisely the grievance and redress sought. While the Assisting Member may assist in all aspects of information and evidence gathering in support of the grievance at each level, *it is the grievor's responsibility to make their own case*. The Assisting Member is not the grievor's advocate, lawyer or representative and is not permitted to speak formally on behalf of, or in any way officially represent, the grievor within the grievance process.

Again I strongly suggest you try to do this thru lower level avenues, but encourage you to follow it thru, however the first question you might ask is will it change your PER any?  You 10-07 will always reflect any/all reserve service provided that your admin is done correctly by your unit.  Not all taskings I did ended up on my PER per say when I was PRes because there were so many of them during a given reporting period.  My UER reflected these taskings and my 10-07 as well...something to consider.  Are you concerned this will affect a future CT, or promotion or something?


----------



## pte4life (25 Jun 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> If your PER has not left the unit, the best solution is to go through your chain of command and request to have it rewritten to include the missing information.  Last year, some minor points on my PER got changed after my supervisors and I discussed it.
> 
> If this is not the case, you will more than likely have to go through the grievance process.  Normally, you are supposed to submit this within six months of the event occurring, unless there are extenuating circumstances (you were tasked, on tour, posted, etc).  Make sure you get an assisting officer as well.
> 
> I just had a very positive conclusion to a grievance that I filed in November 2006.  It may be a long process, but try to be patient!!



Can my assisting officer also be my OC? Or does the assisting officer have to be someone outside your chain of command?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jun 2008)

pte4life said:
			
		

> Can my assisting officer also be my OC? Or does the assisting officer have to be someone outside your chain of command?



It is an Assisting Member, which can be an Officer.  In my case, I used one outside my CoC but that is up to your CO and you.  Read my post above on Art 5.3


----------



## pte4life (25 Jun 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It is an Assisting Member, which can be an Officer.  In my case, I used one outside my CoC but that is up to your CO and you.  Read my post above on Art 5.3



I want my PER to be re-assessed because I feel like i am better than my PER made me out to be. As it was written, it picked out primarially negitive traits which occured over the course of 2 exercises. It seems silly to accept a negitive PER which hardly credits the soldier for their achievements, and positive contrabutions when you're being ranked amongst your peers. Especially when it has pull regarding competition for taskings, promotins and tours. I simply want to be credited for my successes, and have my training acknowledged, instead of looking like a lazy slob.


----------



## GAP (25 Jun 2008)

I am out of my lane here, but given that, is not the PER not only for recognizing effort on the part of the soldier, but on areas he/she need to improve on?  If you were noted as having areas that need improving, why not just improve? 

Remember, the person making the evaluation is on the outside looking in.....there's lots of stuff I thought I was doing adequately, sometimes terrifically, only to find out I had it all wrong from the get go.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jun 2008)

pte4life said:
			
		

> I want my PER to be re-assessed because I feel like i am better than my PER made me out to be. As it was written, it picked out primarially negitive traits which occured over the course of 2 exercises. It seems silly to accept a negitive PER which hardly credits the soldier for their achievements, and positive contrabutions when you're being ranked amongst your peers. Especially when it has pull regarding competition for taskings, promotins and tours. I simply want to be credited for my successes, and have my training acknowledged, instead of looking like a lazy slob.



Ok this changes the intent of you Grievance then, from "they didn't put a few exercises and tasking on it" to "I do not agree with my PER at all".

Correct or incorrect?  For us to give good advice, you need to give us good facts.


----------



## pte4life (25 Jun 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ok this changes the intent of you Grievance then, from "they didn't put a few exercises and tasking on it" to "I do not agree with my PER at all".
> 
> Correct or incorrect?  For us to give good advice, you need to give us good facts.



 From restructuring the chain of command, and changing from one troop to another, my higher had very little information to assess from. My unit not properly doing their job as stated in the CFPAS where "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." If my unit can't properly do this job, it effects my highers in assessing me. It sucks that the same higher who didnt have access to past PDR's because they were 'lost', didn't use the reiteration which i wrote at his request stating everything i completed, trg, crses, and quals; and i have no idea why he choose not to include any of this information, unless he lost the email, and was too proud to ask for a second copy... or maybe he just forgot about it? I dont know.

It seems to me that if they have more positive information to go off of, and i dont aggressively persue the issue - as a redress for example - then i am most likely to get benificial results. Unless you think something different? I'm more than open to hearing opinions.


----------



## pte4life (25 Jun 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I am out of my lane here, but given that, is not the PER not only for recognizing effort on the part of the soldier, but on areas he/she need to improve on?  If you were noted as having areas that need improving, why not just improve?
> 
> Remember, the person making the evaluation is on the outside looking in.....there's lots of stuff I thought I was doing adequately, sometimes terrifically, only to find out I had it all wrong from the get go.....



Ya the PER is also to report on the soldiers progress over the duratio of an entire FY. Noting on the progress of a soldier over the course of 2 ex's is a faint reflection of what the intent of such a document is to report. 

Of course i could just improve, unless what happens in actuality is that when duties are preformed well, there is not documentation or PDR's to reflect that ethic. It's all based on the paper trail, take a look at basic for example, the top rated soldiers are those who get the best marks on their tests. The actual top soldier may be a slight exception, but grades need to be substantiated by evidence. It doesn't matter how well you do your job day to day or in the field if no one takes notice and reports it. 

My point is that if there's serious and highly relivant documentation missing from my file - meaning that there is nothing for my highers to reference with regards to progress. If you have one rough ex, even in the case where it the all too common "my mistake, your fault" syndrome, as happened to me. You get a shitty review if there's nothing to counteract that point. Especially if they're newly promoted and haven't worked with you indepth for the entire year. To leave out a received promotion in the area  of 'new qualifications' on a PER is certainly at fault of a slightly overlooking, or failing to note certain aspects of the soldiers progression over the year. I dont think you can effectively argue that very strongly.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jun 2008)

As I have never redressed a PER before, I think I should opt out of advice on this subject seeing the reasons and wait for someone who has redressed a PER or dealt with a mbr who has redressed a PER to wade in, as I would simply be speaking out of my lower hole on this issue.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jun 2008)

pte4life said:
			
		

> I want my PER to be re-assessed because I feel like i am better than my PER made me out to be. As it was written, it picked out primarially negitive traits which occured over the course of 2 exercises.



If you really look at what a person may have done throughout a year in Garrison, and on Exercise; the Exercise will usually trump sitting around a hangar sipping a Tims in Garrison, when it comes down to assessing a Soldiers abilities, skills and potential.  I don't want to be condensending, but perhaps the view your superiors have of your attributes and your own view of yourself are at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Perhaps, you may want to reflect some.  It is a possibility that when the chips were down in the Field you did not shine, and many of your peers did.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jun 2008)

If you have negative points on your PER, there should be documentation on various PDRs in your file to prove it was a deficiency which was counseled but not corrected by the member. If you didn't get PDRs, you may be well on your way to having things changed, either formally or informally. How can you really be expected to correct a problem noticed by your supervisor that was big enough for a PER, if you're not told that it was a problem in the first place?


----------



## MJP (25 Jun 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you really look at what a person may have done throughout a year in Garrison, and on Exercise; the Exercise will usually trump sitting around a hangar sipping a Tims in Garrison, when it comes down to assessing a Soldiers abilities, skills and potential.  I don't want to be condensending, but perhaps the view your superiors have of your attributes and your own view of yourself are at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Perhaps, you may want to reflect some.  It is a possibility that when the chips were down in the Field you did not shine, and many of your peers did.



I agree...however it sounds like they were basing his PER on a few weekend ex's rather than a large chunk of fulltime tasking.  If I was writing him up I would put more weight on how he/she did over a long term contract rather than base an entire PER on a few weekend Ex's.  IMHO someone didn't do their homework before they wrote the PER.  I have written (as have many others) a good amount of PDRs and PERs without really knowing the soldier.  However I always got a detailed PDR Part 3/4 from the member including their supervisors name if they were from or were out of unit.  I always emailed/called their old supervisor to make sure what I was writing was accurate.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you have negative points on your PER, there should be documentation on various PDRs in your file to prove it was a deficiency which was counseled but not corrected by the member. If you didn't get PDRs, you may be well on your way to having things changed, either formally or informally. How can you really be expected to correct a problem noticed by your supervisor that was big enough for a PER, if you're not told that it was a problem in the first place?



Exactomondo!

A soldier should never see a point to improve for the first time on a PDR/PER especially if it is a major developing point.  Seeing it on a PER without prior substantiation is so ground for redress and the only person to blame (even if the PER is accurate) is his supervisor.

P4L,

Do exactly what you have already been told here on the forum.  Seek clarification through informal channels at the lowest level possible and try and get it fixed.  If that fails or answers given don't meet what you feel is your performance is  then go through the steps and properly redress your PER.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jun 2008)

And the points about finding out about a 'short coming' on the PER that was not mentioned in a PDR are very important.  That is why the PDR System was started; to make the PER System as close to being 'perfect' as possible.  Your supervisors should also have been using the manuals with the 'word pictures' to match the scores.  Your narrative should match what your score was.


----------



## pte4life (26 Jun 2008)

Well then i'll let the forum know what happens in the long run. I do not expect to learn much about the subject aside from what i learn through reading and advice and help from members here.


----------



## PO2FinClk (27 Jun 2008)

Incidentally, the final authority on PER Greivances was delegated about 2 years ago to Base Commanders (or equivalent) and is no longer DGCFGA. Now I know there was/is a message to this effect however do not recall which series or where it is located.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jun 2008)

I recently had a PER grievance finalized.  It started in Nov of 2006 when I filed it with my CO and finished with a supplementary PER board on 27 May 2008.  It was supposedly not a "grievance" as my former CO just had the PER rewritten but it still had to go through DMCARM.

The result?  Promotion effective 01 Jan 2007.   ;D  It'll probably be one of those examples of grievances on the Ombudsman page.


----------



## pte4life (6 Aug 2008)

thank you soo much to everyone who has responded so throughly! It is really very much appreciated to see all this support. It puts the wind to my back and the sun on my face. It's been quite demoralizing at my unit, and this gives me the fresh vigor and morale to persue this task with greater vigor. 

Ironically, I have been going through informal channels, politely asking to see PDR's and have my PER ammended to reflect my 07FY training, not just the 2 exercises which my superriors primarially focused on. So the ironic part is that they lost my PDR which praised me for my work and included my training for my summer tasking, which it is the units responsibility to attain and hold all PDR's and evaluations so that the member can be properly assessed ( i found this in formal doctrine i think the QR&O's but i do not have the ref in front of me ATM) ; despite this shortcoming, they actually want me to file a redress. Maybe they think I'm bluffing or something. 

I mentioned in an email that i would prefer to deal with this informally, however if the deadline approaches and little is being done to ammend the situation i will submit a redress. The responce i receivd from my OC, was more or less "well if you want to have it changed, file a redress." Are we not to try and resolve these things at the lowest level? Oh well. Im a university student, so i certainly know how to write an argument and cite my sources, if you ask me, i shouldn't have any issues winning this case, and will have paper documentation to prove that they were not diligently filling their duties at the unit. Inter rank warfare! Sadly its come to this, but im gettting amped to stick it to the man. ( no offence to any of 'the mans' out there. )


----------



## pte4life (6 Aug 2008)

my other question, is: i have looked for a specific quote which i can reference that states something to the effect 'without prior couselling on an issue, a member can not be faulted for a shortcoming in a PER.' I have searched quite throughly many ref's in the QR&O's and other gov't sources, but can not find that specific example. Any help would be much appreciated, so that i can ref it in my memo. 

Thank you all so much again for your support.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Aug 2008)

pte4life said:
			
		

> politely asking to see PDR's



I hope that from now on, you will ask for, and get, a copy of your PDRs so that this :



> is that they lost my PDR



Doesnt have as much of an impact in any future issues.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I hope that from now on, you will ask for, and get, a copy of your PDRs so that this :
> 
> Doesnt have as much of an impact in any future issues.



Agreed, you may find statements saying that the unit is responsible, etc, etc but ultimately, you are your own career manager!


----------



## M Feetham (6 Aug 2008)

For a little perspective from the Naval side of the house. for some  reason the navy decided at some point in time that it would be a wonderful idea to keep divisional notes on it's personnel for the purpose of writing PDR's and PER's. I think I remember from some time way back at the beginning of my career someone saying that technically we are not supposed to do that but I'm not sure. However, div notes are beneficial in that it allows supervisors to keep track of exercises, deployments, shortcomings and exeplary perfromance of it's members. We also keep copies of PDR's and PER's with the dive notes. this allows more accurate tracking of a members performance thruout the year. On the members side however, for myself, I always keep a file of all evaluations/letters of appreciation and my own set of divnotes on myself. This means that come PER season I am able to give my supervisor an accurate accounting of my years perfomance. I always advise my subordinates to maintain some sort of record for themselves that may be submitted for use on request. All in all it works fairly well and just like someone stated earlier, it is your career, the more you keep track of it yourself, the better off you will be in the event that you do feel the need to redress a PDR or PER.
Hope what I have said makes some sort of sense to you
FEET


----------



## aesop081 (6 Aug 2008)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> div notes are beneficial in that it allows supervisors to keep track of exercises, deployments, shortcomings and exeplary perfromance of it's members.



Thats exactly what the PDR system is for. Theres no need for a seperate system to keep track of these things when a part 5 PDR can be produced for these things. PDRs are not just a quarterly instrument.

Like you said, each member should keep a record for him/herself of everything that they do for the year. My subordinates all do and when it comes time for a PDR / PER i use it to make sure nothing was missed in the previous PDRs.


----------



## BernDawg (6 Aug 2008)

Yup.  Keep a log of sorts.  There's nothing more irritating for a supervisor than to receive a part3/4 with 3 lines on it.


----------



## MARS (6 Aug 2008)

> for some  reason the navy decided at some point in time that it would be a wonderful idea to keep divisional notes on it's personnel for the purpose of writing PDR's and PER's.



The Canadian Navy adopted this (and the Divisional System as a whole) from the Royal Navy.  It was reinforced following the release of the Mainguy Report.

http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/controversies/mainguy.pdf

I can't remember when the Guide to the Divisional System was created, but the latest version was signed in 2001, and states, in part:



> The Divisional system, which is unique to the Navy, provides a framework for sound leadership for supervisors, be they Officers or Non-Commissioned Members (NCMs), of the Regular and Reserve Forces.



Here is the link, albeit to the DIN:

http://navy.dwan.dnd.ca/english/refs/pubs/divguide/intro.asp

I don't know how unique it actually is...perhaps it was a unique system at one time...I don't know if the army/air force use it or not.  Perhaps a "mutiny" is not something that ever occurs in the army/air force, and "technically" (according the Report) we never had a "mutiny" either.  I can understand why such a thing might happen on a ship, in crappy conditions, in the middle of the ocean with no other effective recourse if the Ship's Company should disagree with the Course Of Action decided on by the Captain. Regardless, the failure in leadership circa the Report is clear indication the Navy did not, historically, do a very good job looking out for the welfare and morale of our sailors. However, the use of divisional notes is a mandatory practice in the Navy.  I have probably had a half dozen PERs overturned/rewritten (on behalf of subordinates) owing to the lack of Divisional Notes - that is a no-brainer when it happens, which is far too often.  I actually get a little giddy when I see that coming - serves the Divisional Officer right for doing such a disservice.



> think I remember from some time way back at the beginning of my career someone saying that technically we are not supposed to do that but I'm not sure.



As for someone debating whether div notes are legal or not, here is another excerpt from the Guide to the Divisional System:



> •  The Divisional Officer’s Notes Sheets (DIVNOTES) (Annex B) allow for a continuous Record of Performance from which assessments may be compiled. They are used for recording personal concerns if they have had a detrimental effect on performance, or for recurring requests, all of which may have a bearing on the member’s performance or employment. Letters of appreciation or displeasure are to be noted. DO and DCPO are reminded that members can have their DIVNOTES in accordance with Access to Information regulations.  It reduces staff work and hastens the provision of DIVNOTES if the members now access their DIVNOTES through an informal request to the Ship’s Office. Persons releasing the DIVNOTES must ensure that the intent of the Privacy Act is respected, checking that the DIVNOTES contain no names or reference to third parties (i.e. persons other than the member to whom the DIVNOTES pertain).
> 
> DIVNOTES are to be retained by the Divisional Officer.  If the member (to whom the DIVNOTES pertain) is posted, the records are to be sealed, dated and sent with the UPR to the new unit.  These records are to be opened only with the new Commanding Officers approval.  If a member is posted outside CMS, the DIVNOTES will remain in the Formation.  The responsibility to ensure that these records are removed from the member’s permanent file should fall within the authority of the individual’s Admin Officer.
> 
> ...



Personally, I (and everyone I know) issues PDR feedback sessions every quarter.  Six months is a long time between formal feedback sessions.  



> Theres no need for a seperate system to keep track of these things when a part 5 PDR can be produced for these things



Agreed, Section 5 does include what is captured in Divisional Notes, however, when I write Section 5 I am summarizing from pages and pages of divisional notes.  I write quantitative assessments every few days - weekly at most.  So by the time it comes for the quarterly interview, I have 6 or 7 pages of notes to condense into a comprehensive and succinct review of the member’s performance to date.

/rant begins/
What does drive me nuts are supervisors who do not issue a Section 3/4 - they simply write from the div notes and issue Section 5.  UNSAT.  I see this too often - perhaps because we use div notes, I don't know.  Section 3/4 is to be issued a minimum of 24 hours before the interview - the supervisor is supposed to check what the member has identified as having "accomplished" against the div notes - PRIOR to section 5 being written.  Too often this is not done in my experience.  I actually issue section 3/4 at the start of the reporting year and direct my subordinates to keep it up-to-date throughout.
/rant complete/


----------



## pte4life (6 Aug 2008)

Thank you all for your input, I really need the ref for:

 i have looked for a specific quote which i can reference that states something to the effect 'without prior couselling on an issue, a member can not be faulted for a shortcoming in a PER.' I have searched quite throughly many ref's in the QR&O's and other gov't sources, but can not find that specific example. Any help would be much appreciated, so that i can ref it in my memo.

A HUGE thank you for anyone who can dig this up for me... i cant find it .


----------



## pte4life (6 Aug 2008)

these are my REFs BTW. If there is anything else that may be approperate i would appreciate it!

a. CF Grievance Manual; May 2007
b. CFAO 19-32 Redress of Grievance
c. CFPAS (Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System) Appendix
d. DOAD 5019-4 Remedial Measures
e. DAOD 5050-1 Canadian Forces Personnel Records of the Director General   
     Recruiting and Military Careers and the Director Human Resources 
     Information Management, and Service Estate Records of the Judge Advocate 
     General


----------



## Greymatters (6 Aug 2008)

This isnt much, but its a starting point:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Reports/mmcc/Changes/hrm_e.asp#personnel

*CHAPTER 4 — HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES * 

Key points:

"The Personnel Evaluation Report (PER) is the key document used by promotion boards to determine an individual's merit list standing and thus the possibility of promotion, as well as suitability for further terms of service. Its quality and accuracy are therefore very important."

"The CFPAS DAOD places responsibility for submission of PERs with the member's commanding officer, who must ensure that all required information  concerning the performance and potential of the member during the reporting period is incorporated, that all PERs are complete, and that they are submitted properly and on time."


And this article here:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/MapleLeaf/article_e.asp?id=3078

*Understanding the current personnel appraisal system by Capt P. D. Beatty*

"The PDR process incorporates two feedback sessions during the reporting period designed to review the member's performance—one at the mid-point of the reporting period, the second at the end of the reporting period, concurrent with the PER interview. While a member should be counselled if, in the opinion of their chain of command, the level of performance or potential falls below acceptable standards, there is no CFPAS requirement to counsel the member if their demonstrated performance and potential remain above the required standard, even if the level of performance is below the previous year’s."


----------



## MARS (6 Aug 2008)

pte4life,

did you get the PM I sent you a few minutes ago?

MARS


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2008)

MARS said:
			
		

> ...
> I don't know how unique it actually is...perhaps it was a unique system at one time...I don't know if the army/air force use it or not.  Perhaps a "mutiny" is not something that ever occurs in the army/air force, and "technically" (according the Report) we never had a "mutiny" either.  I
> ...



:warstory:

Going back nearly half a century, the *platoon commander's notebook* - with information about the circumstances and performance of each NCO and soldier - was maintained at least as well as the platoon commander's weapon and it was inspected just as often.

Confidential Reports (for NCOs, only - the precursors of PERs) had to be substantiated by the platoon commander's notebook. It was also an essential tool for recommending private soldiers for e.g. junior NCO course. I can, personally, vouch for the fact that company commanders went into the CO's semi-annual junior NCO course selection board (Ottawa was not, in any way, involved in really important career decisions like who got to go on that all important course) armed with pages from their platoon commanders' notebooks to support their recommendations. How well we kept those books had a very real, direct and visible impact on the careers of our soldiers.

The rest of your points are well taken.


----------



## M Feetham (7 Aug 2008)

Like i said, I only vaguely remember someone mentioning that, and I may have misunderstood, it was quite a long time ago. pte4life, I hope we were all able to help you. One other thing about the div notes in ref to you question about prior counselling is that it is another tool we use to ensure that members are counselled about shortcomings, that way once we have discussed an issue with the member it is noted in the div notes. Does that help at all.
Feet


----------



## pte4life (7 Aug 2008)

the notebook fun fact is very interesting. The army has changed a lot from the days of old. And yes, the information incoming is helpful and appreciated. The sources and citations are the most helpful. Ref. my earlier question, i still need some sort of citation. that is for: i need to be councelled before i can be ripped into for something on a PER. As of now that is the primary citation i need, and i will continue looking. But if someone can help me out, that would save me a lot of work. I've already gone over DAOD 5029-4. and while that pertains to what im looking for, it does not explicitly outline what i need to cite. 

Thank you all! 

If no one thinks its a bad idea, i might edit out all names and dates and the sort, and post the redress memo without any personal information. Im actually quite proud of what i have written, and i am sure that i would get loads of feedback from the community. 

Thank you all again.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Aug 2008)

pte4life said:
			
		

> i need to be councelled before i can be ripped into for something on a PER.



I'm away from work for quite sometime so i cant get the source to quote it here but, having had to deal with that question at work ( for my own fucked up PER) here what the CFPAS guidance says :

You must receive at least 2 PDR throughout the year before you PER. Those consist of the initial one ( Part 1 ) and one more PDR session (Part 5).

That is the minimum you must get. The CFPAS handbook is where this info is located. There is nothing in it that says that you have to have been councelled about it in order to make it in your PER.


----------



## geo (10 Aug 2008)

Now canforgen came out in july 2008 (don't have access to the DIN today) Grievances are to be dealt with at a lower level - DMCARM  no longer considered as Initial Authority as a matter of course.  CO at next higher level will now be considered the IA... so, PERs signed off by the unit CO will be dealt with at Bde level.


----------



## Franko (10 Aug 2008)

My question to you is: Do you have any copies of your previous PDRs?

Yes they got lost in the admin world, however you should have a photocopy of every PDR and PER that you've signed.

If so those documents will help you out with your redress.

Regards


----------



## pte4life (11 Aug 2008)

> And this article here:
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/MapleLeaf/article_e.asp?id=3078
> 
> ...



Couldn't the second interm report/session which you have at the same time you receive your PER be considered prior counselling, and thus you can be legitimately critisized for the deficiency??  Or would this be regarded as not enough time to correct the deficenicy?


----------



## George Wallace (11 Aug 2008)

pte4life said:
			
		

> Couldn't the second interm report/session which you have at the same time you receive your PER be considered prior counselling, and thus you can be legitimately critisized for the deficiency??  Or would this be regarded as not enough time to correct the deficenicy?



Your second report should not be at the same time as you receive your PER, as the PDR is supposed to be on a three month cycle.......giving you at least three PDR meetings/counselling sessions prior to your PER


----------



## Franko (11 Aug 2008)

Your PDRs are to address the problems/ counsel you. 

Normally if it isn't resolved during the first or second PDR you can rest assured it will be noted on your PER.

Again, get your copies of previous PDRs for the reporting period in dispute ready for your redress.

Regards


----------



## aesop081 (12 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> as the PDR is supposed to be on a three month cycle.......



Thats not correct. The 3 month thing that most units do is self-imposed and not mandated in the CFPAS system as noted a few posts above.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Thats not correct. The 3 month thing that most units do is self-imposed and not mandated in the CFPAS system as noted a few posts above.



From the CFPAS Help File Version 2007.0.3:

The PDR is a two step process. Step 1 is the initial interview between the member and supervisor, which occurs at the beginning of the reporting period. The aim of this interview is to establish a list of critical tasks and the results expected of the member during the reporting period. This initial meeting must also be used by the supervisor and member to develop an initial action plan for the member. Step 2 of the PDR process consists of a minimum of two feedback sessions that take place during the reporting period. The aim of the feedback sessions is to review the member's performance and to establish performance and potential development action plans. The feedback sessions will be based on the member's accomplishments and the supervisor's assessment. The PDR process is formally closed with the PER briefing. Upon completion of the reporting year, the PDR cycle is restarted with a re-establishment of critical tasks and action plans. The Handbook for the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS) contained in the CFPAS application (Help file), provides the necessary guidance for detailed conduct of the PDR process and completion of the PDR form. 

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. 

The PDR will be used by a unit to report a member's performance to the member's home unit during operational deployments under 3 months duration or temporary assignments such as attached postings, TD, or secondments of any length. A written assessment may be used in lieu of the PDR when its use is not feasible. In this case, the assessments must be attached and kept on the PDR file with reference made to them within section one of the PDR. On posting, losing units will use the PDR to pass a member's performance/potential information to the gaining unit. The home or gaining unit will use this information in preparing the member'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 member's PDR is to be stored in a member's unit personnel file or Unit Employment Record, whichever is more convenient, 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 not optional it is mandatory.

* CFPAS Policy Directive Para 1 from the same ref states:

This directive prescribes the policy governing the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS). This directive is to be read in conjunction with the Handbook for the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS), contained in the CFPAS application (Help file), which contains specific procedures and detailed descriptions of CFPAS processes. 

From the CFPAS Application Help File:

204. PDR Feedback Sessions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part of the process involves two feedback sessions: one at the mid-point of the reporting period and the second at the end of the reporting period, concurrent with the PER interview. When you, as a supervisor give feedback, you are acting as a steering mechanism, sending signals to your subordinates to ensure they stay on course. To be effective, you must be giving subordinates feedback on a continual basis; providing feedback only once a year rarely changes behaviour. Feedback has maximum impact when it is given as close as possible to the action. If a subordinate does something well, tell her/him immediately. Similarly, if the subordinate behaves ineffectively, also ensure he/she is made aware of it immediately. “Saving up” performance-related information, especially if it is negative, may result in feelings of resentment and frustration, and if it is positive, may be forgotten by the time a formal session is held. To complement the daily feedback that supervisors should routinely give to members, formal feedback sessions have been built into the CFPAS. Their purpose is to summarize performance-related information, and to provide a tool for documenting performance throughout the year. There should be a minimum of one feedback session during the reporting period with a final feedback session being the PER interview. Ideally, feedback interviews should occur approximately every four months. The frequency of these interviews will depend on how a subordinate is performing, the unit’s schedule and workload.

Feedback sessions serve several functions:
-provide information to subordinates on how well they are doing with respect to the Critical Tasks you have assigned them;
-provide guidance on how they can perform better;
-motivate subordinates, resulting in greater effort on their part; and
-recognize the achievements of subordinates, giving them a sense of satisfaction and inspiring them to try harder.


----------



## pte4life (14 Aug 2008)

hey eye in the sky, thanks again for such a through responce. One question regarding 



> * CFPAS Policy Directive Para 1 from the same ref states:
> 
> This directive prescribes the policy governing the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS). This directive is to be read in conjunction with the Handbook for the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS), contained in the CFPAS application (Help file), which contains specific procedures and detailed descriptions of CFPAS processes.



I actually relate to this circumstance. An individual became a new superrior, and never sat down with me for a critical tasks briefing. You seem to know the documentation quite well, if you know off hand, or could easily find the source that refers to the superrior's requirement to have a critical tasks and duties brief upon change of command. I would really appreciate it. otherwise i'll just go digging again and see what i come up with.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Aug 2008)

pte4life said:
			
		

> An individual became a new superrior, and never sat down with me for a critical tasks briefing.



Did your Job change in conjunction with the change in supervisor ?

If not then a new part 1 was not required IIRC


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Aug 2008)

Quick reply, before I dig.  

The new supervisor/superior is not necessarily required to go over these tasks with the mbr, as they are already laid out, but would be if there was a change to the initial PDR.

In the past, my superior (branch head) simply reviewed the PDR in place to famil themselves with my scope of duties.

Common sense applies, in that your duties did not change, only the person you report to.

I've quickly reviewed the CFPAS documentation and did not find anything on this requirement.  However, someone else may add to/correct me on this.


----------



## pte4life (14 Aug 2008)

my job did not change, no. The only thing that happened was, 'by the way MCpl. so and so is your new det commander.'


----------



## aesop081 (14 Aug 2008)

pte4life said:
			
		

> my job did not change, no. The only thing that happened was, 'by the way MCpl. so and so is your new det commander.'



So there was no requirement for a New Part 1 .


----------



## Franko (14 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So there was no requirement for a New Part 1 .



Exactly. The only time it's actually required is if your duties/ responsibilities change. 

Mind you a member should read the part one PDR at least once a year and sign it off. As a MCpl you should know it clear as a bell without it being placed in front of you.

Regards


----------



## pte4life (15 Aug 2008)

i think you misunderstood. the . after mcpl. is b/c of the abbreviation. im not a mcpl.


----------



## Say all again after (4 Oct 2008)

Hope I'm not too late in this post. It is imperative that you be able to produce a copy of your PDR stipulating your strong performance, especially if there were unused lines in section 4 or 5 narratives (as this means that your supervisor could still have included information that was in the missing PDR).  If you pursue purely on the point of one PDR that was "not included" a grievance board reviewing any application for changes will note that, while your supervisors' performances lacked in that they did not properly follow the CFPAS process, it is a given that each member receives daily feedback either formally or informally (pat on the back "Good job Bloggins" qualifies).  What needs to be done is to show written substantiation from other supervisors, pers in your CoC, others senior in rank to yourself that your performance exceeded the comments in the PER _AND_ that your CoC had access to this information but chose to ignore or not include it even though there was still room to discuss in the PER (see note below for more on this point).  That is the essence of any successful grievance.  Be careful to avoid any statement or argument that takes a board down the trail of "my supervisor failed" as you are talking about the performance of your CoC and not your own.  You will get a foot in the door with the point of fact that courses completed  during the reporting period were not included in either section 3 (new skills, quals, duties), section 4 (performance) or section 5 (potential).  
Now...if there was no room in the PER narratives, if your boss used up all the lines, things become a little tougher as ultimately a supervisor holds the choice of what is /is not included in a PER.  Unless you can give overwhelming arguments that something should be included.  Example - A person completes post secondary education (college, university, post grad) but still gets an average for professional development, it should be argued that this potential factor should have been higher.
How are we doing so far?


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2008)

pte4life said:
			
		

> these are my REFs BTW. If there is anything else that may be approperate i would appreciate it!
> 
> a. CF Grievance Manual; May 2007
> b. CFAO 19-32 Redress of Grievance
> ...



I've just read though this thread for the first time - don't know how I managed to miss it actually. I've looked through your posts in here (this thread) a couple of times and, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you are including _DAOD 5019-4 Remedial Measures_ as one of your refs.

You _*need*_ to get yourself an assisting officer.

Let me first state by saying that if you *did* receive an IC, RW or C&P - they *must* be noted on your annual PER by regulation. If you did not receive an IC, RW, or C&P - there are zero reasons which are of benefit to yourself to have your refs inclusive of this one. Unless, of course, you are arguing that as you did not receive an IC, RW, or C&P regarding a specific area that a shortfall in that area should not be reported on your PER. I will tell you right now as someone who has acted as an assistant in many PER Grievances ... WRONG MOVE.

ICs, RWs, & C&Ps are administrative actions that are issued when a member fails to meet a minimal standard of conduct or performance. If you received an assessment factor of "NI" (Needs Improvement), "D" (Developing), "S" (Skilled),"ES" (Exceeded Standard), or "M" (Mastered) - then you have indeed 'met' at least the minimum standard. If your scores are one of those noted above - keep 5019-4 OUT of your Grievance.

Member's who've received rating factors of "U" (Unacceptable & in reality ... pretty f'n bad) will quite often be recipients of ICs, RWs or C&Ps. Even they may sometimes receive a higher rating. You certainly don't want to be substantiating a Grievance by saying - "I may have had shortfalls, but I wasn't issued an IC, RW, or C&P so those shortfalls shouldn't be on my PER." That's simply a false statement. Personally, I'd much rather have a Disciplinary Action noted that has a time-limit, than an administrative action noted on my file that lasts for career. ICs, RWs & C&Ps are administrative actions that are reserved for serious or repeated defeciencies & shortcomings. They aren't usually issued because some Sgt had to tell you to get your hands out of your pockets or get your beret on straight.

BUT, if a Sgt was writing your PER and made the remark in it "Pte Bloggins' dress needs improvement; he required correction by supervisors in this area as he wore his headdress improperly" no admin action (ICs, RWs, C&Ps) would be necessary - and yet it is still a valid point for the supervisor to note on your PER in the area of deportment (I've seen it used in "reliability" as well as under "accountability" within the performance assessment).

Long and the short, nothing written on your PER should be a surprise to you. Everyone here is correct in stating that any shortcomings brought forward on your PER - should have been noted in at least one PDR given to you by a supervisor during the reporting period. Technicly. Although - even if they weren't ... I have issues with those who admit the shortcoming occured, that are not shocked by hearing of it, but play the technicality card to get out of it. To me, that equates an "accounability" (for one's own actions) shortfall coming to note for the upcoming PDR.

That all being said, I am a firm believer in fairness. But, I am also a firm believer in "if it's true, then live with it". A PER should be inclusive of both the good and the bad - that's what makes them fair and honest assessments. To ask for a shortfall to be removed based upon a technicality may be fair, but then - if it was admittedly, by you, a true shortfall - is it really "honest" of you to ask for it to be removed?

If you have copies of your PDRs (and you should) and your PER shortfalls were not mentioned in them - you have a case. Be advised though - that if your supervisor has a single email sent to you that made a remark about that shortfall requiring correction - that they also have a case for substantiating it's inclusion onto your PER - for they then can indeed show that you were 'notified' of that shortfall and that it's not really a surprise to you after all.

If you completed career or other substantive courses and training, and it was not included in the "new qualifications & skills block" (where they should be listed - and you should also have copies of those course reports), you also have a case. Especially so if no mention of them was given in the narrative either. If included under the "new skills and qualifications" block, there does not - repeat not - *have* to be anything written about them in the narrative although that is unusual. Your performance on them could be used to substaintiate a certain ranking, but other factors such as "exercise performance" may still be used to substantiate a lower (or higher) ranking than the course report. The PER is supposed to be refelective of an overview of "total" performance levels over the course of the year. One could have performed excellent on a month long course, but very shitty for the remainder of the year - or vice versa. 

If only the bad, and none of the good is noted on your PER, you also have a viable Grieveance based upon Para 17c of the CFPAS Policy Directive (Responsibilities of Commanding Officers) which states:

17. The responsibility for conducting the PDR process for each member and for submission of a member's PER rests with that member's unit Commanding Officer. This responsibility includes the following:

...
c. ensure that all required information concerning the performance and potential of members during the entire reporting period is incorporated into the PER;
...

You also have asked for the ref which states shortcomings can not be noted on the PER if you haven't been informed of them on a PDR - you won't find that reference because it doesn't say that.

What is actually said is that "*Good leadership practices require that, prior to assigning an Unacceptable AF rating, supervisors will have previously counseled the member. Subordinates shouldnever be given negative performance information for the first time during a PER interview.*" Ref: CFPAS Handbook, Ch 3, Art 301, para 4 - _PE Guidelines_


----------



## BinRat55 (6 Oct 2008)

If I ever end up getting charged with murder, I want Vern for my lawyer. I just want that out there. 

Vern, who woulda thunk you were gonna be this good all those years in Pet, walking and smoking? My hat is off to you - I think i'm going to start a new thread, call it "Vote Vern for CDS" thread!! You'd have mine - and then maybe we'd all get a boot allowance!!


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> If I ever end up getting charged with murder, I want Vern for my lawyer. I just want that out there.
> 
> Vern, who woulda thunk you were gonna be this good all those years in Pet, walking and smoking? My hat is off to you - I think i'm going to start a new thread, call it "Vote Vern for CDS" thread!! You'd have mine - and then maybe we'd all get a boot allowance!!



It's not about being good - it's about paying attention to detail and doing my job as fairly as I can, but I'm not about to make excuses for anyone either.

Did you also notice that the ref:



> You also have asked for the ref which states shortcomings can not be noted on the PER if you haven't been informed of them on a PDR - you won't find that reference because it doesn't say that.
> 
> What is actually said is that *"Good leadership practices require that, prior to assigning an Unacceptable AF rating, supervisors will have previously counseled the member. Subordinates should never be given negative performance information for the first time during a PER interview." * Ref: CFPAS Handbook, Ch 3, Art 301, para 4 - PE Guidelines



ONLY says that before assigning a "U" AF rating  on the PER, that the supervisor will have previously counseled the member? It NEVER says that must be done on a PDR - it only states that counseling (ie an email or an office discussion or a note on the PDR in "areas for development" ALL: qualify as "counseling"). If the supervisor can back up that the member was "counseled" and that this item is not "news" to the member (ie notified of the defeciency), the supervisor has fulfilled their obligation to the subordinate. No where is there a mention that counselling must occur (or that "notification" *must* occur) on a PDR. 

If that were the case, then buddy getting his butt into big time crap the last week of March would be "unmentionable" on the PER as he wouldn't have recd a PDR mentioning that "crap" prior to getting his PER; that's simply an incorrect interpretation of the above ref. Counselling does not have to occur during a PDR session. I'd actually hope that supervisors are counselling their members regarding performance/conduct a whole heck of a lot than the minimal 2 X per year required by PDR - that should be a continuous event.


----------



## BinRat55 (6 Oct 2008)

I firmly beleive that WHEN we stick to the PDR / PER process it works for us - quite well. But you are right, we need the right frame of mind and adhere to what we are actually doing as supervisors... that being said, toss a CCC conviction into the mix during March. It MUST be mentioned on a PER with no time to council VIA PDR session. Office visits only, but there is still records.


----------



## Greymatters (6 Oct 2008)

Despite the glitches pointed out, the CF process is IMO superior to other processes used in the commercial/private sector companies...


----------



## BinRat55 (6 Oct 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Despite the glitches pointed out, the CF process is IMO superior to other processes used in the commercial/private sector companies...



I whole-heartedly agree - when used properly. When used incorrectly, it can be a weapon of unimaginable force and destruction!!  Now where did I put that crayon??


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2008)

I never _wrote_ a PER that I didn't like!!  >


----------



## BinRat55 (6 Oct 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I never _wrote_ a PER that I didn't like!!  >



You've written one for ME that I didn't like... (It didn't have any JD shot glasses included...)

 :crybaby:


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> You've written one for ME that I didn't like... (It didn't have any JD shot glasses included...)
> 
> :crybaby:



You still haven't "carried on" yet??  >


----------



## meni0n (26 Nov 2008)

Quick question, I was promoted Cpl in April 08 but I haven`t signed a PDR since Jan 08.  I mentioned this to my Mcpl but his response was that I will get it in March 09?!? Do I have the right not sign a PDR that has been backdated? I am pretty skeptical I will get a fair and correct PER with how things are going.


----------



## Occam (26 Nov 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Quick question, I was promoted Cpl in April 08 but I haven`t signed a PDR since Jan 08.  I mentioned this to my Mcpl but his response was that I will get it in March 09?!? Do I have the right not sign a PDR that has been backdated? I am pretty skeptical I will get a fair and correct PER with how things are going.



Your MCpl is slack and idle.  If he gives you a PDR with anything but the current date on it, cross off the date beside the member's signature block and put the current date in by hand, initial the correction, and THEN sign it and ask for a copy back.  He'll have questions to answer when he submits it to the reviewer.  Even if nobody questions the PDR, in the future (after receiving your PER) you'll still be able to raise the point that you received no feedback sessions during the year, and grieving the PER will go much easier.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 Nov 2008)

As a Pte(t) you are not entitled to a PER as they for Cpl's and up. Expect a PER at the end of this year 08/09. PDR's are done 3 times a year, so you might be do for one shortly.

Your profile doesn't state if you are Reg or Res, if you are Res then the reason you haven't seen one since Jan 08 could be because of the summer stand downs.


----------



## meni0n (26 Nov 2008)

I am Reg Force. I know PERs are only done once a year but they should be based on PDRs which I haven`t signed any in almost a year. Last PDR I signed had ending period of Dec 07.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 Nov 2008)

Sounds like you fell through the cracks, how about talking to your Tp WO?


----------



## Greymatters (26 Nov 2008)

meni0n said:
			
		

> I am Reg Force. I know PERs are only done once a year but they should be based on PDRs which I haven`t signed any in almost a year. Last PDR I signed had ending period of Dec 07.



Arent staff in supervisory positions subject to disciplinary action for failing to do this? (i.e. not complete PDR's/PR's on a timely basis)

Sounds like the positions above the MCpl are also at fault here...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2008)

Thinking about my *cough* CoC *cough*...all I can say is....

 :rofl:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 Nov 2008)

LOL I just signed my PER from the last year.


----------



## Greymatters (26 Nov 2008)

Unfortunately true...


----------



## geo (26 Nov 2008)

Heh... don't worry about it.... I signed mine Ummm..... 2 weeks ago
To read it, I continue to walk on water without getting my boots wet - but there you have it....
Oh yeah - had to crank out the PDRs for my section that same day... and we are supposed to have our 1st review early next week

They told me I could have always grieved for the late PER - but, I'd probably have been made to answer it for the Area commander... can't win!


----------



## BinRat55 (26 Nov 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> As a Pte(t) you are not entitled to a PER as they for Cpl's and up. Expect a PER at the end of this year 08/09. PDR's are done 3 times a year, so you might be do for one shortly.
> 
> Your profile doesn't state if you are Reg or Res, if you are Res then the reason you haven't seen one since Jan 08 could be because of the summer stand downs.



Sorry big guy - i'm not in the habit of disagreeing with you, but...

"The PDR is a two step process. Step 1 is the initial interview between the member and supervisor, which occurs at the beginning of the reporting period. The aim of this interview is to establish a list of critical tasks and the results expected of the member during the reporting period. This initial meeting must also be used by the supervisor and member to develop an initial action plan for the member. Step 2 of the PDR process consists of a minimum of two feedback sessions that take place during the reporting period. The aim of the feedback sessions is to review the member's performance and to establish performance and potential development action plans. The feedback sessions will be based on the member's accomplishments and the supervisor's assessment. The PDR process is formally closed with the PER briefing. Upon completion of the reporting year, the PDR cycle is restarted with a re-establishment of critical tasks and action plans."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2008)

If you are talking about the frequency of PDRs...the policy is the minimums.  Alot of unit direct quarterly PDRs, which was the case in my last 2 green units.


----------



## BinRat55 (26 Nov 2008)

Quarterly PDR's? Four? Plus a PER? Crap, I wouldn't have time for work - that equals (for me) 64 PDR's (16 X 4) and 16 PER's... and THAT ain't happenin...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Quarterly PDR's? Four? Plus a PER? Crap, I wouldn't have time for work - that equals (for me) 64 PDR's (16 X 4) and 16 PER's... and THAT ain't happenin...



Initial PDR start of FY...1st quarter review (Julyish), 2nd quarter review (Octoberish), 3rd quarter review (Januaryish) and start writing draft PERs after the 3rd, then the "PER shuffle", PER at end FY, repeat.  I had 2 subordinates at the time and it was a PITA.


----------



## kaki0429 (8 Dec 2009)

Could anyone assist me in writing a ROG? I'm aware of the manual available online, but I feel it's very vague and not helpful. I'm a very visual person and need to see an example or template. Thank you in advance!


----------



## Loachman (8 Dec 2009)

You are entitled to an Assisting Officer who can help. Make sure he/she is someone that you can trust to do a thorough and competent job.

I have done that a few times in the past.


----------



## kaki0429 (8 Dec 2009)

I probably should have included that fact that I do not trust anyone in my CoC or unit. With that being said, I am looking elsewhere in hopes I'll still write a good ROG.


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Dec 2009)

Well,

With what you have told us, I would advise you then contact the Alternative Dispute Resolution centre nearest you;

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/adr-marc/index-eng.asp

dileas

tess


----------



## Loachman (8 Dec 2009)

kaki0429 - Check PMs.


----------



## kaki0429 (8 Dec 2009)

Thank you for the link and suggestion, 48... I will definitely be taking a thorough look.

PM's checked and replied too, Loachman.


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Dec 2009)

kaki0429 said:
			
		

> Thank you for the link and suggestion, 48... I will definitely be taking a thorough look.
> 
> PM's checked and replied too, Loachman.



Cheers  kaki0429,

I sit on on various committees that include  ADR members, and they are proactive and diligent in their mission to resolve things for Soldiers.

dileas

tess


----------



## smity25ca (6 Dec 2011)

Got a PDR today, with some obvious personal opinions for things that I could use improvement on.  Situation; my peer who a few months ago got promoted and became my supervisor (long story - the guys not deployable can't be posted to any other unit in my trade).  While we were peers we had VERY different opinions on how to acomplish things.  Long story short, I plan on sending the good Sgt. an email requesting substantion on a few of his points of improvement.  

What I am wondering is if there a more official process I should be following for this or would an email cc'ing my Warrant suffice? I know if it were a PER I would have the Grievence process, but this might be some ammo if it gets to that point. 

I will be posted in the Spring.  
More details upon request.

Thanks!
Smity


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2011)

You can grieve a PDR.  Have a look here:  http://www.cfga.forces.gc.ca/index-eng.asp

Before you go that route, consider other less formal options.  You might decide grievance is the path you want, but you may find a less formal option better (and potentially more quickly) meets your needs.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Dec 2011)

smity25ca said:
			
		

> (long story - the guys not deployable can't be posted to any other unit in my trade).



Not relevant. He was promoted and is now your supervisor.


----------



## smity25ca (6 Dec 2011)

Which was another question I can't seem to find an answer to, he was promoted while under a DUI charge, he has no 404's as he got a double whami (lost his licence DUI, then got caught again DUI while the licence was still suspended) 5 year no licence, 404's are a trade requirement. Another WO told me someones protecting this guy.


----------



## BernDawg (6 Dec 2011)

Best guess is that someone is his Rabbi. I've seen guys with far less going on discipline wise that have been released from the CF let alone promoted!


----------



## smity25ca (6 Dec 2011)

He's retireing next year (might have something to do with it) as it states in our CM briefing "on aceptance of promotion you shall have no trade restrictions" as with DOAD's soldier first. (don't have the doad # at home)


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2011)

The respective DAODs are 5019-4 and 5019-7.

Are you looking to resolve your PDR concerns, or are you hunting after your supervisor?


----------



## Pusser (6 Dec 2011)

smity25ca said:
			
		

> Which was another question I can't seem to find an answer to, he was promoted while under a DUI charge, he has no 404's as he got a double whami (lost his licence DUI, then got caught again DUI while the licence was still suspended) 5 year no licence, 404's are a trade requirement. Another WO told me someones protecting this guy.



I'd have to say that warrant officer is pretty unprofessional!  There is no way that a superior should be discussing a supervisor's conduct with that supervisor's subordinate (at least not in those terms - listening to a complaint is something else).

The simple fact is that regardless of how unfair you think it is, this guy is now your supervisor and he writes your PDR and PER.  If there are issues with the PDR, you should try discussing it with him and asking for clarification as to what is expected.  A PDR is a supervisor's offer of a chance for a subordinate to improve.  It's up to you how you decide to act on it.  If you choose to take his criticism constructively and change your approach, you may be rewarded on your PER.  If you choose to fight him over it, don't be surprised if your PER is more of the same, only with more severe implications.  On the other hand, if you do take his advice and try to improve things in his image and he still slams you on your PER, you will have all the more ammunition for the grievance.

Another thing to remember is that PDRs are not scrutinized as closely as PERs.  Take the PDR for what it is - a means of TWO way communication for improvement.  It should be raw and honest.  The PER, however, goes through many more machinations and levels of review.  A PER is by no means one person's opinion.


----------



## Franko (6 Dec 2011)

Talk it over with his supervisor, you know, the person who signed off on the PDR. Their signature is at the bottom.

Sit down with them and go over your performance. You may need to use past PDRs to establish a base line if there is something glaring on the latest one.

Sometimes that's all it takes.

Regards


----------



## smity25ca (6 Dec 2011)

Thanks Pusser, to clairify the WO was from another trade, just shares our smoke pit, and he is spot on. And I'm not out to get my Sup. by any means, good on him far as I'm concerned, I'm really just currious, as two mates of mine are currently under career review and have had the hammer droped on them for DUI (not even a double DUI), I personally don't like the good for some but not for others mentality (and isn't it ilegal?). I don't care who you know or what the sit. is if you cross that line you do the time! It sets a bad president and creates animosity with in the trade, and we're a small trade 630 pers. I'm just questioning this very fact, ie. how can you kick this guy out and not so and so. (NOT ME) I'll sleep in a ditch before I'd ever drink and drive), I'm just currious, as it seem wrong at so many levels. 

Thanks Nerf herder, will do!


----------



## aesop081 (7 Dec 2011)

smity25ca said:
			
		

> I personally don't like the good for some but not for others mentality (and isn't it ilegal?).



Nothing but smoke pit talk. One person's troubles are rarely the same as the other's.


None of this DUI stuff has anything to do with your PDR.


----------



## sieran (1 May 2012)

I am a 5 year Cpl in the Infantry. I have nod PLQ mods to speak of, and am employed outside the regiment.  I have asked to go on Mods 1-5 and have gotten the answer from my training NCO (PPCLI) who says he doesn't know how to put me on the new distance learning mods. However another soldier from a different trade was just place on their Mods. My question is... Am I able to file a grievance through my chain of command?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (1 May 2012)

Before you grieve, maybe try and figure out what he means by "doesn't know how"?  Maybe ask your chain of command to look into it and see if the OPS WO or another member can do the task?  This should not jump to a grievance yet.  I find it hard to believe that your unit has no one able to load people on course.


----------



## sieran (1 May 2012)

I find it very hard to believe myself that he doesn't know how to do it. I have spoken to the training NCO and he says he doesn't know how. I have spoken to my Ops WO, and he refered me back to the training NCO. I wrote a memo asking to speak to the career manager, which never reach him. So I waited months until the career manager arrived in Edmonton to speak with him. He said the decision to place me on mods 1-5 rests with my CoC. I then returned to my Sgt, who then went to the RSM and surprise, surprise.. Refered back to the training NCO. It's for a lack of trying on my part. I basicaaly ran out of options?


----------



## sieran (1 May 2012)

sorry, Its not for a lack trying.


----------



## aesop081 (1 May 2012)

sieran said:
			
		

> He said the decision to place me on mods 1-5 rests with my CoC. I



Yup, it does.

Now what is it you wish to grieve ?, Is there some sort of entitlement to be placed on PLQ that i have missed ?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (1 May 2012)

I am pretty sure that you can merely let people know you want to go on the course but it's not something you can grieve.  There are many reasons why you wouldn't be course loaded.  It could be that something is holding you off the course and you are not being told?  

What do you intend to grieve?  Take a look here and follow the procedures.  Note Step #1.

http://vcds.mil.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=7394


----------



## sieran (1 May 2012)

I've asked my Sgt, if there is anythig holding me back. She said there was nothing, Thats why she went straight to the RSM. My last two PERs say ready for promotion, but sweet nothing can happen till I have mods. I am a career man, and am not comfortable being a CFL not apparent reason. Obviosly there is something holding me back and no one seems to know. Are there any suggestions of what I can do to maybe rectify this and get answers.


----------



## aesop081 (1 May 2012)

sieran said:
			
		

> She said there was nothing,



....that she knows of.


----------



## sieran (1 May 2012)

Fair enough. Now is there a way to get outside my chain of command without stepping over toes. To find out. As it seems my chain doesn't seem to want to help me out?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 May 2012)

If you really don't think there is any way to approach this besides the grievance system, I think you should talk to your Pl Comd/Officer and WO and detail what has happened to date.

IF there is nothing you can do in the CofC at the "lowest level possible", and you really want to pursue a grievance, I strongly suggest you start with a "Notice Of Intent To Grieve" to your CO.  Its not avail on the Internet site, but it is in the DIN/DWAN.  You will see its intent when you read it.

Technically yes you can submit a grievance but it really should be a last resort.  If you talk to your Platoon Comd, Officer, they can go to their next immediate superior, talk to the right people on the NCM side of the CofC, etc.  You can submit it via memo as well, starting a papertrail.

Not knowing all the details, I still suggest this, and I'm speaking for experience.  Try the CofC first.  The NOI will let your CO know you are planning on submitting a grievance, but haven't yet, what it is about, etc.  It will also be a last attempt to resolve your contention at the CofC level.  Once you submit a written grievance, the process is pretty formal (CO must register it in the CFGRS, etc).  It is also likely going to take longer and might make you a target in some peoples eyes.

Read this stuff first (link below), but realize that for whatever reason, the DIN/DWAN DGCFGA site has more thorough info in it compared to the InterNet one.

InterNet Director General CF Grievance Authority Site

Also, remember that asking to go on the Mods doesn't mean that you are going to get them.  Your Unit might have been given 10 spots, and you are #12 on the list, if you follow me.  

Based on this being something you asked for, not told you were getting or whatever, I'd recommend leaving this inside the CofC, I personally don't think a grievance would help you.

 :2c:


----------



## sieran (1 May 2012)

Excellent. Thanks for the advice everyone.


----------



## armyvern (1 May 2012)

sieran said:
			
		

> I've asked my Sgt, if there is anythig holding me back. She said there was nothing, Thats why she went straight to the RSM. My last two PERs say ready for promotion, but sweet nothing can happen till I have mods. I am a career man, and am not comfortable being a CFL not apparent reason. Obviosly there is something holding me back and no one seems to know. Are there any suggestions of what I can do to maybe rectify this and get answers.



Are you Infantry in the PPCLI?

I'm getting the impression that you are ESL, and purple, currently employed in a position within the PPCLI. If purple, what colour uniform do you wear and what trade are you?

For Sup, PLQ is by merit list for example.

There are subtle differences to the process depending upon the individual-specific details that are applicable.


----------



## 392 (2 May 2012)

sieran said:
			
		

> ....My last two PERs say ready for promotion....



While I cannot say I am familiar with how the PPCLI merit their troops for leadership courses, I did notice this. 

Your profile says you're 00010, which IIRC, is Inf. If the Inf works anything like the Cbt Engrs PER-wise, a Cpl getting a "ready" on a PER is not merit-list material, which could explain why you don't seem to be loaded onto the course, and others are seemingly passing you by. It seems odd to me that you say no one in your CoC can give you a straight answer on why you haven't been course loaded, but me thinks there is something else at play here and perhaps the entire story is not being told or known.

If you're not merited for promotion, then why would you be loaded onto a career course to get you to the next rank?  ??? I really don't see anything grieveable here, but again, maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way...


----------



## PuckChaser (2 May 2012)

He didn't say what the PER before those 2xready was... Might it be that there is no PER before, or it was a normal? That's really gonna screw with your merit listing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 May 2012)

5 years in....remember no PERs for Pte's.


----------



## Snaketnk (3 May 2012)

If the PPCLI is anything like how the RCR are doing things, then they're trowing all kinds of nowhere-near-ready-for-promotion Cpls on PLQs, and most 2-3 year corproals who aren't shit-bags can at least get their mods 1-5.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 May 2012)

sieran said:
			
		

> I am a 5 year Cpl in the Infantry. I have nod PLQ mods to speak of, and am employed outside the regiment.  I have asked to go on Mods 1-5 and have gotten the answer from my training NCO (PPCLI) who says he doesn't know how to put me on the new distance learning mods. However another soldier from a different trade was just place on their Mods. My question is... Am I able to file a grievance through my chain of command?



Have you ever considered the fact that maybe...just maybe ....you don't get a PLQ for the asking?  You aren't entitled to a PLQ for the fact that you have five years in. 

You have no grounds for a grievance. In my mind, tiny as it is, maybe you just don't "cut the mustard".

Yes I have been known to be very blunt at times.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 May 2012)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> If the PPCLI is anything like how the RCR are doing things, then they're trowing all kinds of nowhere-near-ready-for-promotion Cpls on PLQs, and most 2-3 year corproals who aren't crap-bags can at least get their mods 1-5.





			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Have you ever considered the fact that maybe...just maybe ....you don't get a PLQ for the asking?  You aren't entitled to a PLQ for the fact that you have five years in.
> 
> You have no grounds for a grievance. In my mind, tiny as it is, maybe you just don't "cut the mustard".
> 
> Yes I have been known to be very blunt at times.



And in _my_ opinion that's what's wrong with most units, anyone with a heart beat gets onto a PLQ course.....

What happened to the days of pre-JLC/JNCO......

I am currently trying to convince my CoC to run a pre-PLQ for those that want the course so we can weed out the ones that can't hack it at this time.....


----------



## dangerboy (3 May 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> And in _my_ opinion that's what's wrong with most units, anyone with a heart beat gets onto a PLQ course.....
> 
> What happened to the days of pre-JLC/JNCO......
> 
> I am currently trying to convince my CoC to run a pre-PLQ for those that want the course so we can weed out the ones that can't hack it at this time.....



The days of Pre courses are long gone unfortunately.  We have been pushing for units to run Pre courses as a lot of students are showing up not prepared for the course.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 May 2012)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> The days of Pre courses are long gone unfortunately.  We have been pushing for units to run Pre courses as a lot of students are showing up not prepared for the course.



And a lot of junior corporals "expect" a PLQ and promotion whether or not their performance merits it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 May 2012)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> The days of Pre courses are long gone unfortunately.  We have been pushing for units to run Pre courses as a lot of students are showing up not prepared for the course.



We just ran a 1-5 and on one day we had like 8 VR's from the course........now that proves units don't give a f*ck on who they send on course....funny thing was that all of those 8 where infantry.....


----------



## aesop081 (3 May 2012)

In many large trades, 2x "ready" PERs a promotion does not make. 3x "immediate" and you might be promotable.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 May 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> And a lot of junior corporals "expect" a PLQ and promotion whether or not their performance merits it.



 :goodpost:

Get this I had 10 years in when I got my 6A's but yet I had a 3 yr MCpl on that very same course with me....talk about a guy that had zero field time except for courses and no experience leading a section ......

The we need X number of MCpl's by Y years is really biting us in the a$s in _my_ opinion.


----------



## Pusser (11 May 2012)

There has been a lot said about the possibility that the OP may not be ready for PLQ, isn't merit-listed, hasn't been selected, etc.  All of which may well be true.  However, the disturbing point of his situation is that these are not the reasons he says he's being given for him not being loaded on the course.  He claims that he's being told that the reason he's not being loaded on the training is because his Training NCO doesn't know how to do it.  Surely, this is unacceptable!  How can a Training NCO not know how to load people on training courses?  If he doesn't know how to access a certain type of training, then he needs to find out and give people a better answer than, "I don't know."

Having said this, there may be a multitude of details the OP is not giving us and even the possibility that he is not "hearing" what he's being told (I do find it difficult to believe that an NCO in charge of training would not know how to do this).  The question is whether his Chain of Command is being straight with him (which they should be) or does he just not understand the situation.


----------



## X Royal (12 May 2012)

:ditto:
This is my thoughts exactly.
If he/she is not ready say so. Yes this happens but at least be up front about it.
If I don't know how to course load you is the reply it's, BS.
As a training NCO and you don't know how to do something that is a reasonable request, then at least you should be expected to realize it and take the effort to get the proper answer.


----------



## armyvern (13 May 2012)

He joined the site May 1st; made six posts in quick succession (all in this thread). Popped in to read on the 5th May, didn't comment on the responses he received and hasn't been back since. Suspect this thread is done.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2012)

He didn't get a a lot of sympathy.....poor muffin! :crybaby:


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 May 2012)

The truth hurts sometimes.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 May 2012)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> The truth hurts sometimes.



But I did stay at a Holiday Inn in Saskatoon a while back.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 May 2012)

Actually it was a four points by Sheraton.


----------



## Sparkplugs (23 Oct 2012)

Just a quick question. I won't get into details, but I've heard so many different responses on this that I thought I'd ask if anyone had any references or experience with this.

Can you grieve an out of sequence PDR? I have read the QR&O's take on it, and from what I'm understanding, you can grieve anything that is administrative, not just PER's. 

I don't know the grievance process, as the QR&O doesn't get into that, and my SO's don't have anything. I can answer pm's with more information, but as a generality, I would like to know if anyone's dealt with this before.  Thank you so much for your time and attention.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Oct 2012)

What is an "out of sequence PDR"?


----------



## MJP (23 Oct 2012)

Sparkplugs said:
			
		

> Can you grieve an out of sequence PDR? I have read the QR&O's take on it, and from what I'm understanding, you can grieve anything that is administrative, not just PER's.



You can grieve PERs.

What do you mean out of sequence PDR?

I would suggest reading the DAOD DAOD 2017-0, Military Grievances http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/2000/2017-0-eng.asp

Grievance site  www.cfga.forces.gc.ca/gri-pla/index-eng.asp


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Oct 2012)

PM Sent.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Oct 2012)

I've seen "out of sequence PDRs" for specific exercises or tasks.  For example when we went on Ex Spartan bear 2 and down to California we wrote up "Out of sequence PDRs" for the soldiers to put on their file (but didn't count towards the reporting period ones)


----------



## Shamrock (23 Oct 2012)

Sparkplugs said:
			
		

> Just a quick question. I won't get into details, but I've heard so many different responses on this that I thought I'd ask if anyone had any references or experience with this.
> 
> Can you grieve an out of sequence PDR? I have read the QR&O's take on it, and from what I'm understanding, you can grieve anything that is administrative, not just PER's.
> 
> I don't know the grievance process, as the QR&O doesn't get into that, and my SO's don't have anything. I can answer pm's with more information, but as a generality, I would like to know if anyone's dealt with this before.  Thank you so much for your time and attention.



By the time the grievance has been resolved, the PDR will no longer be relevant.


----------



## MJP (24 Oct 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I've seen "out of sequence PDRs" for specific exercises or tasks.  For example when we went on Ex Spartan bear 2 and down to California we wrote up "Out of sequence PDRs" for the soldiers to put on their file (but didn't count towards the reporting period ones)



What?  I am still not understanding the terminology.  So you wrote an exercise PDR then right?  Then you wrote a regular quarterly PDR later on.  That is pretty normal at least in my experience.  How is it out of sequence and where does that term even come from?  A PDR is a PDR period.  CFPAS is not opening for me but IIRC really there is no upper limit on the amount that can be given out in a year (although time wasted writing more than 2-3 is a big consideration).


----------



## McG (24 Oct 2012)

Sparkplugs said:
			
		

> Can you grieve an out of sequence PDR?


This term "out of sequence" seems to be generating a lot of angst.  I too do not understand what you intend to say.

Regardless, you can always grieve the content of a PDR.  Your chances of seeing success on this route would be dependent on your ability to prove error in the PDR narrative.

You can also grieve that a PDR was written when you feel it aught not to have been.  However, I cannot think of an argument based in policy that would see the grievance being upheld by either the initial or final authority.

More clarity in your question may facilitate a better answer.


----------



## McG (24 Oct 2012)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> By the time the grievance has been resolved, the PDR will no longer be relevant.


That is not a certainty.  If the IA is sticking to required timelines, a decision should be reached before the PDR can influence this year's PER.


----------



## Sparkplugs (24 Oct 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> This term "out of sequence" seems to be generating a lot of angst.  I too do not understand what you intend to say.
> 
> Regardless, you can always grieve the content of a PDR.  Your chances of seeing success on this route would be dependent on your ability to prove error in the PDR narrative.
> 
> ...



Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps corrective PDR would have been a better term.

Basically, I was accused of missing a mandatory function, and a corrective PDR was written to that effect. I was on leave when all of the information about this function came about, and I was on course and not on the DIN the day I came back from leave, which was also the day of the function. I never received a phonecall to let me know about the function, so I feel that a PDR to correct my 'negligence' was written in error, as I cannot possibly attend a function that I am not aware of. I am happy to call my phone company to have the phone log sent to my OR, to clear my name. I am being told that I cannot grieve a PDR, because they've never heard of anyone doing it before.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Oct 2012)

Sparkplugs said:
			
		

> Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps corrective PDR would have been a better term.
> 
> Basically, I was accused of missing a mandatory function, and a corrective PDR was written to that effect.



So in actuality Absent without Authority.



> I was on leave when all of the information about this function came about, and I was on course and not on the DIN the day I came back from leave, which was also the day of the function. I never received a phonecall to let me know about the function, so I feel that a PDR to correct my 'negligence' was written in error, as I cannot possibly attend a function that I am not aware of. I am happy to call my phone company to have the phone log sent to my OR, to clear my name.



Your defence to the charge that should have been laid.



> I am being told that I cannot grieve a PDR, because they've never heard of anyone doing it before.



Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be. You can grieve anything where you feel you've been unjustly treated.

PDRs are not a substitute for the Code of Service Discipline. If your unit felt that strongly about the issue, they should have laid a charge. You would have beaten it IMHO, but that's beside the point now.


----------



## MJP (24 Oct 2012)

Sparkplugs said:
			
		

> Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps corrective PDR would have been a better term.
> 
> Basically, I was accused of missing a mandatory function, and a corrective PDR was written to that effect. I was on leave when all of the information about this function came about, and I was on course and not on the DIN the day I came back from leave, which was also the day of the function. I never received a phonecall to let me know about the function, so I feel that a PDR to correct my 'negligence' was written in error, as I cannot possibly attend a function that I am not aware of. I am happy to call my phone company to have the phone log sent to my OR, to clear my name. I am being told that I cannot grieve a PDR, because they've never heard of anyone doing it before.



That clears it up.  Your CoC is retarded.  Uggh I mean they probably handled in a manner that not many units would utilize.

PDRs are grieveable.  I would approach your CoC to try and clear it up before going that route.  If you get no joy utilize the intent to redress form that goes to your CO.  Often this can make your higher CoC aware of the problem and it can be cleared up before going the formal route.  If you still get no luck do a proper redress and await a decision.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Oct 2012)

What he said.  Write a memo to your CO asking to have the PDR removed as it was unfairly administered, and cite your reasons as to why.


----------



## McG (24 Oct 2012)

Based on the clarification, and as others have stated, you can use the redress of grievance process for this concern.  If the facts as are you presented them, then you have a very good chance of success.


----------



## medicineman (24 Oct 2012)

Trying to figure out why a PDR was written and not an IC...but I think MJP put it rather succinctly.

MM


----------



## Sparkplugs (24 Oct 2012)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Trying to figure out why a PDR was written and not an IC...but I think MJP put it rather succinctly.
> 
> MM



I was told an IC would be the next step if I "didn't keep my nose clean." 

Thank you all so much for your information and advice, it's all good stuff and I'll definitely be able to make use of it. I appreciate all of your efforts.


----------



## McG (24 Oct 2012)

As a final consideration, do review the DGCFGA site to which  MJP posted a link.  It has all the guidance that you will need.

If you do get to the point of submitting a redress of grievance (in writing and signed), it is your CO who is the authority and nobody in your CoC can refuse that redress between you and the CO.


----------



## Sunnyns (18 Feb 2013)

I work in a small unit and I'm not interested in asking around about putting a re-dress.

I've been a Sgt 3 years, one high ready PER and one outstanding.

From what I've been hearing I've dropped from 3 spots.  My MWO who loves to leave the WO out of things and manage everything himself.  Meaning if something is passed to the WO he gets upset if I have not notified him.  I'm following chain of command.  Tells me to tell the Maj that everything is ok when it's not, this is so she's happy.

I did sign a PDR and did not agree with what was on it.  Now that I've found out that I am not outstanding and I'm guessing might not even be a high ready.   As many of you know something like this can take years to get back up.  I'd like to know if anyone has re-dressed a PER with sucess.


----------



## Sf2 (18 Feb 2013)

1). There's no such thing as an outstanding PER. There is developing, ready, and immediate. 

2). If you got a high ready in your first year as a Sgt, then your CoC mis-wrote your PER.


----------



## Sunnyns (18 Feb 2013)

My mistake, I meant immediate.

Whatever the reason, I worked hard.  I was written up as ready.  Without going into it too much.  This past year there were things that should not have made it drop.

What I would like to do, is talk to someone about what is going on.  I don't mean a buddy either. Talking to my boss will not help.


----------



## Occam (18 Feb 2013)

SF2 said:
			
		

> 2). If you got a high ready in your first year as a Sgt, then your CoC mis-wrote your PER.



I don't recall the CFPAS policy saying anything like that...


----------



## McG (18 Feb 2013)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> I did sign a PDR and did not agree with what was on it.


Did you raise this concern with the CoC at that time?


----------



## Sunnyns (18 Feb 2013)

I did talk to the WO and was told that what was written was BS and not to worry but he had to show me this.  Now I found out there is reason for concern.  I am going to talk the WO again and see what happens I guess.


----------



## 392 (18 Feb 2013)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> I'd like to know if anyone has re-dressed a PER with sucess.



I helped one of my subordinate's spouse with her PER redress and she won. It all comes down to substantiation - as in can YOU substantiate WHY you should have been scored higher? In her case, it was glaringly obvious once she produced written proof to back up the score she should have gotten.


----------



## Shamrock (18 Feb 2013)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> I work in a small unit and I'm not interested in asking around about putting a re-dress.
> 
> I've been a Sgt 3 years, one high ready PER and one outstanding.
> 
> ...



http://www.cfga-agfc.forces.gc.ca/gri-pla/index-eng.asp


----------



## MARS (18 Feb 2013)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> I work in a small unit and I'm not interested in asking around about putting a re-dress.
> 
> I've been a Sgt 3 years, one high ready PER and one outstanding.
> 
> ...



You can't redress the PER until you have actually received it, so you have a couple of steps to take between then and now.

Yes, PER redresses can be successful.  I have assisted a few sailors in this regard, sometimes getting everything the member wanted changed, and sometimes not.  I have also been on the other side of the fence, analyzing a redress and drafting my CO's response to NOT grant certain portions of a PER redress.  The success of a potential redress depends on a variety of factors, not the least of which is documentation.

However, before you get there, you need to employ some dispute-resolution methods to resolve the issues at the lowest possible level.. I think CFPAS refers to this somewhere.

The first step is to discuss you issues PRIOR to being issued your PER.  That needs to happen with your supervisor and/or whoever is writing and signing Section 4.  That likely means talking to your boss, which you indicated wont help, but that is the correct method.  Doing that ensures that there are no surprises on your PER and is the preferred method because it saves time during the final stages of PER season, when the effort to write a PER has already been expended and everyone is up against deadlines to get the PER submitted to higher.

The second option is to discuss these same concerns at the time your PER is issued.  Again, resolving it at the lowest possible level.  

Last season I had a Leading Seaman who disagreed with some of his scoring. (Funny how few people have issues with the narrative, which is what, when I chaired the National-level merit boards, I spent most of my time reading...)  The LS's Department Head was absent, so I sat with him and his supervisor.  I started by asking him what scores he wanted changed, and to what.  He was looking for Mastered scores in some areas.  I asked him if he had read the CFPAS word pictures associated with the scores he wanted changed.  He had not.  So, here was this guy who wanted his dots moved to the right, but he had no idea what the actual expectations were.  So, I spent over an hour going through EACH score - even the ones he wasn't contesting, so he could see what the expectations were.  Then I asked him to describe to me examples of his performance in each area and then let him look at the word pictures and justify to me why he felt he has mastered particular areas.  

it was an eye opening experience for that guy.  I did agree to change a couple of his scores, but refused to change an equal number, because he couldn't articulate to me, his Commanding Officer, how he had mastered a particular category.  It is a difficult process when the word pictures are staring you in the face, but he left the meeting satisfied that he wasn't being seen off.  He wasn't completely happy, but he realized his own expectations did not meet the stark requirements of the word pictures.

I am not saying you have unrealistic expectations, just that you need to do your homework before any meeting or redress procedure.  Know exactly what you want and be able to concisely explain how you did A,B and C, thus warranting whatever score you feel you deserve.  

Either way, these steps are taken before any consideration of a redress is taken.  If talking with your boss wont help, then either you have larger issues with your CoC, or you and your boss have different expectations on how you performed.  Either you have met the CFPAS word picture requirements, or you haven't.  

Hope that helps, even though it doesn't provide you with an easy method of resolving your issue.


----------



## Sunnyns (18 Feb 2013)

Thank you for all of the responses, I've written quite a few PDR's and PER's and had to give bad news to some and good news to most.  I've never been on this side of things.

I agree with doing this at the lowest lv possible which is why I'm looking at things now.

Trust me I'll be doing my homework.  Even if only a few of the issues are corrected it would be better then what I am sure is coming.

Thank you again guys for all your help.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Feb 2013)

SF2 said:
			
		

> 2). If you got a high ready in your first year as a Sgt, then your CoC mis-wrote your PER.



Completely incorrect.  I acknowledge that as a Griffon pilot you may have written a few PERs in your 17 years of service, but what you have said is wrong.  The system is designed to allow the supervisor to give a true assessment of the subordinate.  It is quite conceivable that a member can show outstanding potential in their first year in rank - in fact I have seen it (and assigned it) many times, and it is likely that I have seen a few more PERs than you have.

Mind you, my first PER in the last three ranks has been an MOI or equivalent - perhaps my CofC has been getting it wrong all along as well.  :dunno:


----------



## Shamrock (18 Feb 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Mind you, my first PER in the last three ranks has been an MOI or equivalent - perhaps my CofC has been getting it wrong all along as well.  :dunno:



Time to redress them as you have not received procedural fairness.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Feb 2013)

SF2 said:
			
		

> 2). If you got a high ready in your first year as a Sgt, then your CoC mis-wrote your PER.



Thats whats wrong with the PER system. You're screwing the member who may show great potential because of some unfounded belief that they can't possibly be good at their job after being promoted. I know a member who, after working Cl B in a position for most of a year, CT'd to the RegF in the same position and same rank who had their PER knocked down because "he can't have that good of a PER for his first RegF one". Completely insane.


----------



## Sf2 (19 Feb 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thats whats wrong with the PER system. You're screwing the member who may show great potential because of some unfounded belief that they can't possibly be good at their job after being promoted. I know a member who, after working Cl B in a position for most of a year, CT'd to the RegF in the same position and same rank who had their PER knocked down because "he can't have that good of a PER for his first RegF one". Completely insane.



I would argue that what you just said shows a flaw in the per system. People don't know the difference between performance and potential. Sure, a guy is a rock star at his job, but that doesn't necessarily imply potential at the next rank.  Some guys are hard workers. But that doesn't mean promotion. 

Yes,  I've written many per's, but there are layers in the system that prevent them from being written in isolation. They are scrutinized at many levels of the CoC. So while my views on potential vs performance may be skewed in your opinion,  my PER's have been duly scrutinized to where I have never had a subordinate disagree with what I've handed to them, and that is my ultimate goal.

The door swings both ways. You can also screw a member if you firewall him when it wasn't necessarily justified.   But again that's what the review boards are for. 

Long story short, everyone has different views on how PER's should be written. Hence the reason for the redress system. It provides an honest broker in an otherwise very subjective process. 

In addition....we all know the PER system is flawed.  It is NOT an honest assessment of your subordinates.  You start with an honest assessment, then it gets up or downgraded based on where they finish in the rankings.  We all know that's how it works.  We've all sat on the ranking boards with our pile of brag sheets.

I've had to write a guy up as an immediate, only to downgrade him to a high ready solely because our unit has already met the imposed quota of immediates.  Yup, happens all the time, and it sucks.

To OP - my apologies if my original response came off as harsh.  I am just of the opinion that there is ALWAYS room for development towards a high ready or immediate, and if guys are shooting to the moon on their first go, perhaps their assessment wasn't so honest.  But there's always the exception......Good luck in your redress is it does come to that.

Cheers


----------



## DAA (19 Feb 2013)

SF2 said:
			
		

> I would argue that what you just said shows a flaw in the per system. People don't know the difference between performance and potential. Sure, a guy is a rock star at his job, but that doesn't necessarily imply potential at the next rank.  Some guys are hard workers. But that doesn't mean promotion.
> Yes,  I've written many per's, but there are layers in the system that prevent them from being written in isolation. They are scrutinized at many levels of the CoC. So while my views on potential vs performance may be skewed in your opinion,  my PER's have been duly scrutinized to where I have never had a subordinate disagree with what I've handed to them, and that is my ultimate goal.
> The door swings both ways. You can also screw a member if you firewall him when it wasn't necessarily justified.   But again that's what the review boards are for.
> Long story short, everyone has different views on how PER's should be written. Hence the reason for the redress system. It provides an honest broker in an otherwise very subjective process.
> ...



First and foremost, supervisors need to READ the CFPAS instructions, especially on the section pertaining to "PDR's" and it's not being done.  It's a Performance DEVELOPMENT Review.  That is the time to guide, nurture and lead your people to future success!!!  So come PER time, there should be NO surprises!  There are NO "imposed quotas" with regards to "Immediate" PERs, that went by the way side years ago.

Units that impose such a thing are doing a disservice to their subordinates!!!


----------



## Sf2 (19 Feb 2013)

DDA. I wholeheartedly agree with you on both points. That said, the quotas are not unit imposed. And there are ways around them ifjustified .


----------



## TwoTonShackle (19 Feb 2013)

I don't have the CFPAS handbook with me, but there is a section that deals with replacement PERs.  Basically you have 60 days from the date you sign your PER to request a replacement PER.  This is an alternative to a Redress and allows everyone to save face.

What I suggest is that when you sign your PER, take a copy and review it for a day or two.  Get all your ducks in a row using your own notes and word picture book based on your rank.  Request a follow up meeting with your chain of command and put everything on the table.  If you are still not satisfied with the results then submit a Redress.  This way if it goes to redress you have the fact that you attempted ADR prior to it's submission.


----------



## TCM621 (19 Feb 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Completely incorrect.  I acknowledge that as a Griffon pilot you may have written a few PERs in your 17 years of service, but what you have said is wrong.  The system is designed to allow the supervisor to give a true assessment of the subordinate.  It is quite conceivable that a member can show outstanding potential in their first year in rank - in fact I have seen it (and assigned it) many times, and it is likely that I have seen a few more PERs than you have.
> 
> Mind you, my first PER in the last three ranks has been an MOI or equivalent - perhaps my CofC has been getting it wrong all along as well.  :dunno:



I knew a guy who got prompted on his first PER in Rank.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Feb 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I knew a guy who got prompted on his first PER in Rank.


Really?  What was he prompted to do?   op:


----------



## Occam (20 Feb 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Really?  What was he prompted to do?   op:



Why...proofread, of course!


----------



## TCM621 (20 Feb 2013)

Damn auto correct.


----------



## Drag (21 Feb 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I knew a guy who got prompted on his first PER in Rank.



I know two but both are special cases... Both were OTs who had MOI PERs in their previous trades.


----------



## Occam (21 Feb 2013)

D3 said:
			
		

> I know two but both are special cases... Both were OTs who had MOI PERs in their previous trades.



That's not supposed to happen.  On OT, one's PERs are not supposed to be going to the merit boards for the first two years, making one ineligible for promotion.


----------



## Ostrozac (22 Feb 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> That's not supposed to happen.  On OT, one's PERs are not supposed to be going to the merit boards for the first two years, making one ineligible for promotion.



And I don't see anything in the rulebook about your EPZ resetting when you OT, just that you may have to take a reduction in rank to Cpl (or Capt for officer OT's).

When I OT'd, I became trades qualified in December, first PER as a Corporal in trade in April, went to the merit board in September, and appointed Master Corporal the following January. 13 working months as a Corporal in my new trade.

It happens.


----------



## Occam (22 Feb 2013)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> And I don't see anything in the rulebook about your EPZ resetting when you OT, just that you may have to take a reduction in rank to Cpl (or Capt for officer OT's).
> 
> When I OT'd, I became trades qualified in December, first PER as a Corporal in trade in April, went to the merit board in September, and appointed Master Corporal the following January. 13 working months as a Corporal in my new trade.
> 
> It happens.



I didn't say your EPZ resets.  I said your PERs are prevented from going to the merit board, regardless of whether the electronic selection board spits them out or not.

Nobody, but nobody should be getting a merit-based promotion based on three months observation in a brand new trade.  That's ludicrous, and it's not supposed to happen.


----------



## wesleyd (22 Feb 2013)

Read the CFPAS handbook, use it and apply it to your situation. Then go speak with your supervisor with your case, along with any documentation you may have. If it comes to a redress and you have a valid case it may go your way. Then again it may not. Because you see things one way does not necessarily mean others will see it the same way. But be prepared to stand your ground, I have seen people dissuaded from submitting a redress as it may make a supervisor look bad. Your redress will go to your CO and they will make the decision based on evidence from both sides.
The system is actually pretty good. What happens, from my experience, is that the people implementing the system like to do things that do not follow the CFPAS guide. Such as not giving someone an immediate PER just because it is their first one in rank. Even though they have the potential to do the job of a higher rank. Another is the PER "Monitoring Board". This ends up being nothing but a ranking board. How can you fairly write someone up when you are told before hand where they rank among their peers? This has been one of my pet peeves for years. Your writing PER's for subordinates and then your told. "No that is too high/low a score they need this dot there so they will rank # whatever". 
Good luck and the more proof you have the better your chances are you will get what you think you deserve.


----------



## PAdm (21 Mar 2013)

Great info in this thread.  Sometimes the redress is the best solution (especially if well written and substantiated/documented), but patience....my 2010/11 PER grievance is still in review at the FA.  I decided to ignore the IA's denial and go with FA review as the IA failed to disclose anything to me before making his decision; used verbal inputs as justification; and did not acknowledge any of my inputs.  But he did reply within 60 days.  Bless his cotton socks.


----------



## Sunnyns (15 Jul 2013)

I've heard that there is a grievance hotline that people , people can call if they have questions.  I was wondering if anyone knows this number since I'm having trouble finding it, if there is one.

Thanks!

I have my grievance ready, I'm just wondering who to hand it into. It's a bit complicated since I am not comfortable handing it into the Capt since I feel she is influenced by others.


----------



## Sunnyns (15 Jul 2013)

Sorry, I JUST found it.  Trust me I was looking for quite a while. I hate that I just answered my own question with in minutes of posting my question.  I think I'm just ready to have this done.  My ducks are in a row all nice and pretty and ready to be handed in.

I'll post it here and if anyone else is looking on this site it will be here.

Grievance Operations Clerk by commercial phone: (613) 995-1901. 

For all other inquiries contact us:

By Mail: Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority
 National Defence Headquarters
 Major-General George R. Pearkes Building
 101 Colonel By Drive
 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
 K1A 0K2 
By Telephone: Toll Free: 1-866-GRIEVOR (1-866-474-3867)
 Direct line: 613-944-5549 
By Fax: Direct line: 613-996-3586


----------



## MJP (15 Jul 2013)

Here is the DWAN grievance site.

http://vcds.mil.ca/sites/intranet-eng.aspx?page=7413 

Regardless of what you think of your CoC they will see the grievance anyway as it has to go to your CO for it to be properly submitted according to the rules.


----------



## Sunnyns (15 Jul 2013)

I know they will all see it, I'm just afraid of it sitting on his desk longer then it has to and slow things down.


----------



## DAA (15 Jul 2013)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> I know they will all see it, I'm just afraid of it sitting on his desk longer then it has to and slow things down.



The site on the DWAN has a section called "I am a Grievor...."   It will have all the information you need.  Once you submit the grievance, there are certain "timelines" that need to be met.  It always goes through your CoC, as they need to determine just who the IA (Initial Authority) is, once that is determined, then the ball starts rolling......

Good luck.....


----------



## Sunnyns (15 Jul 2013)

Handing it into the Capt, I'd like to put it on a 728.  Do you think this would be viewed as insulting?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2013)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> Handing it into the Capt, I'd like to put it on a 728.  Do you think this would be viewed as insulting?


It is due diligence to CYA and keep good recordkeeping.  Use a 728 and you will have a record of when and where it went, if you feel it is necessary.


----------



## DAA (15 Jul 2013)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> Handing it into the Capt, I'd like to put it on a 728.  Do you think this would be viewed as insulting?



Some people may take offence but as long as you keep copies and go through your CoC during the process, you should be okay.


----------



## PAdm (16 Jul 2013)

You are getting good advice here. I would add that you put the grievance away for a day or so, then re-read it. Is the emotion removed?  Did you stick to the facts and are they well explained and supported?  Do you state why you are aggrieved and what you seek as redress?  Facts and evidence win the day most every time. And your chain of command cannot take offence to a factual, polite grievance. Finally, resolution takes time depending on the IA so be patient. 

Good luck.


----------



## Sunnyns (16 Jul 2013)

I've been working on it for 3 months and I have all my I's dotted and my t's crossed.  I feel comfortable with it.  My sister has written quite a few for others so she's helped me a lot on it.  The 728 kind of worried me since everyone can take it a different way but what she pointed out to me was if I sent them the grievance in a PDF as well as a hard copy then that would also act as a date stamp and there would be no need for a 728.  She said it would come across as considerate since a lot of people also like electronic copies as well.  

There is great advice on this site, I've passed the address on to others.


----------



## DAA (16 Jul 2013)

Here is the official site, just in case you haven't seen it yet.

http://www.cfga-agfc.forces.gc.ca/index-eng.asp

Plenty of valuable information.


----------



## FutureSight (26 Jul 2013)

I am aware of the DOAD 2017 but I am dealing with a situation where the paperwork seems to disappear in a blackhole in my CoC.

I have searched for any other policy or documentation in addition to the DOADs but am unable to find anything else. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

The situation is...

The documentation for a Grievance has been 'misplaced'. What are the means to either ensure that the proper authority is aware or to ensure that the Grievance is not just disappearing into a blackhole?

Oh and this is the second time this paperwork has been 'misplaced'.


----------



## GR66 (26 Jul 2013)

A 728 is always a good place to start if there are concerns over the fate of a document you're sending out.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Jul 2013)

It is DAOD vice DOAD.

I'm not sure what you are saying by "misplaced".  IAW CF policy, a formal written grievance is to be submitted in writing to the mbrs Commanding Officer.  From there, the CO has specific actions items and timelines to follow to get the grievance to the DGCFGA where the file will be reviewed and assigned to the proper IA.

*Where* was it headed?  Has the grievor been assigned an Assisting Member, and if so has that pers been made aware the 'file has gone AWOL'?

http://www.cfga-agfc.forces.gc.ca/index-eng.asp


----------



## TwoTonShackle (26 Jul 2013)

Once a grievance is submitted to a CO, the CO is supposed to call the Canadian Forces Grievance Board and be issued a tracking number for that grievance.  If all the paperwork is "lost", (hopefully you have retained a copy of your original submission), ask for the tracking number or resubmit it and then ask for the tracking number.  Once you have the tracking number and date of issue then there are guidelines for the timeframe each level of review has until they contact you.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Jul 2013)

Sorry but that is not entirely accurate.  

All the steps, timelines, etc are on the DGCFGA site.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Jul 2013)

Always keep copies of everything.  I grieved a PER once.  It was rewritten.  I got it, signed it, copied it and sent it back.  When it "mysteriously" went missing, my CSM called the person in question and said, since I had a copy, we could just do it up again and send it out.  It was "found" the next day.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (27 Jul 2013)

DAOD 2017-1 Military Grievance Process

The CO must:

determine, upon receipt of an NOI, the best complaint mechanism to resolve the complaint, including IR (Informal Resolution);
- acknowledge receipt of the grievance in writing;
- assign an assisting CF member if requested;
*- register the grievance in the NGR (National Grievance Registry) with the DGCFGA;
- provide the NGR number to the grievor;* and
- determine if able to act as the IA.

The NGR number is a way for the member to track the process should the CO not be the IA or it go beyond the CO,and an attempt at transparency.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jul 2013)

So as you can see with your own post, the CFGB has fuck-all to do with it at this point.  

The IA has 60 days from receipt for_ decision_; the FA has no timeline, etc.

Like I said; your post wasn't entirely accurate.   :


----------



## TwoTonShackle (27 Jul 2013)

The OP is worried that their paperwork is disappearing into a "blackhole".  My advice to ask for the registry number was to ensure it would not disappear again.  Feel free to keep rolling your eyes though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jul 2013)

This is simple; your post wasn't accurate.  If you're going to post 'advice', ATLEAST try to make it correct so as not to mislead someone where they might go back to their CofC jawing-off about "this is what is supposed to happen!  :blah:" and make a 'tard of themselves.

*Attention to detail* and all that stuff.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2013)

How about you guys put the ruler away. I'm sure the OP has enough info to go on now.

---Staff---


----------



## Sunnyns (5 Aug 2013)

I was afraid this happening to mine as well.  I did not know how a 728 would be received so I had a PDF copy done of it.  I sent to my boss and worded it so I was helping them by sending an electronic copy.

I did it as a PDF so that they could not make changes to it.  It's a look out for yourself world.


----------



## Sunnyns (23 Aug 2013)

After a lot of research I don't seem to see anything about a timeline getting the ROG to the CO.  

Trust me I have searched, unless I am mistaken there does not seem to be a timeline for this.  Unless there is something I am missing.  I had thought that sending the PDF via email would suffice as a receipt but honestly it does not seem to mean anything to some people since mine is out there in space.  (a paper copy was sent as well) As of right now it is still sitting on the desk of the people I am having issues with months later.  My next course of action is to request a meeting with the OC, I do know it has not reached him yet.


----------



## JMesh (23 Aug 2013)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> After a lot of research I don't seem to see anything about a timeline getting the ROG to the CO.



From the applicable QR&O:

7.02 - TIME LIMIT

(1) A grievance must be submitted within six months after the day that the member knew or ought reasonably to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect of which the grievance is submitted.

(2) A member who submits a grievance after the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (1) must submit reasons for the delay.

(3) An initial authority may consider a grievance that is submitted after the expiration of the period if the initial authority is satisfied that to do so would be in the interests of justice. An initial authority who is not satisfied shall provide reasons in writing to the member.

(G) (P.C. 2000-863 of 8 June 2000 effective 15 June 2000)

http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/chapter-chapitre-007-eng.asp


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Aug 2013)

I'm assuming you have either (1) no Assisting Member at all or (2) a Fig 11 target for one?


For anyone interested, there was a CANFORGEN released about the AM trg/qual AKUY.  Course is avail on DLN/AFIILE.  Fairly decent intro to the CFGS and all its 'moving parts'.


----------



## Sunnyns (24 Aug 2013)

JMesh,  I know that regulation.  

What I am interested in is once a grievance is done and handed in, where is the timeline getting from the Sgt to the CO.

I see the CO's timeline and checklist as well.  The 6 month deadline is next month which I have more then met.

There is no delay on my part.

DGCFGA

It clearly states that the assisting member is not there to represent you, only make sure you are informed of the regulations and assist with the writing of your grievance.  
Not give your CoC a poke to get it off the guys desk.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Aug 2013)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> What I am interested in is once a grievance is done and handed in, where is the timeline getting from the Sgt to the CO



First, your grievance should be addressed to the CO.  Seond you have the right to ask to speak to your CO at any time.  If you have handed in a grievance, and if you have been appointed an AM by your CO, and if your intermediate CofC hasn't fwd that to the CO, I'm suggesting that your AM may be able to assist in this.  He may be able to approach the Adjt, etc to query if the CO has seen and actioned the grievance.   



> It clearly states that the assisting member is not there to represent you, only make sure you are informed of the regulations and assist with the writing of your grievance.
> Not give your CoC a poke to get it off the guys desk.



Great, if you know so much about how to make the CFGS work for you, why are you on here asking questions??

Your AM asking the CofC the status is not representing you and yes, they can and do liase with the local CofC.  

I'm curious, if you wrote a grievance and it is 'sitting on your Sgt's desk', and X amount of time has passed, if it were me I'd be asking to see my CO, or going to my AM and asking their advice or asking to see the unit Adjt or something.  *IF* someone is sitting on a grievance you've written addressed to your CO and they did not make any/all efforts to get that up the CofC and are intentionally delaying it....the CO should have an issue with that.  It was a Sgt doing it and I was his CWO/CPO, they'd think twice about doing it again.


----------



## Sunnyns (24 Aug 2013)

I'm here asking questions because I was wondering if I did miss something. I had heard that there was a timeline for memo's going through the CoC but couldn't find anything.

I did address it to the CO.


----------



## Occam (24 Aug 2013)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> where is the timeline getting from the Sgt to the CO.



There isn't a deadline for that.  

Prior to my release, I made a formal written request (through my CoC) to speak to the CO IAW the QR&O on grievances.  It went ignored - I couldn't even tell you if the CO ever saw it.  It took a month before it was returned to me by the unit OR because it hadn't been minuted by anyone between me and the CO.  I resubmitted it, but never again heard of it.

I submitted a written grievance prior to my release, which was directly handed to the BSM who gave it to the OC - who let it sit on his desk for a month and a half, and it was finally registered with DGCFGA four months after initial submission.  Despite getting DGCFGA and the CF Ombudsman's office involved, the CO still hasn't rendered a decision almost two years later - mine was submitted before the regs were changed to include specific timelines for the IA to respond to the grievance.  In the lacklustre attempts at moving the file, my CoC botched every step of the procedure along the way - acknowledgement, disclosure, representations to disclosure, decision.

If your CoC wants to stonewall it, there's not a lot you can do, except let DGCFGA know that you've submitted a written grievance and your CoC doesn't appear to be in a rush to register it.  I went to the Ombudsman's office only after seeing that DGCFGA was getting nowhere, despite repeated attempts.  Once e-mails and phone calls start going directly to the CO, instead of to the officer who's staffed to respond to the grievance (in my case, the DCO), there is normally movement on the file (unless your CoC is a bunch of slugs like my former CoC seem to be).


----------



## Sunnyns (24 Aug 2013)

Thank you Occam, I am so sorry that your grievance is going like that.  I honestly think this is where mine is heading with the history in my CoC.


----------



## Occam (24 Aug 2013)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> Thank you Occam, I am so sorry that your grievance is going like that.  I honestly think this is where mine is heading with the history in my CoC.



Document every attempt to find out if the grievance is on its way to the CO.  Try to use the CoC as much as possible, *but in my own personal opinion*, if two months goes by without having it registered by DGCFGA (which I would say is a reasonable time given the possibility of leave periods, days off, courses, etc.), I'd put that phone call in to DGCFGA and ask them if the delay has reached the "unreasonable" stage, and they may make some inquiries on your behalf.

I had both DGCFGA and the Ombudsman's office telling me that every single thing I did, I did by the book, and they emphasized to my CoC that I wanted the grievance handled by the book.  Despite that, they did stuff that's not supposed to happen like floating phone calls to me asking "well, if we give you this as an informal resolution, would it be acceptable?", even after I told them the time for ADR was long gone and I wanted the grievance responded to formally.  Then they sent a "grievance summary" (whatever that is, you won't find it on the DGCFGA website or in any regs) to me via internal mail to my new work address, where it was only the keen eye of our section head's AA (a former CPO1 Admin Clerk) that prevented it from being opened and sent through the central registry.  (If you're wondering about the significance of that, my current employer has no business knowing that I have a grievance going on with the CF).  I guess my former CoC missed the last para of my grievance, which explicitly stated that all written communications were to be sent to my home address by Canada Post.


----------



## Sunnyns (30 Oct 2013)

Last update,  I got the grievance back and it was a good win for me.  Not quite the win I wanted but it is a lot better then what I had and I feel good about the outcome. 

Thank you everyone for your input and yes key was to make sure every point was justified and make sure everything was documented.


----------



## Benzyme (16 Dec 2013)

Hello everyone, FNG here to these forums.

I received a Recorded Warning for "Trying to access blocked site by bypassing DWAN firewall".
I have statements from others guys here who have been found guilty of greater offenses (Installing software on DWAN and infecting PC with a virus resulting in Quarantine of PC and investigation at CFNOC). These 3 guys simply had to resign ISSO forms and had to brief their crew on authorized and unauthorized use of DWAN (dont know the DAOD off the top of my head).

Point being, my CoC has clear negative bias towards me and I can substantiate that in the grievance. I can also prove of other people in my unit having done worse, and received way less.

I have the template for Grievances and currently working on it, have also asked for an Assisting Member as I am entitled to receive help this way under QR&O Volume 1 Chapter 7.

To be clear, my actions were wrong, I admitted that and apologized for it when the ISSO came and locked out my account. 
My actions did not result in any damage to any CF networks or infrastructure.

I was not trying to access porn or anything "unauthorized". I was simply trying to read an article on destructoid.com (blocked due to being associated with "Games", there are no games on this website).

Has someone ever written a Grievance before, and if so could you show it to me and what was the result?


----------



## Occam (16 Dec 2013)

First, unless there were previous instances of you trying to do this, the first step should have been IC (Initial Counselling).

Second; you must've really ticked someone off.  I got a visit from the ISSO last week for running an executable on removable media (I was trying to load up a product catalogue of antennas from an antenna manufacturer), and all I got was the standard "Don't run unauthorized executables on a DWAN workstation" caution from the ISSO.

I know of military personnel who have used unauthorized USB sticks on a Secret network and I can guarantee they didn't suffer administrative actions.

Edit to add:  If I had a nickel for every time I ran into the site blocked/unauthorized site message on the DWAN in a day while carrying out the course of my work, I wouldn't have to come to work anymore.  You can't know a site is blocked until the system has told you it's blocked.  Now if you tried to circumvent the firewall with a proxy server, however....that would be grounds for admin/disciplinary action.


----------



## FJAG (16 Dec 2013)

The procedures set out in DAOD 2017-1 are quite straightforward. My best advice is follow them to the letter.

Having been a member of the chain of command let me tell you that the concept of the _CoC has clear negative bias towards me and I can substantiate that in the grievance_ is a pipe dream. While I don't doubt for a minute that some leaders do not have a good opinion of certain subordinates in most cases those reputations have been earned by those subordinates. The fact that you were monkeying around with your computer when you know you shouldn't makes it clear that you have some issues.

The fact that other people did _worse things_ and got less punishment is purely subjective on your part. For whatever reason, and I doubt that personal bias is the basis for this, they have decided to treat your case as one meriting a Recorded Warning. Quite frankly that's their call to make.

If I were to give you every benefit of the doubt and accept that there is bias against you then I would still have the view that you will have a hard time with this grievance with the grounds you have identified.

If I have one positive suggestion then it's to take a look at DAOD 5019-4 which relates to Remedial Measures of which _Recorded Warning_ is but one. Note in particular the provision which provides that Remedial Measures ought to be progressive starting with _Initial Counselling_. The fact that you've gone to a RW tells me that you've either 1. already had an IC, 2. that the CoC has determined that the circumstances have been met to take you directly to an RW or 3. your CoC doesn't know what they are doing (it happens). Assuming you haven't been previously given an IC my approach would be to grieve the fact that your action was not sufficient to take you directly to a RW and that there should have been an IC at most resulting from this incident.

Anyway, that's my  :2c:

Have a good one.  :cheers:


----------



## Benzyme (16 Dec 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The procedures set out in DAOD 2017-1 is quite straightforward. My best advice is follow them to the letter.
> 
> Having been a member of the chain of command let me tell you that the concept of the _CoC has clear negative bias towards me and I can substantiate that in the grievance_ is a pipe dream. While I don't doubt for a minute that some leaders do not have a good opinion of certain subordinates in most cases those reputations have been earned by those subordinates. The fact that you were monkeying around with your computer when you know you shouldn't makes it clear that you have some issues.
> 
> ...



Good day FJAG,
I have received an IC in the past due to unrelated matters. It was for being late for work some 3 years ago.

I have never been disciplined for any DND Network related issue in the past.

Does this answer some of your concerns and do you agree that maybe, at  maximum, I should have received an Initial Counseling for my actions?

And to answer some of your comments, I understand that it may seem far fetched to you that my CWO or CO has a bone to pick with me, as I am just a lowly Cpl. But I'm also the same Cpl who was advanced promoted 12 months, who received a General's Coin from 2CAD Gen for oustanding work. I am not a shitpump by any means of the definition, however I'm not perfect either and definately have pissed some people off with what might be considered being a bit too truthful with superiors sometimes?

What i want my grievance to achieve is either A) Completely remove this admin action or B) Get reduced down to an IC.

Im already currently serving 12 Months C&P for drug related offense (not doing or selling drugs, but allegedly allowed drug use in my household).

Is the fact im on C&P for an unrelated issue, reason to jump to RW for DWAN issue?

Thanks for your responses,

Benzyme.


----------



## Occam (16 Dec 2013)

Notwithstanding the OP's involvement in the C&P process for an unrelated matter - as someone who worked for years in first and second line support to DND networks, and all the associated rules & regs for IT Security, etc., I can say this.  Getting flagged by the DWAN firewall for trying to access a "games" (which is a broad description they use, by the way) site is so low on the scale that I'm sitting here finding it hard to believe an ISSO would waste their time on it, unless the person did it repeatedly for a prolonged period of time.  In fact, when I was working in IT, it wouldn't be unusual for me to Google an obscure command-line command to try to perform a particular function on a server, and I'd run afoul of the firewall for hitting a "warez" site.  In my current job, I hit firewall violations numerous times a day while looking for information on parts, vendors, etc., and nobody has even inquired about it.  

I know what you're saying - he did something he shouldn't have done - but you don't know you've hit a firewalled site until it actually comes up and tells you that it's blocked, and by that time you're flagged on the security logs.  Some sites are arbitrarily blocked for obvious reasons, but some others make no sense and have been lumped in with other suspicious sites.  I truly think in this case, the OP has a beef.  I have never yet seen anyone suffer admin or disciplinary action for merely hitting the firewall while trying to access a site.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> Getting flagged by the DWAN firewall for trying to access a "games"....
> 
> I know what you're saying - he did something he shouldn't have done - but you don't know you've hit a firewalled site until it actually comes up and tells you that it's blocked....
> 
> I have never yet seen anyone suffer admin or disciplinary action for merely hitting the firewall while trying to access a site.






			
				Benzyme said:
			
		

> I received a Recorded Warning for "Trying to access blocked site by bypassing DWAN firewall".



I'd say there's a difference between having the firewall/site blocked page come up and trying to bypass the firewall.    :dunno:


----------



## Occam (16 Dec 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'd say there's a difference between having the firewall/site blocked page come up and trying to bypass the firewall.    :dunno:



I would have to agree with you, but I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that the wording on the RW might have been less than accurate.

For the OP:  When you got the blocked site message, did you then try to circumvent the firewall by using a proxy or some other means?  Or did you just carry on your merry way and that was the end of trying to access the site?


----------



## Journeyman (16 Dec 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'd say there's a difference between having the firewall/site blocked page come up and trying to bypass the firewall.    :dunno:


Whoa......you're suggesting that the story has two sides    -- it's not merely that the CoC is out to get him?! 

Inconceivable.


----------



## Occam (16 Dec 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> it's not merely that the CoC is out to get him?!



Of course, _that's_ never happened before either.   :


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Dec 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Whoa......you're suggesting that the story has two sides    -- it's not merely that the CoC is out to get him?!
> 
> Inconceivable.



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Dec 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Whoa......you're suggesting that the story has two sides    -- it's not merely that the CoC is out to get him?!
> 
> Inconceivable.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> Of course, _that's_ never happened before either.   :


I suspect not _remotely_ as often as those saying they've been oppressed would claim.

The same folks who will come on here and, _when pressed for detail_, will mention that they were "merely" AWOL...repetitively, or there's that minor, _completely_ undeserved C&P for drugs on their file, or that sure, they may have been a complete shitpump throughout their career, but others have gotten lesser punishments, so it's not fair!

I'm not saying it's never happened, although I've never seen it.  Given the various checks & balances, I'd be predisposed to assume that there's another side of the story that people choose not to include when they're posting their 'hard-luck, system's out to get me' stories online.


Mind you, I also tend to disbelieve people who start their bar-room stories with I was a ninja-sniper-can't talk about it .......


----------



## Occam (16 Dec 2013)

Okay, fair enough.  I'll concede that people are usually less than forthcoming when there is more to the story than what they present.  I'll reword my thoughts on the subject.

If  Bloggins simply clicked on a link that resulted in a blocked page message, and if Bloggins didn't try to get around it somehow using nefarious methods, and in the absence of other aggravating factors in the past concerning IT security or use of the internet, then I would suspect that someone has said (for one reason or another) "If Bloggins so much as blinks the wrong way, write him up" - which isn't particularly fair considering some similar or worse transgressions of which I know have been "swept under the carpet".

What's good for Smith should be good for Bloggins.


----------



## Benzyme (16 Dec 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I suspect not _remotely_ as often as those saying they've been oppressed would claim.
> 
> The same folks who will come on here and, _when pressed for detail_, will mention that they were "merely" AWOL...repetitively, or there's that minor, _completely_ undeserved C&P for drugs on their file, or that sure, they may have been a complete shitpump throughout their career, but others have gotten lesser punishments, so it's not fair!
> 
> ...


I didn't need any pressing for detail, I was asked for clarification by 1 person and provided it.
I definately have not been a shitpump for the majority of my career lol.
I mentioned every fact of my situation for FJAG, including that I was on C&P and that I had been on IC earlier in my career for unrelated matters. Im not here to hide anything, I'm only asking for help, if you can't help, and only condescend, why are you even here?



> I received a Recorded Warning for "Trying to access blocked site by bypassing DWAN firewall".



I thought it was clear in this statement that i tried to bypass the firewall. I DID try, i searched the term proxy server in google after the DWAN Alert that says "proxy server". And i ended up finding information that this could be used to access a site that would be normally nto accessible.

I tried it, I failed, I never was able to access anything through the proxy server, as the DWAN firewall picked it up.

However it's strange to me that these "proxy server" websites aren't blocked. Atleast not the one I ended up on?



Point: My first DND Information System incident. WHY did it go straight to RW versus IC? If you can answer that question with a reasonable explanation and a reference that states this is the NORM, then I'll gladly accept my fate. I looked and everything I've seen is that Administrative Action should be initiated in the proper order and that unrelated matters should not affect the decision.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Dec 2013)

So you intentionally tried to subvert a secure system.

I'd say your lucky that the investigation and warning was left up to your CoC and not the NIS or the RCMP.

Do you think , just maybe, your CoC consulted with the IT security people and this is what _they_ recommended would be a good punishment?

Given the way people in service, including our own, are hacking networks and selling secrets, I'm surprised a RW was all you got.

If I was you, I'd worry more about buckling down and flying right and getting off the CoC's radar.

Instead of calling more attention to yourself and poking them in the eye with a stick.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Dec 2013)

Oh, and all the while, your posting and reading from a DWAN computer during working hours. :facepalm:


----------



## Occam (16 Dec 2013)

Okay, that clears things up immensely.  Sometimes the people writing up RWs and C&Ps don't know there's a subtle difference in wording and methodology between trying to access a blocked site, and trying to circumvent the firewall to access a blocked site.  They've used the correct description.

Trying to use a proxy server is definitely up there on the "don't do it" scale.  When you received the "site blocked" message, that should have warned you that someone, for whatever reason, has decided that you shouldn't be able to access this through the internet portal.  Second guessing that determination by trying to access the site by using a proxy server is a pretty flagrant violation of acceptable use policy.

Whether it calls for a IC or RW is a subjective decision.  They could have charged you.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Dec 2013)

He should have been charged under the NDA. Then the evidence is out there for all to see.

If the CoC wants to follow up with an IC, that is their decision.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Dec 2013)

Benzyme said:
			
		

> ..... if you can't help, and only condescend, why are you even here?


It's not always about you muffin;  in this case, if you'd wiped away the tears enough to follow the thread, I was talking with PMedMoe and Occam, although dapaterson jumped in as well -- believe it or not, not you.  



> WHY did it go straight to RW versus IC? If you can answer that question with a reasonable explanation and a reference that states this is the NORM, then I'll gladly accept my fate. I looked and everything I've seen is that Administrative Action should be initiated in the proper order and that unrelated matters should not affect the decision.


Well, as someone else posted to you in a separate thread, "I think you've completely missed the point of the military justice system. :facepalm:  "

While you shrug off intentionally tried to bypass a DWAN firewall after being warned not to, your pout seems to be considering your previous transgressions in your sentencing.  You believe that a _current_ C&P and a _previous_ IC should not be considered?!1  Should you be allowed to go through the entire Code of Service Discipline, one crime at a time, and that would be OK because they're unrelated matters?
      :


I don't think anyone can give you an answer that you would find satisfactory; the _obvious_ answer is 





			
				Benzyme said:
			
		

> ...my CWO or CO has a bone to pick with me, as I am just a lowly Cpl.


CWOs and COs are apparently more limited in their powers to deal with Cpls (however awesome) than I believed.

      :brickwall:



Edit: add link


----------



## kratz (16 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> Whether it calls for a IC or RW is a subjective decision.  They could have charged you.



Warnings are an administrative action and do not preclude the CoC from persuing charges.


----------



## Benzyme (16 Dec 2013)

> Oh, and all the while, your posting and reading from a DWAN computer during working hours.



I've been allotted time to work on my grievance and do some research. Thank you very much  


So what you're saying is, I should suck it up, because that's what's better for me?
Have you read QR&O Vol1 Chapter 7? Clearly states:



> (A) Subsection 29(4) of the National Defence Act states that a member may not be penalized for exercising the right to submit a grievance.



The DWAN is not a Secret or Top Secret system.
I asked my MWO during my RW debrief, why I was getting a RW versus IC. He said "Because the CWO said it would be an RW". That's all  I know of the decision.



You seem like you're definately part of the problem when it comes to trying to get proper justice.

There is nothing wrong with putting in a grievance when you feel you've been wronged and clear statement in DAODs state this isn't the proper procedure.



> Okay, that clears things up immensely.  Sometimes the people writing up RWs and C&Ps don't know there's a subtle difference in wording and methodology between trying to access a blocked site, and trying to circumvent the firewall to access a blocked site.  They've used the correct description.
> 
> Trying to use a proxy server is definitely up there on the "don't do it" scale.  When you received the "site blocked" message, that should have warned you that someone, for whatever reason, has decided that you shouldn't be able to access this through the internet portal.  Second guessing that determination by trying to access the site by using a proxy server is a pretty flagrant violation of acceptable use policy.
> 
> Whether it calls for a IC or RW is a subjective decision.  They could have charged you.



I still don't know if I'm getting charged for it. They can give you Administrative Action as well as Disciplinary Action for the same offense.

Is it really subjective though? Isn't IC the first line of admin action for a reason?


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Dec 2013)

Benzyme said:
			
		

> Is it really subjective though? Isn't IC the first line of admin action for a reason?



Then how can people go immediately to C&P for some issues?


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Dec 2013)

If I were your CoC you would be charged. It's disobedience of a lawful command to start, and let's go from there.

And you could be served a Recorded Warning as well.


----------



## DAA (16 Dec 2013)

So you received an "IC" some years ago for tardiness, which means "multiple" incidents.  Then C&P for drug related issues, which probably was not at the issuance of your CoC but rather DMCA after a thorough review and now an RW for IT related issues.  That sounds like 3 x Conduct related deficiencies, so I am rather surprised that an "AR" is not currently in progress or it could be but you're just not aware of it, yet.....

There is no requirement to be given an IC prior to an RW nor prior to C&P.  It is all based on the gravity/severity of the observed deficiency and as mentioned above, you obviously saw the "firewall" notice/block but still made some sort of attempt to bypass that, so it's the same as being told "don't go there or else" and by your own admission, you still tried.

I'd cut my losses and go into hiding......


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Dec 2013)

I think your lucky that you have not been given a Notification of Intent to Release.

By your OWN words you have an issue with obeying orders.....like be on time. Don't do drugs and don't try to bypass firewalls.


----------



## Occam (16 Dec 2013)

Santa's Coattails said:
			
		

> Warnings are an administrative action and do not preclude the CoC from persuing charges.



Yes, I realize that, I was simply implying that they should be happy it was only an administrative action.


----------



## captloadie (16 Dec 2013)

There is probably a few other factors that are being left out. If you know guys who did similar or worse things, than it is likely the CoC has made a decree that all further instances will be dealt with more harshly. Was it handed down in orders to remind members of the Regs? Was there a recent, or a standard, entry in the RO's highlighting IT policies? There are many factors that could lead the CoC to start off at an RW. 

Or it could be the CWO realizing that you have run afoul the system recently, and still aren't getting it. 

Oh, and even members who receive coins and other honours and awards can be shitpumps on a day to day basis, interspersed with moments worthy of recognition.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Dec 2013)

Benzyme said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is, I should suck it up, because that's what's better for me?
> Have you read QR&O Vol1 Chapter 7? Clearly states:



Once more, you've totally missed the point.



			
				Benzyme said:
			
		

> The DWAN is not a Secret or Top Secret system.



I said secure system. It seems your attention to detail gets you in trouble. Not an accusation, just an observation.



			
				Benzyme said:
			
		

> You seem like you're definately part of the problem when it comes to trying to get proper justice.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with putting in a grievance when you feel you've been wronged and clear statement in DAODs state this isn't the proper procedure.



See you still don't get it. You weren't wronged. You broke the rules and received an administrative action for it. It could have been worse, but the CoC was perfectly within their rights to impose the RW on you.

I'm going to go out on a limb, but it's damn sturdy and not too high off the ground.

You're not going to win this, but that's just my long experienced relationship with these matters. Not necessarily to final outcome.

It's not about the redress, it's about what hill you want to die on and for what reason.

By the way there sunshine, if you had even the slightest idea of my time on BOTH sides of the military justice system, you wouldn't be tossing out the ad hominems about me and that system.


----------



## DAA (16 Dec 2013)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Was it handed down in orders to remind members of the Regs? Was there a recent, or a standard, entry in the RO's highlighting IT policies? There are many factors that could lead the CoC to start off at an RW.



I do believe, that every day when we log into the DWAN (Ctrl, Alt, Delete), the "IT Acceptable Use Policy" is the very first thing that comes up, so that in itself is considered to be fair warning.  Whether you choose to read it or not, is another thing.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> It's not about the redress, it's about what hill you want to die on and for what reason.



Good advice.  You could very well be digging yourself an even deeper hole, that you may not be able to get out of!


----------



## Benzyme (16 Dec 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Then how can people go immediately to C&P for some issues?



It's clearly defined in DAOD 5019-4 which violations go straight to C&P and which don't.

Any drug related offense is straight C&P 12 months for example. Regardless of gravity.

My violation is not defined in that regulation as an automatic RW or C&P.


Anyways, I think I'm getting the general concensus.

Bend over, hold on tight to ankles, and don't ever complain about what ensues next.

Copy all, thanks for the help.


----------



## Scott (16 Dec 2013)

Benzyme said:
			
		

> Anyways, I think I'm getting the general concensus.
> 
> Bend over, hold on tight to ankles, and don't ever complain about what ensues next.
> 
> Copy all, thanks for the help.



You're sure showing that you learned from all of this, regardless of actions taken against you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Dec 2013)

Benzyme said:
			
		

> Anyways, I think I'm getting the general concensus.
> 
> Bend over, hold on tight to ankles, and don't ever complain about what ensues next.
> 
> Copy all, thanks for the help.



Don't pout.

There's a time and place to fight and fight hard.

This isn't it.


----------



## Occam (16 Dec 2013)

Just because the DAOD doesn't explicitly list your behaviour as being an automatic RW or C&P, doesn't preclude the CoC from summarily elevating it to that level.  It's their judgment as to the severity of the conduct deficiency.

As others have said, you're not being screwed over.  Consider yourself lucky you didn't end up with a RW and disciplinary action.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Dec 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> Consider yourself lucky you didn't end up with a RW and disciplinary action.



That can still happen. Depending on who is going to do the charging, the investigation could be ongoing and completely out of the CoC's control or knowledge.

They have a year less a day to bring it to trial.

Although there will be cautions, interviews and statements prior to that. 

That would give sufficient warning that it's not over


----------



## Benzyme (16 Dec 2013)

Done pouting, this just didn't go the way I imagined it would lol.

Thanks for the help recceguy.

I have not been advised of any Admin Review or Career Review but whoever mentioned it is right, It's quite possible that it's in the process of happening.


----------



## Scott (16 Dec 2013)

Well, you showed me something completely different from what I expected, good on you.

I retract my earlier sarcasm.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Dec 2013)

http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5019-4-eng.asp

You can't be selective and read the parts of a DAOD, etc that you like and support your stance.  I assure you, any Analyst (Grievance, AR, etc) will not.  

Read the whole DAOD, example:

Factors in Selecting a Remedial Measure

An initiating authority shall consider the following factors before selecting a remedial measure:
◾the facts of the case, including the significance and impact of the deficiency;
◾the CF member’s entire period of service, taking into account the CF member’s rank, military occupation, experience and position;
◾any conduct or performance assessment, evaluation or constructive criticism previously received by the CF member in respect of the deficiency;
◾any previous deficiency substantially related to the current deficiency of the CF member and the amount of time that has elapsed between the two (e.g. C&P is more likely to be initiated for a CF member in respect of whom an RW was initiated six months ago for a related deficiency, than in respect of whom a similar RW was initiated 20 years ago); and
◾any relevant factors in associated policies or orders related to the specific deficiency. 

While your IC and C & P are not 'relevant to this performance/conduct deficiency', they are still considered.  

You need to remember, some charges are removed from your Conduct Sheet after X amount of time, while Remedial Measures remain on the mbr's Pers File forever.

Rather than spending my time pursuing a grievance that will appear retaliatory (IMO) and fail, why not work on improving yourself?

If your CofC was hammering for you, I suspect you'd be in the Summary Trial lane too as well as being told that your Admin Review was underway.  My  :2c:

I would have CLEAR and DEMONSTRATED evidence before you use words like "bias" on the part of your CO.  My advice is walk away from this for the Holidays, and look at it after the dust has settled.  After all, your CO isn't the one on RMs for multiple reasons.

Now is the time you should be focusing on showing your CofC that you can overcome those documented deficiencies and thinking about what you can do to reverse the damage you've done to date.

If I were you and I wasn't on an IE25, I'd be thinking long term things like "oh, my TOS is coming up.....yikes".

Advice is free so take it or leave it, but some of us have been involved in things like grievances, understand how that system works and all that.

My advice (knowing what  you've told us) is this isn't the hill you want to die on, and (again from what you've said) your grievance will do nothing to help you but will likely hurt you in the end.

 :2c:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Dec 2013)

Benzyme said:
			
		

> Done pouting, this just didn't go the way I imagined it would lol.
> 
> Thanks for the help recceguy.
> 
> I have not been advised of any Admin Review or Career Review but whoever mentioned it is right, It's quite possible that it's in the process of happening.



It seldom does in these matters.

Your welcome.

They might be allowing you to get through the holidays without worrying and will be watching you when you get back.

Make a NY resolution to be the best soldier you can be and make them feel that that coin and advanced promotion were deserved and appreciated.

You can't undo it, but you can turn the page and get on with it.

Good luck.


----------



## Franko (16 Dec 2013)

Usually an administrative tool such as RW or C&P are viewed by the CoC as a means to sort out an issue and and get the person at fault back on the right path....regardless of what the person at fault own POV might be.

There are reporting periods and reviews that must be met and interviews that have to be done to give feedback to the individual, either positive or negative.

Think of it as a kick in the ass to get you back in the game.

My 0.02 worth.


----------



## anonwhocares (21 Jan 2014)

Hello-
today I got a 5b, with contradicting info on it from orders and timmings i was given. It seems to be a troop level power play, angry that i did not wish to go along with his vision of my carreer, I do not wish to get into it much, but my 5b contradicts timmings i was given and against limitations i was given by an MO.

normally i would sign a 5b and let it go ( not that Ive had many, but normally they have their place), this time it seems like it is a steping stone to a later charge for messing up my Lt's master plan.

so my question is, has anyone ever grivenced a part 5b, was it worth it, was their a positive or negative outcome.

Thanks-


----------



## Pusser (21 Jan 2014)

What do you mean by a 5b?


----------



## MARS (21 Jan 2014)

Sounds like para 5(b) of the CFPAS PDR - areas for development


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2014)

MARS said:
			
		

> Sounds like para 5(b) of the CFPAS PDR - areas for development


Familiar with it, are you?   op:

       ;D


----------



## MARS (21 Jan 2014)

;D


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2014)

Ya, me too.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jan 2014)

Technically yes  you *may* be able to grieve.

BUT...there are lower levels of resolution you could attempt first.  It's called "informal resolution" and should be attempted before you start hammering grievances out (IMO).

Not knowing anything other than you are in a Troop somewhere, I'd suggest talking to your immediate superior, explaining what you are unhappy about, and why and go from there.  

 :2c:


----------



## TChuki (25 Jan 2014)

Hello all, 


I seldom post, but read a lot on this forum. I chose not to create a new topic but to continue with a similar dilemma. I’d like to get an advice or some clarity from those that understand the system better and perhaps its customs, before I do anything that may be “stupid”. In summary I’d like to rationalize the issue that has left me sleepless and distraught. This will be my 3rd PER and last week I found, after politely seeking some indication on how I am doing from my immediate supervisor, that I will not be getting an immediate but ‘high ready” as two other Cpls from out “shift” will. One of whom works in our sections. Furthermore, I was advise that, he – my supervisor- had no say in it and will be writing whatever is dictated to him in due time. I sought some advice and clarity from him as the shift was prepping the files for the mini board (immediates) without members’ brag sheets. – I say this with absolute certainty, as we all work in condensed office environment equivalent of 3 classrooms due to building construction projects. – The point is the process of formulating the files could not and was not discrete. 

Here is a brief background:  

- My supervisor and the PO. have no training and very little experience in CFPAS as they are US Navy on the exchange program.

- For this fiscal year there was only 1 PDR issued to me, and several other members under the same CoC (1st quarter). We have all expressed our concerns several times to the WO of the shift (via a different Sgt. who is not our direct CoC), before the holidays seasons, assuring us that there will be some resolution to NO PDRs. issue. - nothing came out of it.

-	Last year under the same WO, I was given high ready PER stating that it could have gone either way and that naturally the progress dictates that by next year (this PER season) I ought to be “immediate”. 

- I have invested all my will and faith by picking up any and all secondary duties available, completing my job training in minimal time required with an exam score of a 100% and was very involved in the community. On the job for over 12 months.

- I am very passionate about what I do and do enjoy it…and they were very fruitful results with regards to the mission.  

How common is it to not have a PDR in a fiscal year, for a unit that is not on a deployment? Is this a standard practise to internally rank members without their brag sheets and therefore not to account overall performance and impact thereof? 
This has left me very bitter and completely demoralised. 

My intent is to speak to that immediate supervisor and his Sgt. as soon as I go back to work from my leave. I just fear that it will be upon a conclusion of the unit’s mini board and therefore too late. – Do I have enough to legitimately grieve the outcome, as it stands now. 
I never wish to question other members' assessment or PER....but if It comes to that I will. Can "Capping within the unit" be questioned as a  prejudicial and therefore illegitimate process.

Thank you.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jan 2014)

TChuki said:
			
		

> -	Last year under the same WO, I was given high ready PER stating that it could have gone either way and that naturally the progress dictates that by next year (this PER season) I ought to be “immediate”.



Wrong. Last year's PER score doesn't need to be lower than this year's score. If you check the grievance board rulings, you will be denied if that's your only grounds. If you truly feel you've done an immediate-level of performance and shown that potential, start getting your brag sheet together and linking things you did with justification for certain bullets. Also, what someone else got and what you get shouldn't matter. You shouldn't know their scores unless they tell you, hence why PERs are Protected B.

Scores being dictated from higher is always an issue in the CF, everyone here can probably cite multiple examples of scores changing because of a merit board, or someone other than the supervisor thought they shouldn't get that high of a score.

Start getting your ducks in a row now, wait for your PER interview, and ask pointed questions about certain dots. Sign it, and then draft your memo requesting a PER replacement if you still feel you should get scored higher. If its not replaced by the CO, you can go ahead and start the grievance process.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jan 2014)

IIRC, CFPAS states you should get an initial PDR at the beginning of the FY/PER season and a minimum of 1 review before the next PER, obviously with quarterly reviews being the best possible way, but is not required IAW CFPAS.

Being a "high ready" one year doe not guarantee an Immediate the next.  It is possible to go even from Immediate to a Developing (if the performance for that PER year was Developing and the mbr regressed).

My supervisor is also an exchange NCM; he writes PDRs and PERs IAW CFPAS and they are reviewed by his superiors.  I don't think there is an issue, and I don't think there is anything in CFPAS that disallows it. 

From a grievance perspective, IMO they are won on policy and its application, not so much "he said/she said" stuff which there seems to be a lot of in your post.

Try reading up on QR & O, Vol 1, Chapter 7 as well as the DGCFGA DIN and/or Internet site, I believe there is info on the DGCFGA site specifically for PER grievances.

Before you go further though, you have to answer the question "what am I grieving/what is the issue and how is the best way to resolve it".  A grievance is not always the best route and lower level/informal resolution should always be attempted.


----------



## stokerwes (25 Jan 2014)

No such thing as a high ready, its either ready or immediate. Look at the form, unsatisfactory, developing, ready, and immediate are the only choices. Unless the dots line up your PER it will not reach the monitoring board no matter how good the write up is. Telling someone they have a high ready is just fluff.
 If I was submitting a grievance based on what you stated I would grieve the fact that it appears there is a quota  at your unit. This is a blatant circumvention of how the CFPAS is designed to work. I am sure this is not the case at your unit, more than likely there is more to it than your WO will just write what is dictated. 
If you decide to file a grievance make sure you exhaust all other avenues first, remember that this is just one PER of many if you plan to stick around, and you don't want to be burning bridges. If you feel you should have scored higher and can substantiate it have at it. But if its just a matter that you think you should just get a higher PER than last year you don't have a leg to stand on. I have seen personnel go from immediate one year to developing the next.
 Only one PDR is required annually.
Engage your CoC before jumping to grievance. Perhaps the WO didn't have the time to explain the situation fully. Set a meeting with your supervisor in a neutral environment to see if you can see where you may have fell short. Although this is what the PDR is designed to do sometimes we just fill the forms in because we have to.
Whatever you decide good luck.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jan 2014)

stokerwes said:
			
		

> No such thing as a high ready, its either ready or immediate. Look at the form, unsatisfactory, developing, ready, and immediate are the only choices. Unless the dots line up your PER it will not reach the monitoring board no matter how good the write up is. Telling someone they have a high ready is just fluff.



Its a colloquialism. 3 Outstanding and 3 AA is a "high ready". Incredibly different in scores than a 3 AA and 3 Normal "low ready". There's a huge spectrum difference in a Ready PER recommendation, moreso than an Immediate and it uses those terms help to clarify it. Its also a red herring to his issues with the PER.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 Jan 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its a colloquialism. 3 Outstanding and 3 AA is a "high ready". Incredibly different in scores than a 3 AA and 3 Normal "low ready". There's a huge spectrum difference in a Ready PER recommendation, moreso than an Immediate and it uses those terms help to clarify it. Its also a red herring to his issues with the PER.



3 AA and 3 N = Developing... Not a ready...


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jan 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> 3 AA and 3 N = Developing... Not a ready...



Gotcha, don't have CFPAS at home to work the math out. That, and I've been lucky not have to write many developing PERs.  :nod:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 Jan 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Gotcha, don't have CFPAS at home to work the math out. That, and I've been lucky not have to write many developing PERs.  :nod:



Np


----------



## stokerwes (26 Jan 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its a colloquialism. 3 Outstanding and 3 AA is a "high ready". Incredibly different in scores than a 3 AA and 3 Normal "low ready". There's a huge spectrum difference in a Ready PER recommendation, moreso than an Immediate and it uses those terms help to clarify it. Its also a red herring to his issues with the PER.


Agreed, but to a young Cpl being told your a high ready without understanding how the system really works can seem a  bit misleading.  That being said CFPAS is available for everyone to read on almost all DWAN machines. I would think the "younger" generation should have little difficulty finding the handbook to read prior to filing a grievance. My opinion is that honestly written evaluations tend to place the member on the lower side of the merit list as the scores are highly inflated, who really can substantiate a entirely right justified PER?


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jan 2014)

stokerwes said:
			
		

> Agreed, but to a young Cpl being told your a high ready without understanding how the system really works can seem a  bit misleading.  That being said CFPAS is available for everyone to read on almost all DWAN machines. I would think the "younger" generation should have little difficulty finding the handbook to read prior to filing a grievance. My opinion is that honestly written evaluations tend to place the member on the lower side of the merit list as the scores are highly inflated, who really can substantiate a entirely right justified PER?



Oh buddy your opening up another whole can of worms!  WRT fully right dressed PERs. 

I actually read one that had an AWOL charge in it.  And the PER was fully right dressed.  Didn't believe it could happen then I saw it!


----------



## TChuki (27 Jan 2014)

Thanks for all your replies. It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to get into a detailed story about this issue so I won’t and that wasn’t the intent. I wanted to ‘test’ the waters with some mixed experience from you readers. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think that anyone has any right to legitimately get into he said she said frivolous debates and fights not only is it immature but would ultimately be detrimental.

Nor should anyone even worse get into openly compering others’ scores.  I guess the lesson learned is that what you do matters at times but image perceived by those that have “earned- privileges” is paramount, especially if you are fortunate to have a good backing, engaging supervisors that take resource, human resource development seriously. 

 ;D that's my venting...for this reporting period.
When there is no feedback and support, the job losses it's allure.The job is not as interesting, not anymore. It's become a theater of bragging. This is where one gets in a pattern of complete detaching oneself and just doing it for the good old "20-20". The opportunities, although increasingly more limited now days are still great. But it isn’t that, what drives me anymore. It’s the opportunity to get it right one day to those coming up behind me.


----------



## opcougar (20 Apr 2014)

Good afternoon All,

Hope you are all having a nice Easter break? My was derailed just before the long weekend, and this has to be my worst holiday period ever. Here is my story......

I am a Capt yr 2.....I was presented with my PER on Thurs to sign by my supervisor who was newly promoted and came into the position last APS. Prior to this supervisor, I had a different supervisor who I disclosed my personal situation (Divorce) to when I got posted in back in 2012. I felt the need to let him know and also assured him that a social worker gave me the all clear based on my meetings, that I seem to be focused and handling everything well. I have 20 subordinates by the way...2 were promoted last APS, 2 are being promoted this time around. We even received a commendation for our work.

My 2013 PER under PF, had me at ES for the following: supervising, eval and developing subs, leading change and working with others. The same applied to ethics and value, reliability, accountability and resource management. The rest was a mixture of Mastered and ES

Now fast forward the current supervisor....I also disclosed to him my personal situation for his SA, and occasionally briefed him verbally on how the Troop is doing. He seems to have made assumptions based on my personal situation and my brief brag sheet, to write my PER. He mentioned that he didn't have much to go by when he put me at (Skilled) for the following for PF: supervising, eval and developing subs, leading change and working with others. 

Under ethics and values & Dedication.....he had me at ES down from Mastered previously.

I feel like my clock of life had just been turned back 2yrs, and there is no way this can be good for my progression. I am also dealing with someone who is not an Anglophone. My divorce has nothing to do with my work, and for him to comment that because of the divorce, it takes time to get over such a thing, is just wrong. I mentioned to him and showed him my last PER, and made it known that I don't think my previous experience dealing with the same job all of a sudden disappeared, to which he replied he will see what he can do but isn't promising anything. He also blamed me for not presenting a loaded 'brag sheet'. If I knew the brag sheet was going to be used as the Gospel, am sure I could have written 10 pages of BS

So here is my question for the senior folks here i.e. people with more time in that I have.....How do I go about grieving this without rocking the boat? I spent part of yesterday drafting up the 'Notice of Intent' (NOI), and will be following up with the Grievance process docs

Your suggestions and advice welcome.

Cheers


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Apr 2014)

The first thing to remember is that your PER score from a previous year bears no relationship to your current year.

The second thing to remember is that the PER system underwent a significant change this year that (IMHO), led to some score deflation.

If you are unhappy with your PER, the first step is to attempt informal resolution at the unit level.  In a memo to your boss, explain why your score is too low (tying concrete examples to the CFPAS word pictures). Failing that  you have option of grieving within 6 months of the date you signed your PER.


----------



## GnyHwy (20 Apr 2014)

Not sure about your unit, but everyone that I am aware of, the score is not set by the supervisor.  The score isn't even necessarily how you performed.  It is how you relate to your peers.  Did you stay still while your unit just took in some superstars?  Is your Corps overloaded with Capts, a lot of them younger than you?  

The score is determined by the OCs and COs above you.  The supervisors just get to do the fun part of trying to explain to his subordinate, why the CoC sees them scored as such.

There may be another factor in play too.  The new flavour of the week is "succession planning".  If you are not seen as a rockstar that will make Col or higher, they may be making room for the persons the CoC sees as capable of succeeding at those lofty heights, and they need to get passed you asap.     The succession planning has also knocked people down a peg, which in most cases probably means they stay stagnet, while the persons that are seen as having higher potential are shoehorned though the ranks.    

That said an SND is quite low, and unless you're making mistakes, getting old, or a bit pudgy, its probably too low.  The two latters are a pretty big deal nowadays.  

You have to ask yourself if it's worth it.  Even if you argue and get another ES, you still won't be promoted anytime soon.  

I can see why you be upset though, and you should be given a good reason for why your CoC doesn't see you progressing with your peers.  Or maybe you can already answer that.


----------



## Ralph (20 Apr 2014)

Did you go from an ESAAR in 2013 to a SND this year?


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2014)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> The new flavour of the week is "succession planning".  If you are not seen as a rockstar that will make Col or higher, they may be making room for the persons the CoC sees as capable of succeeding at those lofty heights, and they need to get passed you asap.     The succession planning has also knocked people down a peg, which in most cases probably means they stay stagnet, while the persons that are seen as having higher potential are shoehorned though the ranks.



You mean not every officer can be the CDS?! Blasphamy.


----------



## opcougar (20 Apr 2014)

No.....I went from ES for the first 4 PF and Mastered in Dedication to Skilled in the first 4 PF and AA in Dedication.

As mentioned, this new supervisor is newly promoted to the rank, hasn't take the time to know me, and is Francophone

I just feel like the written PER was pulled out of the air



> You mean not every officer can be the CDS?! Blasphamy.



I am a DEO that joined in his mid 30s, I am never going to be a LCol, but do take this second career seriously than the average RMC types


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Apr 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> No.....I went from ES for the first 4 PF and Mastered in Dedication to Skilled in the first 4 PF and AA in Dedication.
> 
> As mentioned, this new supervisor is newly promoted to the rank, hasn't take the time to know me, and is *Francophone*
> 
> ...



That should have no bearing on the PER....For the record I have had to write assessments for Francophone subordinates and also have been assessed by Francophone superiors...and I am an anglophone.


----------



## GnyHwy (20 Apr 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> I am a DEO that joined in his mid 30s, I am never going to be a LCol, but do take this second career seriously than the average RMC types



You just answered the question.  You will be held back up, until those average RMC types can pass you.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You mean not every officer can be the CDS?! Blasphamy.



Almost seems that the succession planning approach to this is throw enough crap er I mean young soldiers at the top and some of them are bound to stick.

Pers like Opcougar, as good as they may be, don't stand a chance.

Don't feel too bad though Op, it's simple math.  You were taught how to do a time appreciation.  If you want your soldiers to be 3 and 4 stars, just back it up 3-5 years per rank.  You quickly realize that if a soldier isn't a Maj by the time he is 30, he isn't going to go really high. 

You were past 30 before you joined.  Not the answer you wanted to hear, but it is probably the correct one, or at least have a lot to do with it.'

Not all bad though.  You'll be making 80K+ in no time and by the time you do make Major or even LCol, it will be above 100K.  Keep yourself in good shape and you never know.  It just won't happen as fast as the average RMC types young guys.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 Apr 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Good afternoon All,
> 
> Hope you are all having a nice Easter break? My was derailed just before the long weekend, and this has to be my worst holiday period ever. Here is my story......
> 
> ...



Grieving a PER is a difficult thing, so you will want to make sure that your ducks are in a row prior to starting the process.  I would recommend talking to the CO prior to submitting a grievance... in reality, the CO/OC (as noted already) decide on your meriting and the boss just makes the "points work"... (s)he an likely give you the "full picture" of why your score is where it is.

If you do a grievance, you will need to justify each score, so will need concrete examples.  It's your responsibility to prove that your performance and potential are what you believe they are.  You note the "francophone" aspect of your boss, but unless you can prove that the language difference definately caused your score to be adversely affected than it will likely weaken your overall case.

For potential, it is extremely difficult to grieve as it is almost completely opinion based.  If you believe, for example, that your leadership is outstanding but was rated as above average you must prove that it is outstanding.  It's very difficult to do.

Finally, as also noted, scores went down a lot as aspects such as degrees and language profiles began to be considered for potential for the first time in a long time.  For example, at the artillery school there were captains with 2-4 MOIs that went to MAAR because they didn't have a BAB french profile.  one went from an almost perfect MOI, including a theatre MOI, for profile and degree.  Yet another, with a qualifiction that only 3 other people in the CAF have went from high MOI to low MAAR because of language and degree.  The point? It happens.

Grieving is your right, and if you feel strongly about it, than by all means do it.  Just make sure that you have your ducks in a row!


----------



## sidemount (20 Apr 2014)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Grieving a PER is a difficult thing, so you will want to make sure that your ducks are in a row prior to starting the process.  I would recommend talking to the CO prior to submitting a grievance... in reality, the CO/OC (as noted already) decide on your meriting and the boss just makes the "points work"... (s)he an likely give you the "full picture" of why your score is where it is.
> 
> If you do a grievance, you will need to justify each score, so will need concrete examples.  It's your responsibility to prove that your performance and potential are what you believe they are.  You note the "francophone" aspect of your boss, but unless you can prove that the language difference definately caused your score to be adversely affected than it will likely weaken your overall case.
> 
> ...



Best advice right there ^

Anything that you want/need changed you have to be able to JUSTIFY it. You need to provide examples and unfortunately you cannot use "my last years PER was higher" nor can you say "they have no justification to put me lower" 

You need to prove that you deserve the bubbles where you want them.

This is if you have PDRs it makes it much easier. 

Start off with you CoC and let them know that you intend to Grieve your PER. Some times they will work with you so as to avoid the grieving process.

If you do decide to grieve, realize that it will take a lot of time, you will have to be very patient and jump through a lot of hoops, but stick it out!


----------



## Sunnyns (21 Apr 2014)

You can use not getting PDRs to your advantage as well since if there was a problem and you were not notified of it, how can you fix it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2014)

Sunnyns said:
			
		

> You can use not getting PDRs to your advantage as well since if there was a problem and you were not notified of it, how can you fix it.



I didn't read anywhere that the OP didn't get a PDR this cycle.  But if that is the case, yup that is an issue.  

To the OP, you really can't grieve anything and not rock the boat and put a few ripples in the water.  

If you do go grievance route, get an Assisting Member despite your rank.  

Not to sound like an arse, but maybe your performance was down from the previous , maybe the previous superior wrote you a little higher than he/she should have.  You mention that you are a 2nd Capt and you had Master and such previous year.  My first thought was "those could have been inflated".

Just something to consider.


----------



## Ostrozac (21 Apr 2014)

Remember the primary purpose of a PER -- promotion to the next rank, and promotion boards only look at the last three PERs.

You mention that you're a second year Captain. Does your MOSID routinely promote fifth year Captains to Major? If it's more like seventh year Captains, then even if you grieve, win, and get a better PER, no one will ever use it -- because your 2nd year in rank PER will have aged out before your file gets to the Major promotion board.

And I'll second that checks in the box seem to be all the rage lately. If you're not qualified to be a Major (second language, ATOC, AOC, CAFJOD) then you really can't expect to be written up like you should be one immediately.


----------



## opcougar (21 Apr 2014)

Thanks everyone for your responses thus far.....as mentioned, I don't really want to rock the boat and the last thing I need is the Maj holding it against me moving forward.

I have 3 modules left on my MBA that am taking, all OPMEs are done, but 2nd language doesn't exist. My MOSID promotes 5th year Capts to Maj.

I know it's possible to get promoted without a 2nd language profile....a friend of mine had that this past APS.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 Apr 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Thanks everyone for your responses thus far.....as mentioned, I don't really want to rock the boat and the last thing I need is the Maj holding it against me moving forward.
> 
> I have 3 modules left on my MBA that am taking, all OPMEs are done, but 2nd language doesn't exist. My MOSID promotes 5th year Capts to Maj.
> 
> I know it's possible to get promoted without a 2nd language profile....a friend of mine had that this past APS.



If that's the case than they shouldn't have been. I can only speak for the artillery, BUT in years past all kinds of people were promoted without french or without degrees.  Now, to go to staff college the majors are doing second language to get the BAB or else they dont go (= career stop).


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Apr 2014)

So language and education are considerations at the unit level now? Previously they had been part of the merit board's 10 potential points.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Apr 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So language and education are considerations at the unit level now? Previously they had been part of the merit board's 10 potential points.



That seems to be the trend (although I disagree with it).  The explanation that I have received is that: why put a file forward to merit board with a ranking, that does not match what the board is looking for?

I think that approach misses the point that you may have identified talent at the unit level that could then be developed and nurtured. It also risks sending the wrong message: the guy who did average work and spent all his extra time on a second language and education is going to outscore a hard working dude who did some crazy operational work.


----------



## GnyHwy (22 Apr 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So language and education are considerations at the unit level now? Previously they had been part of the merit board's 10 potential points.



Yes, it is quite wrong in my opinion.  Seems that the new approach is to look forward to the scoring criteria (SCRIT) which is used at the promotion boards to see if a person will stack up.  The PER process and the SCRIT seem to have merged, effectively taking away and discreteness of the two processes. 



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I think that approach misses the point that you may have identified talent at the unit level that could then be developed and nurtured. It also risks sending the wrong message: the guy who did average work and spent all his extra time on a second language and education is going to outscore a hard working dude who did some crazy operational work.



Tacco also nails it on the head, and I agree fully.  We have all seen the guys slugging it out doing the dirty (deadly) work only to see others with extra time padding their stats.

Where it gets bassackwards, is in some persons (decision contributors) eyes it's probably seen as a wasted nomination if someone without the extra points (language, education etc.) gets put forward.  To further exacerbate this, a fair bit of points at the scoring board are up for debate and are subjective, which will inevitably cause localized judging systems which will be far from standard.  Once a person is seen to have a chance to score high at the SCRIT, they will inevitably be written high for performance, simply to match the preconceived beliefs about them because of the extra points.  

One not even need do their job to be written high for performance.  Persons can (and rightfully so), see the SCRIT and focus their efforts to gathering extra points.  In the process of gathering extra points, one will undoubtedly neglect their current job.  Not to worry though, it will be overlooked, because if you are seen as scoring high at the SCRIT, you will get a high PER.  

Can you say cart before the horse?

To get back to the OP's problem, which won't have a satisfying ending.  Yes, the CoC is trying to assess if a person can make it to the General Officer level, even though they may have just finished puberty.  Maybe we can change the saying to putting the cart before the pony.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Apr 2014)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Yes, it is quite wrong in my opinion.  Seems that the new approach is to look forward to the scoring criteria (SCRIT) which is used at the promotion boards to see if a person will stack up.  The PER process and the SCRIT seem to have merged, effectively taking away and discreteness of the two processes.
> 
> Tacco also nails it on the head, and I agree fully.  We have all seen the guys slugging it out doing the dirty (deadly) work only to see others with extra time padding their stats.
> 
> ...



This is why I have always had a Love/Hate appreciation of the PER system.  I have found the PDR/PER system the only humanly fair and honest system that can be created to evaluate personnel; but it is manipulated and corrupted by the humans who use it to fulfill agendas, theirs or their superiors.   Tweaking this system can only make it more fair if the human equation is taken out of it, and that is not likely to happen.

The corruption of this system is not new.  It has been abused for decades.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Apr 2014)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> You just answered the question.  You will be held back up, until those average RMC types can pass you.
> 
> ...... It just won't happen as fast as the average RMC types young guys.



Bullshit.  

I have been around the system for some time now, and have occasionally held positions that had some insight into meriting etc.  The RMC myth is just that.  In the Infantry at least, it matters not one jot where you came from.  What matters is how you perform.  A former Regimental Colonel of the PPCLI was frequently heard to say that the only principle of career management that mattered was that "performance cannot be denied".  He joined late, and did not get a Bachelor's degree until after he was a LCol, so it is possible that he was right.


----------



## opcougar (22 Apr 2014)

Again....thanks everyone for your advice and suggestions, it is duly appreciated! So the first thing I did this morning was seek a couple of senior officers, and asked their opinion after showing them examples to substantiate my stance. They advised me to approach the supervisor with caution about my dissatisfaction with the PER. Additionally, I was told NOT to ask for a "better PER", but instead be clear with exactly what I'll like to happen.

I approached the supervisor, and his response was and I quote "I don't want to talk about it, grieve it if you have an issue with it". I then gave my NOI, and followed that up with a memo to the CO.

The supervisor's demeanor , has been the status quo whenever am trying to brief him or bringing matters to his attention. I must add that he is newly promoted (last APS).

Looks like the boat has been rocked, but at least I am standing firm on what I believe is wrong considering my troop met its mandate in the FY, and we were commended by higher. I was the one steering the ship


----------



## garb811 (22 Apr 2014)

Uhhmm...why didn't you simply request a meeting with the CO?  That's the next step in informal resolution before going to Redress of Grievance.  Strike out with the CO, then you submit the paperwork.  By submitting the NOI now, it could be taken as an attempt to strong arm the CO when you do meet with him/her.


----------



## sidemount (22 Apr 2014)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Uhhmm...why didn't you simply request a meeting with the CO?  That's the next step in informal resolution before going to Redress of Grievance.  Strike out with the CO, then you submit the paperwork.  By submitting the NOI now, it could be taken as an attempt to strong arm the CO when you do meet with him/her.



Disagree, the NOI, in my experience, just simply lets the CoC know that there is an issue (and the member is serious about it) and now is their chance to deal with it at the lowest level. After that comes the grievance if the member is not happy with the outcome.

I don't believe it would be taken as a strong arm attempt.

Without the NOI I've seen the concerns of the member just shrugged off.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Apr 2014)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Uhhmm...why didn't you simply request a meeting with the CO?  That's the next step in informal resolution before going to Redress of Grievance.  Strike out with the CO, then you submit the paperwork.  By submitting the NOI now, it could be taken as an attempt to strong arm the CO when you do meet with him/her.



Some reading.   

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-support-services-for-members-grievance/notice-of-intent-form.page?


----------



## opcougar (22 Apr 2014)

I must add that a meeting with the deputy CO (who was away today), is actually the next step from what I was told by the Adjt to the CO. The Adjt did indeed say preference is to resolve this at the lowest level before getting the CO involved. I was asked to provide the last 2 PER scores.

This experience will remind me of the kind of supervisor I wouldn't want to be. I have 20 Subs I inherited last APS, one got promoted to a snr NCM last APS and my WO is getting promoted this summer. All other mbrs have a high ready, and it's justified by my observations of what everyone has done and meeting our mandate.

If someone is not taking note of what you are telling them for some odd reason, then is like forcing a camel to a stream. Someone mentioned up thread that I should request an AO....I definitely think am going to have to, as I don't want to end up putting foot in mouth...better someone of a similar rank to the supervisor (unbiased and perhaps out of trade) makes my case for me.


----------



## garb811 (22 Apr 2014)

Thanks, but I'm more than aware of the NOI and the process.  

My point being, a simple request to see the CO to discuss the PER is simple, fast and to the point.  Being PER season, I'm pretty sure most Units have at least a few of these requests and (hopefully) they are treated seriously and expeditiously in order to meet the intent of informal resolution.


----------



## GnyHwy (22 Apr 2014)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Bullshit.
> 
> I have been around the system for some time now, and have occasionally held positions that had some insight into meriting etc.  The RMC myth is just that.  In the Infantry at least, it matters not one jot where you came from.  What matters is how you perform.  A former Regimental Colonel of the PPCLI was frequently heard to say that the only principle of career management that mattered was that "performance cannot be denied".  He joined late, and did not get a Bachelor's degree until after he was a LCol, so it is possible that he was right.



The RMC type was the OP's words, and I added the young part, which is an easy assumption.  I would totally agree that it doesn't matter where a person comes from, but age certainly does matter.  Holding a mid thirties Capt back to let through some mid twenties Capts that have a shot at the top seems all too common (even though it's a shot in the dark); and in a perverse way, it kind of makes sense.  After all, every Corps wants representation at the top.  The same goes for NCMs, only it will happen at the Sgt or WO rank and at a later age.

Also, I don't believe your example for your Regt Col applies here.  I doubt we will see too many Os get in without a degree anymore, and if they do, they won't have a chance at LCol.  Perhaps 10-15 years ago, but not now, and even if *one or two *persons did pull it off, it would be less than an exception.  I would suggest that your example is not only an exception, it is an outlier; even for back then, and most certainly for right now. 

The one thing I would agree with your Regt Col is "that performance cannot be denied".  But that is incomplete, because it can surely be held up, which is what we might be seeing here, and are likely to see more of, for more than a few years to come.     

And for the OP, he can certanily make LCol or maybe even Col, but he will do a lot of watching younger guys go passed him in the process, not matter how good he is.


----------



## opcougar (23 Apr 2014)

The COLD shoulder has started.....All that needs to be done on my part, is continue to respect the rank, carry out my assigned tasks, look out for the well-being of my subs. I don't have to get involve in personal chats with the supervisor, especially when am not getting any mentoring, consideration for my well-being etc

It's going to be a long FY


----------



## MedCorps (23 Apr 2014)

Do not ever forget, however, that officership is a social sport.  

MC


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2014)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Thanks, but I'm more than aware of the NOI and the process.
> 
> My point being, a simple request to see the CO to discuss the PER is simple, fast and to the point.  Being PER season, I'm pretty sure most Units have at least a few of these requests and (hopefully) they are treated seriously and expeditiously in order to meet the intent of informal resolution.



Right.  Which is what QR & O, Vol I, Ch 7 says about "making an oral complaint to the CO".  I'll hazard a guess that DGCFGA introduced the NOI for a reason, to amplify/enhance the "informal" process as it progresses up a CofC to the CO level prior to a formal grievance being submitted.  

 :2c:


----------



## opcougar (23 Apr 2014)

How is everyone today, hope your day was fun and eventful?

***Update to this saga, and your infinite wisdom (those that have been in and around longer than I have) is needed once again....

It looks like my file landed on the CO's desk this morning. So during the latter part of the day, I received a correspondence from the said supervisor asking for the latest post grad module I did in the past FY, and "what do I think my PER score should be" from the status quo?

To refresh you memory folks....here is my previous PER score from the previous supervisor (experienced and came up thru the ranks) with me doing the same job:

Section 4: Performance

AF 1-4 (ES)
AF 5 (M)
AF 6 - 11 (ES)
AF 12-13 (M)
AF 14 (ES)
AF 15 - 16 (M)

Section 5: Potential

1. AA
2. O
3. AA
4. AA
5. AA
6. O

Current supervisor (also came up thru the ranks, but promoted last APS), which is what has led to this grievance process has me at this:

Section 4: Performance

AF 1-4 (S)
AF 9 (S)
AF 13 (S)
AF 15-16 (ES)

Section 5

All the same as above bar Dedication reduced to (AA)

My question to everyone....how should I approach the question posed to me above and what I have provided here, what do you think at a minimum should be the score? I have already submitted substantiated examples for AF 1-4 to show that I did more than last year and that perhaps a couple of AF should stay the same or move to the right (not left)

Cheers


----------



## DAA (23 Apr 2014)

Only you can make that kind of call.  Assess yourself and try to do it honestly.  Compare "your" scores against those assigned by your Supr.  After that, it's up to you to "substantiate" exactly why you think you deserve to receive a higher rating than what has been assessed.


----------



## MARS (23 Apr 2014)

Also, you should stop comparing previous years' scores to this year's score.  That won't help your case, since each year is evaluated in isolation, as has already been pointed out in this thread.

And I would suggest that you also do not keep bringing up your (perceived) bias against your current supervisor.  Previously it was his mother tongue, now you are mentioning his lack of experience and recent promotion.  Those are not factors you could or should be bringing up at work as you try to get this resolved.  Maybe you haven't, but the fact that you keep brining them in this forum has me concerned.

I have dealt with these things, as a CO, and trust me, these kinds of allegations will only serve to weaken your case.  If your supervisor has faults, his/her supervisor, and maybe even the CO, should be and likely are aware of them.


----------



## opcougar (23 Apr 2014)

MARS said:
			
		

> Also, you should stop comparing previous years' scores to this year's score.  That won't help your case, since each year is evaluated in isolation, as has already been pointed out in this thread.
> 
> And I would suggest that you also do not keep bringing up your (perceived) bias against your current supervisor.  Previously it was his mother tongue, now you are mentioning his lack of experience and recent promotion.  Those are not factors you could or should be bringing up at work as you try to get this resolved.  Maybe you haven't, but the fact that you keep brining them in this forum has me concerned.
> 
> I have dealt with these things, as a CO, and trust me, these kinds of allegations will only serve to weaken your case.  If your supervisor has faults, his/her supervisor, and maybe even the CO, should be and likely are aware of them.



Thanks for your input, much appreciated....and NO I have not verbally brought up his mother tongue or experience in conversations thus far. However, It's a challenge am facing when I deal with him, with his trying to get an understand of what is being said / written.

He is completely out to lunch with his assessment of the AF 1-4 points, and those are my main bone of contention. He also brought my personal life (divorce) into the equation when briefed my on the PER...like WTH? He doesn't even know the whole story of this old news from a couple of years ago, and for him to latch on to it


----------



## Drag (23 Apr 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> How is everyone today, hope your day was fun and eventful?
> 
> ***Update to this saga, and your infinite wisdom (those that have been in and around longer than I have) is needed once again....
> 
> ...



Looking at your posting history I think that you and your supervisor are likely a part of the CNE Branch like I am...  As such I wanted to give you my $.02 for whatever it is worth.  Having worked in a couple of joint billets with both CELE and SIGS supervisors and subordinates i can honestly say that both sides of the Branch score PERs in a similar manner with the SIGS assigning slightly higher scores due to their Capt - Maj promotion cutoff line being higher than CELE.

On both the Army and Air Force sides of the Branch the score you were assigned (as a 3rd PER as a Captain) indicates that your supervisor found your performance to be underwhelming and was sending you a message to reflect that.   WRT your previous year's PER, I would personally frame it in a single sentence as " Competent with some room to grow." 

If I was you I would take some time to seriously ponder why your supervisor gave you the initial score that he did.  The score that was assigned to you, to me at least, sends a message that is not likely explained away by a language barrier of your supervisor being newly promoted.  When the unit rankings were done, other supervisors in the unit, some of whom were there longer than your supervisor and likely recalled your last year's PER, saw the new PER.  I've personally questioned other supervisors when they assigned PER scores to their mbrs that were substantially lower than previous year.  The vast majority of time the mbr's supervisor wold bring up specific examples of the mbr "stepping in it"which caused the drop in score.


----------



## DAA (23 Apr 2014)

D3 said:
			
		

> When the unit rankings were done, other supervisors in the unit, some of whom were there longer than your supervisor and likely recalled your last year's PER, saw the new PER.  I've personally questioned other supervisors when they assigned PER scores to their mbrs that were substantially lower than previous year.  The vast majority of time the mbr's supervisor wold bring up specific examples of the mbr "stepping in it"which caused the drop in score.



Good point and that is something that I think is wrong and not conducive to the PER system at the local level.

A supervisor should write the PER based on their own observations and send it up through the CoC and let it rest on it's laurels.  Supervisors aren't present during National Level Boards, so why should they be present during local level boards?

I ran local level PER Boards (Base level) for my occupation some years ago and "excluded" supervisors from the process.  They balked at this but my response was "Assess them based on the performance that you observed."  They didn't have to be there to support their people, the PER submitted by them was "their representation". This isn't going to be a "Pick a F..k conference".

At the end of the day, there were no complaints, there were no hard feelings and being the Chairperson, if I saw something "not quite right", I could address it.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Apr 2014)

opcougar,

Reading your history, you seem to do a lot of "extracurricular" courses and training and you seem to "push" to get promoted.  If you are genuinly interested and are doing them for your real interest, good for you...

But in my experience, it is mostly people that are pushing to get promoted that do this. And generally, that coveted promotion doesn't happen.  What you should concentrate on as a young Captain is your tactical abilities and doing what's right (not always what the system says is right) for the tactical level, rather than concentrating on your "officer development" (it is called that but the real OD happens at the tactical units, IMO)  If your superiors see potential in you, the rest will fall in place and you'll be put in a position where the boxes will be ticked.  

This advice was given to me early in my Officer career by a CO and has worked out great so far.


----------



## MARS (23 Apr 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Thanks for your input, much appreciated....and NO I have not verbally brought up his mother tongue or experience in conversations thus far. However, It's a challenge am facing when I deal with him, with his trying to get an understand of what is being said / written.
> 
> He is completely out to lunch with his assessment of the AF 1-4 points, and those are my main bone of contention. He also brought my personal life (divorce) into the equation when briefed my on the PER...like WTH? He doesn't even know the whole story of this old news from a couple of years ago, and for him to latch on to it



I hear and sympathize with everything you are saying.  Just want you to keep that separate from your formal submission to get this resolved.  Since you are already getting a cold shoulder, just stick to the proven facts in your submission to ensure it reads as objective vice subjective.  Don't want them to maybe see you as whining.


----------



## GnyHwy (24 Apr 2014)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> Do not ever forget, however, that officership is a social sport.
> 
> MC



So sad, but true.   

Sugar coating, kissing ass and the "I'll scratch your back, if..." were never qualities I have seen as valuable to the CAF, in Os or NCMs.

I guess I am just naive and don't get the "big picture".   :dunno:


----------



## upandatom (24 Apr 2014)

As someone that has won a Grievance, (all the way to FA)

I started out with a small memo, stating what I thought was wrong, why I thought it was wrong, had a meeting with the OC, and one was moved. I was also threatened saying "We can charge you for this." I was promoted and posted, IDGAF, what had happened was wrong, I was marked down so others may be brought up, and personal conflict. The OC moved one of my bullets. He said, I realise this is rush for you (informed them of my intent to grieve, and 12 hours later, uncompleted memo I was in front of the OC), but you take it up one more step then you will be good to go. Meaning take it to the IA of the CO.

So with more time and already at my new posting I hammered it out, completed the memo, at that point told by my at the time current AO said that the Greivance Analyst will get in contact with my former supervisors, and gather information from them as so it is not biased. Upon a phone call from the GA, he had in fact confirmed that. 

Several months pass, I receive notice that it did not pass and it was not approved. I search the file for the information from previous supervisors and staff saying "Member should of scored higher and this is where." Previous is a bad word to use, as they all had been my supervisor at some point during the reporting period, and were just not available at the time of the Boards to "fight" and or be like " hold up thats not right"

Needless to say, the GA did not contact anyone except the old troop WO to confirm that I infact did Grieve. 

I said eff this, this is going all the way up. So once again, I added to the memo, receiving emails from previous supervisors, that stated exactly what I was fighting for the whole time. 

Regardless of what the member writing it thought and trying playing puppet master using the buddy buddy system, my PER was fixed. 

1. Gather all pertinent information yourself
2. They will try to bully you
3. Get in touch with previous supervisors, 
4. It takes time, it took me three years once the  FA said " he has substantiation, give him this"
5. Ensure you state how and why your being affected from how you were wronged. 

It is worth it in the end, especially career wise, short term yes, long term for sure yes. If you get promoted sooner and are benefiting with more money, improving quality of life, thats how it affects you personally, not "I didnt like it so here is a 30 page memo on why"


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Apr 2014)

I am going to go off an a tangent here.

I seem to be reading about way too much animosity on both sides when filing a grievance.  As a union steward for many years I always give this advice, 
" A grievance should never about a person nor should it be personal. It is simply that, you think you're correct while management [higher rank in military case] thinks they are correct, and it will be up to someone not involved in the situation to decide who is actually correct."

Folks, if you're on either side of a grievance then I think this advice would serve you well...............


EDIT:  Added a couple of 'shoulds' because I know it does happen, even though that is wrong.  Bad stewardship IMO


----------



## Crispy Bacon (24 Apr 2014)

> The new flavour of the week is "succession planning".  If you are not seen as a rockstar that will make Col or higher, they may be making room for the persons the CoC sees as capable of succeeding at those lofty heights, and they need to get passed you asap.     The succession planning has also knocked people down a peg, which in most cases probably means they stay stagnet, while the persons that are seen as having higher potential are shoehorned though the ranks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But *who * exactly decides this and *what exact * metrics are they using?

By no means would I think a 20 year-old 2Lt should be "career progressed" to be in line to be the CDS in 2040.  However, succession planning (IMO, at least) is far from transparent and does not involve the member's desires and clearly-stated objectives for getting to the next level.

Every level has so many people who want to remain stagnant; they're comfortable being a Cpl or Sgt or Capt or whatever.  Every level also has so many people who want to progress to the next rank and have higher aspirations.  If a member knows and expresses their desire to be the Army Commander/the CDS/CMP/VCDS/whatever else, then how are we tracking that desire?


----------



## captloadie (24 Apr 2014)

I have been biting my tongue on this subject because it is a different world it seems in the Officer ranks than when I first started out. Or maybe I was a mediocre Capt at the time. But when I see someone, who as a second year Capt is receiving the scoring the OP did, two things come to mind; he was either one of those exceptional individuals, the 1 in 1000, or the previous PER was inflated. Does the OP know how the other Capt's in the unit fared this year compared to last year? If everybody's PERs were lower, maybe it indicates a supervisor who expects more from his Jr Officers.

The other thing that has been bothering me is the rampant careerism that I see among many Junior officers. They spend more time trying to figure out how to get ahead it seems than they do learning their trade and becoming someone the troops can trust. I know there were always some who strove to get ahead over everything else, but it just seems more common now.

Anyway that's my  :2c:


----------



## upandatom (24 Apr 2014)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I have been biting my tongue on this subject because it is a different world it seems in the Officer ranks than when I first started out. Or maybe I was a mediocre Capt at the time. But when I see someone, who as a second year Capt is receiving the scoring the OP did, two things come to mind; he was either one of those exceptional individuals, the 1 in 1000, or the previous PER was inflated. Does the OP know how the other Capt's in the unit fared this year compared to last year? If everybody's PERs were lower, maybe it indicates a supervisor who expects more from his Jr Officers.
> 
> The other thing that has been bothering me is the rampant careerism that I see among many Junior officers. They spend more time trying to figure out how to get *ahead it seems than they do learning their trade and becoming someone the troops can trust. * I know there were always some who strove to get ahead over everything else, but it just seems more common now.
> 
> Anyway that's my  :2c:



THANK YOU MARY MOTHER OF JESUS! (ON TWO POINTS I AGREE WITH)

Someone else said it. That trust thing, is possibly the biggest factor. I have seen some old Officers, and young ones. From what I have seen in my short time is that its Me, Me, Me to often and not enough Us, Us, Us. It may just be the area I work in, but too often have I seen a "Yes we can do that" without talking to or listening to the troops on the ground. We may not be able to do that, an integral piece of kit may be broken, or we may need more to do said job, or plain and simple- We might not be allowed to do it due to security reasons (sigs here remember). Officers using their troops to get ahead for their own goals and ambitions, F@#$ that. It is one thing when that said Officer works with you to accomplish his OBTAINABLE goal, (Might be in line with the Commanders intent, at that point) but when He/she decides to bugger off to catch some rack or even EAT while people are trying to make his/her pipedreams work is wrong. When his troops say hey, I cant do that, they need to listen, and we need to explain why we cant do that within reason, we have to give a justifiable excuse/reason as to why, not just a NO, At that point, if it is coming from higher, the officer can explain to his boss as to why we cant, and what we should do instead, not just a "yes sir, three bags full sir" deal just to make his boss happy and make himself look good. 

I fully believe PERs have become way over inflated. If someone has an MOI, they better walk on water, an MOI should not be the norm for a promotion, an MOI is "Member should be promoted now", a Ready should be the norm for promotion "Member is ready for promotion." Speaks for itself.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not to sound like an arse, but maybe your performance was down from the previous , maybe the previous superior wrote you a little higher than he/she should have.  You mention that you are a 2nd Capt and you had Master and such previous year.  My first thought was "those could have been inflated".
> 
> Just something to consider.



I had similar thoughts on the TI and scores aspect WRT inflated previous PER.  Maybe it got lost, or the OP didn't like it so disregarded.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Apr 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> So with more time and already at my new posting I hammered it out, completed the memo, at that point told by my at the time current AO said that the Greivance Analyst will get in contact with my former supervisors....



Just for accuracy, there is no AO (Assisting Officer) in the Grievance process, it is an AM (Assisting _Member_) ref Step 3.  This is an actual qual CAF members can get; AKUY.  MITE Code 119777-0003 ASSISTING MEMBER MIL GRIEV.


----------



## upandatom (25 Apr 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Just for accuracy, there is no AO (Assisting Officer) in the Grievance process, it is an AM (Assisting _Member_) ref Step 3.  This is an actual qual CAF members can get; AKUY.  MITE Code 119777-0003 ASSISTING MEMBER MIL GRIEV.



Thanks for the info for the qual-

I think AO might be an overused term, I asked for help and that is the term that was used, so AO, AM makes sense as well because the best people to help someone with this have already seen and been through the system for it.


----------



## sidemount (25 Apr 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> THANK YOU MARY MOTHER OF JESUS! (ON TWO POINTS I AGREE WITH)
> 
> Someone else said it. That trust thing, is possibly the biggest factor. I have seen some old Officers, and young ones. From what I have seen in my short time is that its Me, Me, Me to often and not enough Us, Us, Us. It may just be the area I work in, but too often have I seen a "Yes we can do that" without talking to or listening to the troops on the ground. We may not be able to do that, an integral piece of kit may be broken, or we may need more to do said job, or plain and simple- We might not be allowed to do it due to security reasons (sigs here remember). Officers using their troops to get ahead for their own goals and ambitions, F@#$ that. It is one thing when that said Officer works with you to accomplish his OBTAINABLE goal, (Might be in line with the Commanders intent, at that point) but when He/she decides to bugger off to catch some rack or even EAT while people are trying to make his/her pipedreams work is wrong. When his troops say hey, I cant do that, they need to listen, and we need to explain why we cant do that within reason, we have to give a justifiable excuse/reason as to why, not just a NO, At that point, if it is coming from higher, the officer can explain to his boss as to why we cant, and what we should do instead, not just a "yes sir, three bags full sir" deal just to make his boss happy and make himself look good.
> 
> I fully believe PERs have become way over inflated. If someone has an MOI, they better walk on water, an MOI should not be the norm for a promotion, an MOI is "Member should be promoted now", a Ready should be the norm for promotion "Member is ready for promotion." Speaks for itself.



I agree with your top paragraph, however it doesn't just happen in the officer world, its in the NCM/NCO world as well. The shitty thing is, in 10+ years I can count on one hand with fingers left over, the number of junior officers that I have worked for that I respected and trusted and would do anything I could for that individual. (one was a CFR). IMHO....that number should be much higher but like you have said, a lot of people are out for themselves.....it sucks to say but its true

So I also agree with what you have said about inflating PERs however just to play devils advocate a bit. 

For a lot of us we are ranked Canada wide, and merited against folks from other bases who have different supervisors. Now say there are 20 supervisors doing supervisors for a given rank for that trade, 18 of them are objective and amazingly fair in the scores that they give....2 are scoring their guys/gals above and beyond because they want them promoted, and think they deserve it more than folks from other units....
The other units catch wind of this and are now inflating their guys/gals PERs so that they can be competitive with the 2 that are inflating.

This is a vicious cycle that is always happening across the forces...it has been there since I have gotten in, and will continue to be there. 

So now, as a supervisor what do you do.....do you mark your guys/gals fair, or do you mark them so they can compete against the guys/gals that have been inflated.

What happens if your boss just plain doesn't like you.....I hate to say it but you for the most part are screwed.....which brings me to my final point: This is why we have the grievence process.....because no person can be completely objective about everything.

From my experience, what is fair and what actually happens are never the same.

Anyways that is the end of my rant haha


----------



## GnyHwy (25 Apr 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> But *who * exactly decides this and *what exact * metrics are they using?



It is decided by the the level above the COs, with the CO's input.  This will change once a person gets to the joint level, where all elements would have to come together.  The metrics are PERs, with a hint of gut feeling (see my definition in my signature block).



			
				Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> By no means would I think a 20 year-old 2Lt should be "career progressed" to be in line to be the CDS in 2040.



I don't think it is being at the 2Lt level.  Maybe at the Lt level for extraordinary cases, but mostly starting at the Capt level.  Sgt/WO for NCMs, with exceptions at the MCpl level.  



			
				Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Every level has so many people who want to remain stagnant; they're comfortable being a Cpl or Sgt or Capt or whatever.  Every level also has so many people who want to progress to the next rank and have higher aspirations.  If a member knows and expresses their desire to be the Army Commander/the CDS/CMP/VCDS/whatever else, then how are we tracking that desire?



A person's performance and their eagerness to take on responsibility is probably the best way for a person to demonstrate desire.  How it's being tracked?  I'm not sure, but when a person is putting themselves out there enough, they are bound to get noticed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Apr 2014)

I'm not going to offer any advise on the main of the subject.

What I will say is that this thread has gone on way longer than it should have.

Spoon feeding the OP is not going to solve anything, however, the OP better get their shit done quick.

This thread, it opinions and tangents is getting nauseating to the point where I want to hide the whole forum because I'm sick of this one thread.

If the OP was as smart as their PERs purport them to be, they wouldn't need to come here looking for answers.

They would either know what has to be done and who in their CoC could help, or Mr\ Mrs Wonderful would know how to navigate and interpret military admin docs to guide them.

This person sounds more like a new Pte that is scared to offend his Chain or can read nothing military beyond a kit list.

Certainly nobody that rates the PERs mentioned or sought.

Spoon feeding the OP is not going to solve anything. Their PER says they're a whiz bang.

They can figure it for themselves instead of being lazy and looking for a consensus from old farts. 

They won't learn anything this way.

Let them figure it out for themselves. After all their PER says they are smarter than the average bear.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (26 Apr 2014)

sidemount said:
			
		

> For a lot of us we are ranked Canada wide, and merited against folks from other bases who have different supervisors. Now say there are 20 supervisors doing supervisors for a given rank for that trade, 18 of them are objective and amazingly fair in the scores that they give....2 are scoring their guys/gals above and beyond because they want them promoted, and think they deserve it more than folks from other units....
> The other units catch wind of this and are now inflating their guys/gals PERs so that they can be competitive with the 2 that are inflating.
> 
> This is a vicious cycle that is always happening across the forces...it has been there since I have gotten in, and will continue to be there.



+1 This is indeed a cycle - an argument our unit has every year.  We all start out "yep, this will be the year we mark fairly and give everyone objective PERs."  That lasts for about two weeks until we find out Unit X just ranked 80% of its Cpls as ready for promotion, so what do we do?  Back to the drawing board to make some of our Cpls ready for promotion too.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> +1 This is indeed a cycle - an argument our unit has every year.  We all start out "yep, this will be the year we mark fairly and give everyone objective PERs."  That lasts for about two weeks until we find out Unit X just ranked 80% of its Cpls as ready for promotion, so what do we do?  Back to the drawing board to make some of our Cpls ready for promotion too.


 :-\

Promotion to Cpl is not a problem, as it is not necessary to write PERs on Cpls unless they are obviously way above OUTSTANDING.  It is the MCpl and above wherein lies the problems that you refer.   Even then, once the PERs reach the Career Managers and the Boards sit with all the necessary chairs filled, including an "Honest Broker", there should be a filtering and acknowledgement as to what units may have done in their rankings.  It is not such a large military, that those at the Table will not have some knowledge as to whose files they are dealing with.


----------



## Griffon (26 Apr 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :-\
> 
> Promotion to Cpl is not a problem, as it is not necessary to write PERs on Cpls unless they are obviously way above OUTSTANDING.  It is the MCpl and above wherein lies the problems that you refer.  Even then, once the PERs reach the Career Managers and the Boards sit with all the necessary chairs filled, including an "Honest Broker", there should be a filtering and acknowledgement as to what units may have done in their rankings.  It is not such a large military, that those at the Table will not have some knowledge as to whose files they are dealing with.



 ??? You write a PER for a Cpl to be promoted to MCpl, how does promoting to Cpl apply to this?  Did things change sometime in the last couple of years where you are no longer required to write annual PERs for Cpls?

I'm sure that there is acknowledgement a the boards that some units write up their people objectively, but how does the board adjust their scoring on those individuals to put them on a level playing field? That could cause quite the mess and add a lot of caseload to the Grievance Board.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> ??? You write a PER for a Cpl to be promoted to MCpl, how does promoting to Cpl apply to this?  Did things change sometime in the last couple of years where you are no longer required to write annual PERs for Cpls?



Did you read what I posted?  You do not need to write PERs on Cpls.  If for some reason you feel a Cpl is obviously way above OUTSTANDING, then you write a PER on them to justify promoting them to the appointment of MCpl.  Otherwise, Cpls files are retained in the unit, not sent to for national ranking at the Merit Boards.  





			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> I'm sure that there is acknowledgement a the boards that some units write up their people objectively, but how does the board adjust their scoring on those individuals to put them on a level playing field?



A Bell Curve ?  You will have to ask the COs and RSMs who attend the Merit Boards as to how they even the playing field.  



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> That could cause quite the mess and add a lot of caseload to the Grievance Board.



Why would it?  How would anyone know how the Boards sat and made their decisions on whom to promote or not?  Are you suggesting someone would be so unscrupulous as to leak privied information on how the Board conducted its selection?  Would that in itself not be a chargeable offence?


And seriously; what does "ranking a Cpl ready for promotion" really mean?  Nothing, other than they are ready for promotion; not that they shall be promoted.



			
				Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> +1 This is indeed a cycle - an argument our unit has every year.  We all start out "yep, this will be the year we mark fairly and give everyone objective PERs."  That lasts for about two weeks until we find out Unit X just ranked 80% of its Cpls as ready for promotion, so what do we do?  Back to the drawing board to make some of our Cpls ready for promotion too.


----------



## Griffon (26 Apr 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did you read what I posted?  You do not need to write PERs on Cpls.  If for some reason you feel a Cpl is obviously way above OUTSTANDING, then you write a PER on them to justify promoting them to the appointment of MCpl.  Otherwise, Cpls files are retained in the unit, not sent to for national ranking at the Merit Boards.



I did read it, but the part where you mentioned promotion "to" Cpl confused me.  As far as I knew, but it's been a while, Cpls received an annual PER just as every other rank. There was no differentiation between them and any other NCM rank above Pte.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> A Bell Curve ?  You will have to ask the COs and RSMs who attend the Merit Boards as to how they even the playing field.



You can't use a bell curve.  In order for it to be appropriate you would have to ensure normal distribution of personnel in the different units, and then have a normal distribution within the unit.  If an occupation has a tendency to send it's best and brightest, then using statistical techniques gets shot out of the water.  It also wouldn't be accurate if you have too few members at a given rank (less than 30) at a unit.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why would it?  How would anyone know how the Boards sat and made their decisions on whom to promote or not?  Are you suggesting someone would be so unscrupulous as to leak privied information on how the Board conducted its selection?  Would that in itself not be a chargeable offence?



Oh, that's funny.  People thought it was weird when I _didn't_ talk about my PER with them.  I found my co-workers on numerous occasions sitting there and comparing dots and rankings...


----------



## GnyHwy (26 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> Oh, that's funny.  People thought it was weird when I _didn't_ talk about my PER with them.  I found my co-workers on numerous occasions sitting there and comparing dots and rankings...



He is talking about the yearly promotion boards, not the PER itself.  (At least in the Arty) they use what is called a Scoring Criteria (SCRIT) at the board.  The criteria such as jobs performed, how many MOIs,  education, language profile etc, and their weights, should be made available to everyone.  The actual discussion and negotiation i.e. the minutes, will not be made available.  

Also, most Cpls will likely see the PER disappear.  We will likely see promotions to MCpl being done by the COs of the unit.  A Cpl will likely only be written when they are close to promotion.  Average Joe Cpl will probably start getting PDRs the same way we write Ptes.


----------



## MJP (26 Apr 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did you read what I posted?  You do not need to write PERs on Cpls.  If for some reason you feel a Cpl is obviously way above OUTSTANDING, then you write a PER on them to justify promoting them to the appointment of MCpl.  Otherwise, Cpls files are retained in the unit, not sent to for national ranking at the Merit Boards.



I think you are wrong.  Cpls do get PERs, are ranked and do go for national ranking (or intra-regimental ranking). 



			
				GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Also, most Cpls will likely see the PER disappear.  We will likely see promotions to MCpl being done by the COs of the unit.  A Cpl will likely only be written when they are close to promotion.



We might for certain trades and I certainly don't think it is a bad thing.  Nationally managed trades will garner a bunch of issues if that were to happen.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> You can't use a bell curve.



I was being facetious, as to the "?" after the suggestion. 



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> Oh, that's funny.  People thought it was weird when I _didn't_ talk about my PER with them.  I found my co-workers on numerous occasions sitting there and comparing dots and rankings...



Feel free to discuss your PER or PDR with your friends and colleagues all you want.  It may not be ethical or whatever, but it is your prerogative.   Frankly, it can lead to a lot of malcontents within a unit when they start doing that.


----------



## 392 (26 Apr 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did you read what I posted?  You do not need to write PERs on Cpls.



Up until January of this year with the changes to the PER system, Cpls received PERs like everyone else.

Edit: and in the Cbt Engr trade, those Cpl PERs were seen at the national merit board just like the rest.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Apr 2014)

My big take away from this is that the PER process in the army units is far different from what I've seen.

Did the combined ranking board for the unit this year for the NCMs, and one of the big things we were reminded of (multiple times) is that things like SL profile and other items that factor in promotion were not to be considered when ranking the PERs.  So unless it happened to be that reporting period and was related to one of the AFs/PFs, it wasn't even in the PERs.  Same goes for PG, fit testing (only had to be current), etc.  Basically, how likely someone was to get considered for promotion didn't matter, and it was judged on performance in that reporting period.  

So a 1st of 2nd year capt (Lt(N) in our case) could easily get higher scores then someone in the promotion zone (or new Cpl or whatever).  It was a pretty interesting experience, and was actually a lot more impartial then I expected.

Not entirely confident the same thing happened at the officer ranking boards, as the 'fairy godfathers' still seem to have an undue level of influence, but overall the process normally seems fair(ish).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Apr 2014)

Nothing in the changes to PERs or CANFORGEN changed the requirements for Cpls WRT receiving a PER.


----------



## Griffon (26 Apr 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I was being facetious, as to the "?" after the suggestion.
> Ack.
> 
> Feel free to discuss your PER or PDR with your friends and colleagues all you want.  It may not be ethical or whatever, but it is your prerogative.   Frankly, it can lead to a lot of malcontents within a unit when they start doing that.



I was never one to take part, didn't see the merit in doing so.  I'm just pointing out that it does happen,and that it could cause issues with trying to resolve the current issues by adding a subjective perspective to PER ranking at the boards because the member comes from a certain unit that is suspected of inflating scores.

Edit:sp


----------



## sidemount (26 Apr 2014)

Cpls absolutely require a PER.

Only way they don't is if they opt out as per the new canforgen on PERs


----------



## Crispy Bacon (27 Apr 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did you read what I posted?  You do not need to write PERs on Cpls.  If for some reason you feel a Cpl is obviously way above OUTSTANDING, then you write a PER on them to justify promoting them to the appointment of MCpl.  Otherwise, Cpls files are retained in the unit, not sent to for national ranking at the Merit Boards.



My unit writes PERs for Cpls.  My previous one did not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Apr 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> My unit writes PERs for Cpls.  My previous one did not.



However, they go no further than your Pers file. They are internal Unit documents. An exercise in administration.


----------



## Ludoc (27 Apr 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> However, they go no further than your Pers file. They are internal Unit documents. An exercise in administration.


I don't believe that is the case. The career manager certainly had access to mine and I don't see how the career shop would merit pers without being able to see their PERs(all jokes about them doing their job simply by throwing darts at a wall, aside).

Edit: Additionally, if Cpl PERs don't matter why is there even a spot for them in CFPAS? One would expect them to be absent from the program, as Ptes are.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Apr 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> However, they go no further than your Pers file. They are internal Unit documents. An exercise in administration.



Wrong - in the Rg F.  Merit Boards refer to them to create merit lists.  This may change with the new system, whereby CO will have the authority to promote to MCpl.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2014)

Ludoc said:
			
		

> Edit: Additionally, if Cpl PERs don't matter why is there even a spot for them in CFPAS? One would expect them to be absent from the program, as Ptes are.



Because you need some means to merit your outstanding Cpls for promotion.  The mediocre ones will not be merited.  Once you reach Cpl, there are no more "automatic" promotions on "Time In and Quals".


----------



## GnyHwy (27 Apr 2014)

sidemount said:
			
		

> Only way they don't is if they opt out as per the new canforgen on PERs



Opting out is a slippery slope in my mind, at any rank.  You had better be producing, otherwise expect crap work, followed by crap postings, followed by potential career review.  

It's not written anywhere, but read between to the lines.  There is no way that persons will be able to slack off on purpose and still receive a handsome paycheck or good positions.  

The opt out is best used by persons who are near the end of their career and have been told flat out they will not progress anymore.  For Capts, it may be a CFR, or for younger Capts, it may be that the guys doesn't have a degree or a language profile.  For Cpls, he may not want the added responsibility of subordinates.  

That said, there are many career Cpls and Capts that do great work.  As long as they are producing good work they should be allowed to continue service.  For a person to do it early in their career seems like career suicide, or at least shitty times ahead, unless your CoC loves you as a work horse.


----------



## Ostrozac (27 Apr 2014)

Opting out of the PER process is a new option, and one that should be approached carefully. This is an uncharted road, and the stakes are your career. Specifically, I'd be very hesitant about letting someone opt out who isn't on indefinite period of service -- since without a PER on file, how are terms of service boards going to look at their file?

And I've met several CFR'd Captains that were given 'the word' that they would never be more than Captains -- but were later merited with their peers and promoted to Major.

Honestly, I can't see any benefit to the member to opting out. There is already the option (very rarely used) for a member to refuse a promotion. If you don't want to advance -- isn't this sufficient?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Apr 2014)

I opted out this year.  I felt that, since I was within the 3 year window from retirement, there was really no point in either the RCAF or myself pretending I that have anything like a chance left of advancing.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Apr 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I opted out this year.  I felt that, since I was within the 3 year window from retirement, there was really no point in either the RCAF or myself pretending I that have anything like a chance left of advancing.



Yep, I may opt out this year, for the same reason.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Apr 2014)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Opting out of the PER process is a new option, and one that should be approached carefully. This is an uncharted road, and the stakes are your career. Specifically, I'd be very hesitant about letting someone opt out who isn't on indefinite period of service -- since without a PER on file, how are terms of service boards going to look at their file?
> 
> And I've met several CFR'd Captains that were given 'the word' that they would never be more than Captains -- but were later merited with their peers and promoted to Major.
> 
> Honestly, I can't see any benefit to the member to opting out. There is already the option (very rarely used) for a member to refuse a promotion. If you don't want to advance -- isn't this sufficient?



We have said that in order to opt out, the member must notify the CO in writing as to the reasons. It is then the COs decision to allow the opt out. 
It will probably be a few years before we see the full effect of the opt out option.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Apr 2014)

I agree, Jim.

I would not recommend opting out to anyone not on IPS, unless they fully intend on releasing in a fairly short (less than 3 year) window.

You are also not (probably) going to be considered for any jammy OUTCAN postings. There are probably other consequences that have not yet been foreseen.


----------



## 392 (27 Apr 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Nothing in the changes to PERs or CANFORGEN changed the requirements for Cpls WRT receiving a PER.



Did I dream it, or did the CANFORGEN not specify that Cpls and Lts no longer receive PERs?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Apr 2014)

No change to Cpls, but IIRC it was changed for 2Lt, Lt and perhaps Capt as well.    I only have a copy of the draft CANFORGEN/email from CMP at home, but Para 3 states:

3. 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)

Para 4b states:

B. FOR CPL/LS TO MWO/CPO2 AND CAPT/LT(N) TO LCOL/CDR PER S, SECTION 5
(POTENTIAL) NARRATIVE IS ONLY REQUIRED FOR PER S WITH A PROMOTION
RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY OF IMMEDIATE OR NO (NO PROMOTION). PER S WITH
A PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY OF DEVELOPING OR READY SHALL NOT
HAVE A SECTION 5 NARRATIVE WRITTEN. SECTION 5 WILL STILL BE SCORED
AND, IF APPROPRIATE, RANKED. SECTION 6 (ADDITIONAL REVIEW) NARRATIVE
IS REQUIRED ONLY FOR THOSE PER S WITH IMMEDIATE PROMOTION
RECOMMENDATION, ONE OR MORE LOW PF S, AND/OR ONE OR MORE UNACCEPTABLE
AF S

and Para 5 states:

5. SELECTION BOARDS FROM CPL/LS TO MCPL/MS. THE RCN WILL ASSUME
RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOME PORT DIVISION SELECTION BOARDS FOR
APPOINTMENT FROM LS TO MS FOR SPECIFIC OCCUPATIONS. ADDITIONALLY, THE
CA WILL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY OF SELECTION BOARDS FOR APPOINTMENT TO
MCPL FOR SPECIFIC OCCUPATIONS. THE INTENT IS FOR ANY NEW BOARD
FORMATS TO BE READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN AUTUMN 2014. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED INFORMATION WILL BE PROMULGATED. THE RCAF WILL CONTINUE TO
HOLD NATIONAL SELECTION BOARDS FOR ALL OCCUPATIONS


----------



## 392 (28 Apr 2014)

Just logged on at work and reread it - Cpls still receive them. Checked the initial draft proposal email train we received as well, and nothing there either.

I guess I _was_ dreaming  :facepalm:


----------



## opcougar (7 May 2014)

Good afternoon Everyone,

Status Update (No...I am not part of any social media site).....Since my last post, I did start the grievance process and all that, but after listening to what you all had to say here (based on your combined years of experience), and talking others senior to myself and the supervisor, I went away and substantiated the performance factors I had issues with factual examples that seem to have got lost along the way, and didn't get captured in the initial draft

Long story short....a compromise was reached that saw a couple of points moved back to the right to match my previous PER, and a couple left as is. Someone on here made a valid point when they said..."by the time I get to the promotion zone, this PER might be obsolete i.e. won't matter". The boat was already rocked, and my initial reason for going down this road is because I strongly felt that in light of the accolades my troop received this year for all the good work, and saw 98% of my MCpls ranked in the immediate, WO promoted etc....my PER didn't reflect this overrall team effort.

The primary concern for me has always been meeting our mandate & the well being of my staff, and am glad to see the moral at an all high since I took over. I inherited a jaded troop, and spent the first few months in the posn rectifying this, as well as having 3 different supervisors. I am putting this behind me and moving forward, hopefully I don't have to deal with this again in the future

I know what my long term goal is in the Military, and anything more than that will just be a bonus. Someone mentioned up thread that if I become a senior Captain, at least I can look forward to a decent pay....it's not all about the money, but am sure in the many years I still have to go in this second career.....the promotion will happen.

Again....Thanks everyone.

Oh....If anyone has a good template for a BRAG SHEET they are willing to share, pls send it my way so I can use it to start documenting my activities for the next FY


----------



## Porch-Light.org (16 Apr 2015)

Disclaimer* - Individual situations may warrant different approaches. This guide serves as information only. *We do not help write or counsel on wordings for any Redress of Grievances or Ministerial Inquiries. We make no claims on legal validity of our opinions or how the content of this guide is used.*

Scenario:

Corporal Bloggins has an illness and is on a Temporary Category (TCAT). One of his symptom brought on an argument with his boss, which resulted in disciplinary action (Summary trial/Court Martial) as well as administrative Review (AR recommending C&P (counselling and probation or item 5 release (bad)) His partner and children are stressed and his livelihood is in danger. Member wants help, treatment and to be treated fairly. 

Here are the steps in order on how Corporal Bloggins should proceed;


1.  He should see his Doctor to produce a treatment plan. (A treatment plan commits the CF to something that will help him and affect a release decision) This should include mental health. 

*If the member cannot get adequate help from the Military Health system, he is to proceed to the Emergency at the local hospital when his symptoms are bad in order to move from the military system to the civilian one. * (This is the only way at times to get treatment)

2.  Opt for a Court Martial rather than a Summary trial. (Summary trials would not be fair to the member. To elect Court Martial buys time and will most likely not be preferred (recommended to proceed) by the Judge Advocate (JAG) based on complexity. JAG's like easy cases that show clear violations of Good order and discipline which are used to reinforce appropriate behaviour in the CF. 

3.  Produce a memorandum to his Chain of Command (Coc) explaining not his actions which resulted in the discipline but his medical and social issues. Ask for help from his Coc, on paper, laying it all out for them to get a feel for who they are aiming to "correct". 

4.  The AR comes back with a disclosure package. It's not a favourable release item. File representation within 14 days with all documents related to his illness treatment plan, (medical documents) Coc memorandum and any other factors. He will be asking to complete his treatment and for a medical release based on his illness. 

5. File a Redress of Grievance as well with the same documents. Stating that the CF is being unholy unjust in how they are treating him. A medical illness brought on while serving is not grounds for termination without a medical release brought on by an adequate Administrative Review of his Medical Employment Limitations. (AR/MEL) He wishes that the system not discriminate against him in allowing his condition not to be treated, hindering his livelihood now and for the future. 

*(The Grievance process is long and won't do anything in his situation but it is a step and allows the member to gather his thoughts into a package he will use later on)*

6.  Seek a Case Manager and see our article https://army.ca/forums/threads/117157/post-1340772.html#msg1340772 - He will seek to be complex. He will ask for a copy of his assessment. 

7.  Go on sick leave if possible. No reasons to augment stress at work with his Coc. Adds to the potential of a medical release by bolstering his current condition. 

8.  Release item comes back. Not favourable. 6 months to release date. Court Martial decision still pending. His grievance is a non issue. 

9.  The member can see the Padre, Case Manager, Doctor but it won't be of much use. The cards have been dealt from Ottawa. 

10.  The member mentions to his spouse/mother/father that they should write a detailed email to the Minister of National Defence explaining the atrocities of how the military is treating her/their spouse/son. Clearly stating that it is affecting her/them and that it needs to stop. Provide an easy solution like: Let him stay until the treatment is done, send him out medically..stop discriminating against him.

*The member cannot sent this email. It has to be a civilian. Write enough to identify Cpl Bloggins but its an email from a concerned citizen and not from a military member which falls under the Code of Service Discipline (CSD). *

*This option is called a Ministerial Inquiry and is sent to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister has a secretary who sends the email to the CF unit who will respond on behalf of the MND. The CF has a few days to do so and so the clock makes a Chain of Command jump. The MND will not look like a fool in Question Period and as such, the CF will write a response adequate to the MND's public image. (Cpl Bloggins wife will have her husband's release decision overturned as to not have Cpl Bloggins wife bring this situation to the media thus having the MND answer a hard question on why he decided to release a member with a critical illness without any medical converge and before his treatment was done or even started. A member that clearly had issues that he let his Coc know with a memo, that he sought help and grieved the decision on many occasions*

*This Ministerial Inquiry is a last resort solution and should not be used unless every other option has been tried and tested.*

11.  The member decided not to proceed with the Ministerial Inquiry, instead, he scanned and sent all of his documents to the Chief of the Canadian Forces. He explained his situation and begged for him/her to intervene on his behalf. 

*The CF CWO can and would have no issues walking down to any release authority and asking questions if he/she deemed a situation contrary to his/her sound judgment. Especially since it's part of the job to care for his/her NCM's.*

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your situation can be different and you may use this guide to entertain idea's on how to proceeds in your own way. If you do have any questions, we have our number and email on our website.

"We are not alone in our struggles."

"We stand strong together"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Apr 2015)

Wtf is that post?  A guide of how to play the system after being insubordinate?

That post is full of issues and inaccuracies that have the potential to cause damage to serving members.  Wtf.  Shake your head you idiot.


----------



## MJP (16 Apr 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Wtf is that post?  A guide of how to play the system after being insubordinate?
> 
> That post is full of issues and inaccuracies that have the potential to cause damage to serving members.  Wtf.  Shake your head you idiot.



Tell us how you really feel.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Apr 2015)

Really interesting, considering my unit just got a brief from the folks that run Road to Mental Readiness, and they stated that PTSD is not an excuse for a member to not follow proper military protocol/military bearing. It does them a disservice to encourage insubordinate behavior, and slows their recovery.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (16 Apr 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Really interesting, considering my unit just got a brief from the folks that run Road to Mental Readiness, and they stated that PTSD is not an excuse for a member to not follow proper military protocol/military bearing. It does them a disservice to encourage insubordinate behavior, and slows their recovery.



The member can, and in the case of PTSD I would argue should, be provided with an assisting officer by the CO upon request by order. The AO should then be vetting the grievance letter and any correspondance to ensure that it doesn't cross the line of insubordination.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Apr 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Really interesting, considering my unit just got a brief from the folks that run Road to Mental Readiness, and they stated that PTSD is not an excuse for a member to not follow proper military protocol/military bearing. It does them a disservice to encourage insubordinate behavior, and slows their recovery.



And I agree with you, but we still have too many butt heads that will not acknowledge that PTSD and other mental trauma can have an effect on soldier's performance.


----------



## Porch-Light.org (17 Apr 2015)

Dear community,

The Scenario on our post was only given to provide context on all available ways to grieve a situation. It was not to advocate that discipline should be diminished, it was to provide a an example of the disciplinary process. In most times, admin and disciplinary action are not used together to correct a member. 

The fullness of how the system can use policy to hurt a member has not been fully understood by those who are not affected by it. We hope that this article provides guidance to those who need the system to stop hurting them and their families. 

You can call us anytime to discuss the matter further.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2015)

Porch-Light.org said:
			
		

> Dear community,
> 
> The Scenario on our post was only given to provide context on all available ways to grieve a situation. It was not to advocate that discipline should be diminished, it was to provide a an example of the disciplinary process. In most times, admin and disciplinary action are not used together to correct a member.
> 
> ...



Then it may be advisable that if you are going to post something, that you ensure that you do not post factually incorrect information.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Apr 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> And I agree with you, but we still have too many butt heads that will not acknowledge that PTSD and other mental trauma can have an effect on soldier's performance.



Absolutely. A change in performance/military bearing should be an indicator and trigger a 1 on 1 to get to the root cause.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (17 Apr 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely. A change in performance/military bearing should be an indicator and trigger a 1 on 1 to get to the root cause.



When I got charged and repatriated one of the first things my higher up did was send me to mental health to make sure it wasn't related to any type of PTSD. I was told I had "unresolved grief" but that I knew what I was up to.


----------



## opcougar (12 May 2015)

Hello all,

Update to my original post a year later with new PER season. I'll like to thank you all for all the advice you gave me last time. It was very helpful indeed, and am glad I took the road less rocky, by settling for a compromise. I received my latest PER, and it was day and night compared to the last one.....I was given an immediate, with good things being said including recommendation for promotion to next rank.

I am also posted out this APS (4yrs in rank), so will have to go deal with another supervisor elsewhere who might / might not see me in the same light. A lot was digested from your responses, and I have given it a lot of thought over the months that have gone by. My short / long term goal is to get promoted to next rank before my CD.

Is LCol possible? Perhaps, but that requires someone to maintain a CBC 2nd language profile, and have to deal with a whole lot of politics.

Cheers


----------



## Gunplumber (23 Nov 2015)

I am looking for some specific references for a Redress of Grievance. Looked at the QR & Os but was told that the references were too generic. Looking for refs for Protected B docs being given to an employer  before member or members CoC. Refs for MO not giving paperwork after an apt and being put on a Tcat without member being aware. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Nov 2015)

Wondering if you can clarify some.  Employer?  MO not giving what paperwork?


----------



## Gunplumber (23 Nov 2015)

Member had a short term class be that was turned into a 3 year. He got and medical and on the part 2 it was deemed that he had high blood pressure. The MO said he couldn't clear him. Member didn't get a chit at the end of the appt. Nothing was said about a Tcat. Later he found out that the MO had put him on a Tcat later that day. The CDU sent the DND employer docs saying member was on a Tcat. Members unit wasn't told and neither was the member. I heard CDU could only send limitations? He wants to redress this as now he cant get the job.


----------



## MedCorps (23 Nov 2015)

A T-Cat is limitations. It indicates for a temporary amount of time how the CAF can employ the member geographically (the G-factor), occupationally (the O-factor) and with respect to aircrew duties (the A-factor).  The CAF can then use the limitations with vision, hearing and colour vision evaluations to determine if the member meets the occupational specifications of their MOSID / universality of service. 

The T-Cat will be re-evaluated in a set amount of time and either reverted to the members previous category, kept temporary and followed for another period of time whilst the condition evolves or a new permanent category assigned.  

A-MD-154-000/FP-000 (Canadian Armed Forces Medical Standards (CFP 154) 

Notes the following in Chapter 3: 

Part V - Communicating Results of Medical Fitness Assessments

    Disclosure: 

        CF Mil Pers Instruction 11/04 Medical Fitness for Duty
        CANFORGEN 039/08 Disclosure of Medical/Social Work Info to Commanding Officers
        CANFORGEN 128/03 CDS Direction to the Chain of Command Regarding Medical Care Prescribed and Medical Employment Limitations Assigned by Medical Staff to CF Members
        CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-20 Disclosure of Personal Health Information
        CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-26 Unacceptable Use and Disclosure of Personal Health Information

----

If one of these were violated there may be a grievance issue... otherwise you might be pissed off, but I would suggest that you reflect if your condition is truly a grievance issue. 


MC


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Nov 2015)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> Member had a short term class be that was turned into a 3 year. He got and medical and on the part 2 it was deemed that he had high blood pressure. The MO said he couldn't clear him. Member didn't get a chit at the end of the appt. Nothing was said about a Tcat. Later he found out that the MO had put him on a Tcat later that day. The CDU sent the DND employer docs saying member was on a Tcat. Members unit wasn't told and neither was the member. I heard CDU could only send limitations? He wants to redress this as now he cant get the job.



Redressing isn't going to change that the MO couldn't clear the member due to high blood pressure. TCat or not, he wasn't getting the medical clearance to start the job.


----------



## ballz (23 Nov 2015)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> The CDU sent the DND employer docs saying member was on a Tcat. Members unit wasn't told and neither was the member.



Are the "docs" a CF-2088?

The purpose of a CF-2088 is provide the member's unit and the member with documentation of the TCAT / PCAT that they are being put on. That' s why it goes through the unit CO and then to the member to acknowledge.

The reason this member didn't get the class b contract isn't because he's been aggrieved, the reason the member didn't get the class b contract is because they had high blood pressure that obviously made them medically unfit for the contract.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Nov 2015)

The only real issue is the lack of a med chit issued at the time of the Part 2. I've always walked out the door with a med chit when I was placed/removed from TCat, that stated my new medical category (with all limitations if placed on TCat) and it stated "CF-2088 to follow". I've been removed from a TCat and fully fit for duty for 5 months before I got the CF2088 to sign through the chain of command, but just kept that chit in my pocket and with my Tp WO as confirmation I was good to go.


----------



## ballz (23 Nov 2015)

It would be interesting to hear from the medical side how they would even deal with high-blood pressure... I mean its one thing to fail a medical but its another to give restrictions / etc. Does everyone with high-blood pressure need medical restrictions? TCATs? Was this person's blood pressure so severely high that just having them walk out of the clinic put them at risk of a heart attack? Too many questions.

Curious though, if the member didn't leave with a chit that had MELs on it, what are the limitations listed on the TCAT?


----------



## Gunplumber (23 Nov 2015)

He isn't Grieving the MO putting him on a Tcat, he is grieving the fact that he was not informed nor was his CO until after the employing unit was. There was no CF-2088 given to the member. 

As to the blood pressure. He is not grieving this. It is the process being redressed. The member had been doing the job for 5 months with no problems and the week before the part 2 medical completed a Force test with no problems AND with a blood pressure well under the limit of 150. The member was under a lot of stress at the time of the medical and even though this was told to the MO it did not make a difference. BTW the members BP now is 125 over 86. He knows that this cant be grieved but its a pain in the butt. He can not work till he is off the Tcat but he feels that he should not have been put on in the first place.

MedCorps,
CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-20 Disclosure of Personal Health Information
CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-26 Unacceptable Use and Disclosure of Personal Health Information
Is there more of a description of these somewhere?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Nov 2015)

Okay.  I understand (I think) what he is grieving.  What is the redress sought (i.e. the point of the redress, what does the mbr wish to gain thru adjudication)?


----------



## Gunplumber (23 Nov 2015)

Because this guy is a reservist he can no longer work till the Tcat is lifted, he has no money coming in. He now has to find a civilian doctor as he is only class A and cant get further treatment for the blood pressure. Once he finds a doctor who can clear him he is pooched.


----------



## Gunplumber (23 Nov 2015)

Well he knows he cant really get anything because you cant get remuneration for work not done, it is being done to get the CoC to see what is happening. You kick a guy out of a job because he has high BP because he's stressed and you add more stress and take away his money and expect his BP to go down, and don't offer any treatment? And they wonder why there are suicides.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Nov 2015)

I think you misunderstood the question.  If the mbr redresses, he/she usually states "here is how I was aggrieved" (the act, omission, etc) .  Then, usually, the redress sought to remedy the mbr's situation ("this is what I would like to happen to correct the act/omission, etc).

A grievance should have a clear, concise, well written 'redress sought' part.  Grievances live and die around wording and clear articulation of events, supporting policy, etc and 'whether the IA/FA can actually grant redress if grievance is supported'.

This is why I am asking 'what is the redress sought', what does the mbr want.  Do they want the TCAT removed and striken from record?  The Cl B employment to be awarded to them?  6 apple pies?



			
				Gunplumber said:
			
		

> Well he knows he cant really get anything because you cant get remuneration for work not done, it is being done to get the CoC to see what is happening. You kick a guy out of a job because he has high BP because he's stressed and you add more stress and take away his money and expect his BP to go down, and don't offer any treatment? And they wonder why there are suicides.....



If the mbr is just doing a grievance to show the CofC 'something wrong happened', well I think there may be a different tool in the toolbelt to do that if they are not actually seeking any redress.  That to me is like driving a nail with a screwdriver.   :2c:

Have a read through this site  --->  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-support-services-for-members-grievance/index.page

and

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-support-services-for-members-grievance/faq.page

Frequently Asked Questions

1. I have a complaint and feel that I have been aggrieved. What do I do?

If you feel you have been aggrieved by a decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CAF, *you have a right to be heard*. The preferred method to remedy a complaint is for a member to make a verbal complaint to their immediate supervisor or their CO. The other option is for a member to submit a "Notice of Intent to Grieve" to their CO. If the attempt to resolve the complaint informally fails, the next step is to determine whether the grievance process is the correct method for handling the complaint. For example, if the complaint concerns harassment allegations, the harassment complaint process should be used before the grievance process. If the results of the harassment investigation are not satisfactory, a grievance can be submitted regarding these results.


----------



## MedCorps (23 Nov 2015)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> MedCorps,
> CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-20 Disclosure of Personal Health Information
> CF H Svcs Gp Instruction 5020-26 Unacceptable Use and Disclosure of Personal Health Information
> Is there more of a description of these somewhere?



Hop on the DWAN.  On the CMP // CF H Svcs Gp page you will find a policy page.  They are all in our policy repository.  

Cheers, 

MC


----------



## MedCorps (24 Nov 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to hear from the medical side how they would even deal with high-blood pressure... I mean its one thing to fail a medical but its another to give restrictions / etc. Does everyone with high-blood pressure need medical restrictions? TCATs? Was this person's blood pressure so severely high that just having them walk out of the clinic put them at risk of a heart attack? Too many questions.
> 
> Curious though, if the member didn't leave with a chit that had MELs on it, what are the limitations listed on the TCAT?



I will take a swing at this.  Someone with more recent / extensive CDU time feel free to jump in.... 

So someone has high blood pressure.  The question that needs to be asked is... does this members high blood pressure:

1. Restrict their geographic employment 
2. Restrict their occupational employment 

Geographic Employment: 

So if the treatment of the high blood pressure is going to: 

1. Require a scheduled follow up more often then 12 months but no more frequently than every six months. 
2. Require anti-hypertensive medications, where the the unexpected discontinuance will not create an unacceptable risk to the member's health and/or safety. 
3. Require a specific medical evaluation before being sent on a tasking.
4. Be an assessed risk and level of care required equates to a “Green” area on the Medical Risk Matrix 

See here for the risk matrix: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-medical-occupations/caf-medical-risk-matrix.page

Then they are going to go from a G2 to a G3.  

If the treatment of the BP is going to: 

1. Require monitoring more than ever 6 months 
2. be an assessed risk and level of care required equates to a “Yellow” area on the Medical Risk Matrix. This could come into play if the hypertension is co-existing with some other medical conditions. 

Then they are going to go from a G2 to a G4. 

Occupational Employment: 

If the BP does not affect the member from fully participating in common military tasks then they will remain a O2.  

The management of hypertension (high BP) has a bunch of modifiers but most importantly how high is the BP. In the absence of end-organ damage you are going to want 3-6 sequential BP measurements over a period of weeks a few months so you can make a definitive diagnosis.  As such a G4(T6) while you are doing the work ups.  

For stage I or II hypertension you are going to want treat it with some lifestyle modification (weight loss, eating, salt restriction, exercise, alcohol reduction), try some medication(s) to lower BP and maybe do some more diagnostics to rule out some other less common serious causes.  Again, you are going to want to see the patient again within 6 months so you can see if the BP is decreasing, check for medication side effects, see how they are doing with lifestyle modification and possibility conduct additional workups for something more sinister or a secondary cause. As such a G4(T6).  

If lifestyle modification alone reduces BP back to normal levels then the person can resume G2O2.  If medications stabilize the situation then G3O2 is likely fine.  If you cannot get the BP under control, they have situations of hypertensive urgency, have co-morbidity then a more restrictive category is likely warranted.

What you do not want to happen is a person who has stage II hypertension to starts a new medication and because they are not on T-cat the chain of command sends them off somewhere on tasking and you do not get a chance to frequently monitor the BP reduction progress and adjust as required. Maybe it is working, maybe they still have hypertension and the medication is not touching it or maybe it is making them hypotensive, with a low BP. A worse situation is that you start a new medication and the person is sent off and develops an adverse reaction to the medication (such as metabolic complications). The T-Cat just limits your geographical employment until we know you are good to go again. The member not on T-Cat is employable within the full confines of their permanent category by the chain of command.  

I hope that is of some interest / help.

MC


----------



## Gunplumber (24 Nov 2015)

Ok I am just about to give up helping this guy. The Redress has been written. He has gone through all the process material. All he needs is proper references as his were too generic. This is what we are asking. 
Remember this is a Class A reservist. He is not going to get follow on treatment or anything. He is trying to write a redress that will have some impact. *'what is the redress sought'* He can not ask for the job as it is gone. He cant ask for money as he didn't get the job. He cant get medical care because he is Class A, he can not get medication as he is Class A. He has to grieve the things that can get "redress sought" like the dissemination of his personal information. The only things he can realistically seek on this redress is that the MO and CDU did things by the book and then if not, he wants them to be admonished for not doing it.
Questions:
Can the Tcat be redressed? ie It is the MOs opinion that the BP was a problem for the job even though before and after the appointment the members BP is in normal ranges.
Should the CDU have given out the members Tcat or just the limitations?
Should the CDU have given the employer the Tcat info before sending it to the member or his unit?


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Nov 2015)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> Questions:
> Can the Tcat be redressed? ie It is the MOs opinion that the BP was a problem for the job even though before and after the appointment the members BP is in normal ranges.



Highly unlikely. Much would depend on the specific clinical information the decision was based on, ie: how high was the BP to start with. There's a distinct difference between 150/95 and 200/100. Contesting the MO's opinion is a very challenging task.



			
				Gunplumber said:
			
		

> Should the CDU have given out the members Tcat or just the limitations?



They're part and parcel of the same thing. The CF 2088 provides both the category and the limitations, because the later is based on the former, and it's a two part system.



			
				Gunplumber said:
			
		

> Should the CDU have given the employer the Tcat info before sending it to the member or his unit?



It shouldn't matter. The distribution of the CF 2088 is top down. That being said, under ideal circumstances the member should have been aware of the TCat and limitations prior to leaving the MO's office. I find it unusual that they were not. It was always my practice to inform members if I were recommending changes to their categories or limitations prior to them leaving the office.

Notwithstanding the TCat and limitations, the employer still has the option to ignore the medical advice and accept the risks associated with that decision. One of the cornerstones of the MEL process is that the medical folks lay out the limitations, and the employers manage the personnel IAW those limitations. The final decision is up to the employer, so I don't think using the MO angle is going to be any more successful.


----------



## Harris (24 Nov 2015)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> Remember this is a Class A reservist. He is not going to get follow on treatment or anything. He is trying to write a redress that will have some impact. *'what is the redress sought'* He can not ask for the job as it is gone.



Actually, I've seen plenty of redresses asking for a position someone didn't get.  In all of the successful cases one of two things happened:
1. The member was given the position he applied for and the person who originally got it was removed; or
2. The member was "found" as similar position for the same timeframe.



			
				Gunplumber said:
			
		

> He cant ask for money as he didn't get the job.



Agreed, but he can ask for the position.  Realistically I think that is a dead end until he gets his T-Cat changed as the hiring authority followed the rules.



			
				Gunplumber said:
			
		

> He cant get medical care because he is Class A, he can not get medication as he is Class A.



True that he can't get medical care at a CDU, nothing prevents him from getting medical care from a civilian provider, even if it is a walk in clinic.



			
				Gunplumber said:
			
		

> He has to grieve the things that can get "redress sought" like the dissemination of his personal information. The only things he can realistically seek on this redress is that the MO and CDU did things by the book and then if not, he wants them to be admonished for not doing it.
> Questions:
> Can the Tcat be redressed? ie It is the MOs opinion that the BP was a problem for the job even though before and after the appointment the members BP is in normal ranges.
> Should the CDU have given out the members Tcat or just the limitations?
> Should the CDU have given the employer the Tcat info before sending it to the member or his unit?



Not sure if a T-Cat can be redressed, but I am 100% sure he can ask to have a 2nd opinion from a different medical provider.
Yes the CDU can give out the T-Cat info.  It is what tells the CO (or employing agency) what the limitations are.  That is the whole point of a T-Cat, it gives limitations while not listing the conditions that caused those limitations.
Not sure if this breaks any rules or not, but the end result would have been the same in any case.  A T-Cat is a T-Cat regardless of who sees it first.  In this case once the CDU put the member on a T-Cat, he is no longer eligible to apply for a Class B.  Do I think this is fair?  Absolutely not.  However I will also point out that wavers/exemptions can and have been made.  I've got a Capt on a T-Cat who is on Class B ATM.  It took the Div Commander to do so however.

Another question I have is has the member given the CO a notice of intent to grieve yet?  Normally just doing this can get many problems sorted out as no one wants to go the formal route if it can be fixed informally first.

The last question I have is does the member believe he was the bast candidate for the position?  If he gets his T-Cat removed does he believe he would have been given the position over the person that did get it?  If the answer is no, I'm not sure there is any reason to go after that position.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Gunplumber (24 Nov 2015)

The CoC has been informed that the member will be putting in a redress. Weather or not it has made it up to the CO I don't know. It was 100% that he had the job. The member saw another civilian doctor at NDMC two days after the Part 2 medical and was told the limitations had no effect on the job being applied for. Its very low stress and not physical. He later got an email from the doctor saying she had just seen that the member had been put on a Tcat and that her recommendations didn't matter any more.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Nov 2015)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> The CoC has been informed that the member will be putting in a redress. Weather or not it has made it up to the CO I don't know. It was 100% that he had the job. The member saw another civilian doctor at NDMC two days after the Part 2 medical and was told the limitations had no effect on the job being applied for. Its very low stress and not physical. He later got an email from the doctor saying she had just seen that the member had been put on a Tcat and that her recommendations didn't matter any more.



Once brought in on class B the individual can be retasked; if the individual can not perform the full range of tasks required by the general and occupational specifications, there is risk to both the individual and the organization.


----------



## Gunplumber (24 Nov 2015)

The member had been doing the job for the last 5 months. He passed a Force test and does cardio running and weights every second day. I repeat again. The members BP was high at the Part 2 Medical but is not always high.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (24 Nov 2015)

One thing that can be asked in a redress is a review of policy with perhaps recommendations for change. 

My grievance was denied as I asked for monies lost but that did not prevent the CDS from making a well worded statement to my chain of command on the lack of administrative follow through on administering a C&P. That might help the next soldiers that are placed on one.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Nov 2015)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> The member had been doing the job for the last 5 months. He passed a Force test and does cardio running and weights every second day.



None of which necessarily eliminates the possibility of hypertension. Eighty percent of people with HTN have essential, or primary hypertension; the cause of which is difficult to discern, although lifestyle factors do feature prominently.



			
				Gunplumber said:
			
		

> I repeat again. The members BP was high at the Part 2 Medical but is not always high.



Notwithstanding, the MO clearly thought the member required such follow up as to result in a TCat. It is the MO's responsibility to ensure the good health of the member. It is impossible for any of us to have an accurate opinion on the case as we're not privy to the clinical details. I wager the member had other instances of HTN that we're unaware of which resulted in the category . No MO/PA is going to diagnose someone with HTN worthy of a category from a single visit - at least I wouldn't, and I doubt I'm unique in that.

It will be difficult to have the TCat overturned by arguing the MO erred in determining what is best for the member's health.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Nov 2015)

My  :2c: here.

IF the member has a bonafide "redress sought", (1) find him a decent Assisting Member if possible and (2) have them both read the link I provided above as a start if the AM has no experience or the AM course as a minimum.  

IF the member is just really wanting to lodge a complaint and doesn't actual have a "redress sought" part that is clear, or it doesn't exist at all, reconsider the redress and find the right way to lodge a complaint vice a grievance.


----------



## Gunplumber (24 Nov 2015)

So it certainly seems like this redress will be a waste of time. I seriously cant see that it is ok for someone else to know your med cat and information before you do. The member still has not received the Docs or even know what the limitations are yet. I think its time for me to get out of the military when this sort of crap goes on.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Nov 2015)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> So it certainly seems like this redress will be a waste of time. I seriously cant see that it is ok for someone else to know your med cat and information before you do. The member still has not received the Docs or even know what the limitations are yet. I think its time for me to get out of the military when this sort of crap goes on.



There likely was nothing said other than "member does not meet employment category, and has been placed on a TCat". I strongly, strongly doubt any private medical information was shared without the member's consent. That's a big medical no-no.

What we're also getting here, is your account  of a friend's account of his situation. That's one half of a story with a whole whack of moving parts. He may think he's got the shaft, but I doubt the MO let him leave without explaining the seriousness of high blood pressure. The CAF was looking out for the member's health and the CAF's liability if they employ someone outside their medical category.


----------



## MedCorps (25 Nov 2015)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> I seriously cant see that it is ok for someone else *to know your med cat* and information before you do. The member still has not received the Docs or even know what the limitations are yet. I think its time for me to get out of the military when this sort of crap goes on.



That is the rub.  It is not the members Med Cat, it is the CAF's Med Cat.  

It is the members medical information (clinical condition) but the Med Cat is an occupational health and employment tool that is owned by the machine not the member.

There still should have been some discussion between the member and the MO / MD / NP / PA prior to this just showing up down in the platoon room one day, like hey we you are going to have to do some follow up / lifestyle changes / medications and come back and see me (or your civilian MD) in X amount of time. Again, hypertension that warrants a T-Cat is generally not a onetime monitoring event and there must have been something leading up to this (or co-morbilities) that we do not know about.  

MC


----------



## captloadie (25 Nov 2015)

Is the member sure that the TCAT is actually directly related to his High Blood pressure? Have they gone in to ask what is in their medical file? I had a subordinate who was placed on a TCAT, and an AR/MEL was initiated. We all believed it was for a recent medical issue, and were not concerned about the outcome, believing it was a low risk item. As it turns out, when they reviewed his file to approve the TCAT, they discovered a previous medical condition on his file that should have been reviewed by DMED POL but had fallen through the cracks and his file had never been forwarded. We, and the member, only realized this was the case because we called to ask if his current MELs would DAG him red for a short tasking where medical support was limited. That was when, we were informed that the current review was not due to his current medical situation, but a previous issue.


----------



## CountDC (27 Nov 2015)

Funny but I can agree with a lot of the various comments from people here as a lot of them I have seen (captloadie one was similar to one we had in the last year).  One area I do not fully agree with is from the medical members.  I and others I work with have been surprised when suddenly presented with MELs at the unit months after our last med appt as we were not made aware of any issues.  We have been told everything looks good by the doctor at the time. 

If this mbr insists on redressing then he should request compensation based on the redress going his way - the cat overruled (it has happened once with a PCAT that I can think of off the top, moved from high risk to low risk) and that he would have been hired if the cat did not exist. This will actually give the board something to consider and make recommendation on.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2015)

I may be wrong, but I don't think even the CDS has the authority to grant redress in the form of monies.   ???


----------



## CountDC (17 Dec 2015)

Agree he can't just say pay the bloke $2k but in 2 cases I know of the direction was the mbr be put on Class B for a set period which did in a sense provide money.  Mind you the mbr did work Class A during the period so it was a change from Class A status to Class B Status for the period and the member then recieved pay for the days paysheets had not already been submitted for.

Direct money compensation he can refer to another group though.


----------



## jitterbug (17 Mar 2017)

Submitted a grievance, IA confirmed received, 4+ months later IA has not responded to grievance.  Assisting officer has attempted contact multiple times.  What should be done now?


----------



## ballz (17 Mar 2017)

If I were the AO, I would call up the correspondent you have had at the IA (the DG's usually have staff dealing with this stuff). I'd remind them they are overdue and that their obligations require them to provide an updated timeline, and if it's not satisfactory to you, you can have your grievance forwarded to the Final Authority, essentially skipping the IA because they took too long.

Have you received disclosure from the Grievance Analyst yet?


----------



## jitterbug (18 Mar 2017)

ballz said:
			
		

> If I were the AO, I would call up the correspondent you have had at the IA (the DG's usually have staff dealing with this stuff). I'd remind them they are overdue and that their obligations require them to provide an updated timeline, and if it's not satisfactory to you, you can have your grievance forwarded to the Final Authority, essentially skipping the IA because they took too long.
> 
> Have you received disclosure from the Grievance Analyst yet?



The correspondent at the IA (also the grievance analyst) has not responded back every time either of us have tried to contact him (both phone and email).  Disclosure has not been received either.  The last thing I got was an email from the correspondent stating disclosure would be sent.  That was well over 4 months ago.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Mar 2017)

DAOD 2017-1, Military Grievance Process

Four-Month Time Limit

9.8 In accordance with QR&O paragraph 7.15(2), an IA must consider and determine a grievance within four months. However, this may not always be possible due to the nature of the grievance or the exigencies of the service. As a result, an IA who is unable to comply with this obligation must notify the grievor in writing that:

a.the IA will not be able to consider and determine their grievance within the four-month time limit set out in QR&O paragraph 7.15(2), and provide an estimate of the date by which the IA might do so; and

b.the grievor may submit to the IA, for forwarding to the FA, a request to have the FA consider and determine the grievance without determination by the IA.

9.9 In any event, if the IA has not considered and determined the grievance within the four-month time limit, the grievor may:

a.choose to wait for the IA to consider and determine the grievance; or

b.request that the IA refer the grievance to the FA, who will then consider and determine the grievance.


*small point, but in the Grievance system, you have an AM (Assisting Member) not an AO (Assisting Officer).  They are not really the same and perform different functions.

If your AM is getting no reply back, also bear in mind...

Limitations on the Role of an Assisting Member

7.5 An assisting member assists a grievor but is not:
a.the personal representative of the grievor;

If you did decide to exercise your right to have the grievance forwarded to the FA, remember that there is no time limit for the FA to determine and grant/deny redress.

You might consider sending the Griev Analyst an email requesting an update IAW 9.8(a) of the DAOD.  They are not supposed to just give you the emergency test broadcast signal (I know it happens, believe me).  

However, the problem is there is no (real) accountability and repercussions in the CAFGS against IAs and GAs who do not perform the duties they are assigned.


----------



## Pusser (20 Mar 2017)

Perhaps your CO should be engaged to contact the Analyst's boss to get an answer.  Your CO can also contact DGCFGA who can swing a bigger hammer.


----------



## jitterbug (21 Mar 2017)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Perhaps your CO should be engaged to contact the Analyst's boss to get an answer.  Your CO can also contact DGCFGA who can swing a bigger hammer.



Good point.  I'm going to the CO's office tomorrow to tell him how to do his job... ;D


----------



## jitterbug (21 Mar 2017)

Finally got a response back from IA.  They are requesting 3-5 weeks for a disclosure.  Also received a call from the FA and they stated that 3-5 was reasonable and in their opinion I should take it.  I'm going to give the IA the 3-5 weeks extension.  Thanks for the advice.


----------



## ballz (21 Mar 2017)

jitterbug said:
			
		

> Finally got a response back from IA.  They are requesting 3-5 weeks for a disclosure.  Also received a call from the FA and they stated that 3-5 was reasonable and in their opinion I should take it.  I'm going to give the IA the 3-5 weeks extension.  Thanks for the advice.



I think you should push them for "how long until I get a decision from the IA." The fact that it took 4 months to even get a response, and then another "3-5 weeks" to get disclosure.... and then you'll want to respond to that disclosure... at which point the IA may want another abysmal amount of time to render a decision... you could easily be looking at another 5 months or more to get the actual decision.

Once again our standard in execution is quite embarrassing.


----------



## TCM621 (21 Mar 2017)

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. The modern Canadian military would be 2 weeks late for D-day. We can't seem to do anything in a reasonable amount of time any more. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## TCM621 (27 Mar 2017)

Does anyone know the time frame a CO has to acknowledge receipt of a grievance/notice of intent? I can't find anything but a statement that the CO is supposed to assign ab assisting member "without delay". 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballz (28 Mar 2017)

From DAOD 2017-1

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-2000/2017-1.page#dco



> Duties on Receipt of a Grievance
> 
> 6.2 Upon receipt of a grievance, and in accordance with QR&O article 7.09, Commanding Officer’s Duties on Receipt of Grievance, the CO must:
> 
> ...



While it doesn't explicitly say "the CO must acknowledge receipt of the grievance from the member within 10 days" it essentially gives him 10 days from the time of receipt to do the first step which includes providing the grievor with a copy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Mar 2017)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Does anyone know the time frame a CO has to acknowledge receipt of a grievance/notice of intent?



Short question;  which was submitted - the NOI or a grievance?  IAW the black and white of the policy, a CAF member who submits a NOI is not formally a 'grievor' yet.  There is a requirement in the policy for the CO to sign a mbr's NOI but nothing about acknowledging receipt to the mbr.  Common sense would be for the CofC to reach out to the mbr, as part of informal resolution (the overall goal of a NOI).
-----------
4. Informal Complaint Resolution

Early Complaint Resolution

4.1 A grievance should normally not be the first step in remedying a complaint. The CDS Guidance to Commanding Officers, Chapter 17, Conflict Management, provides that every effort is to be made to resolve issues early, locally and informally, before they escalate to higher and more formal levels.

Submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Grieve

4.2 Prior to submitting a grievance, a CAF member should submit a NOI to grieve to the chain of command to trigger resolution at the lowest possible level. The NOI template is found on the CFGA intranet site. A NOI:
a.does not preclude a CAF member from communicating with their commanding officer (CO) prior to submitting a grievance (see QR&O article 19.12, Communication with the Commanding Officer);
b.should be initiated as soon as possible after the decision, act or omission in question;
c.engages the chain of command to assist a CAF member in identifying the best complaint mechanism to potentially resolve the issue before it becomes a grievance; and
d.is most effective when the CO has the authority to resolve the problem.

Note – A NOI to grieve does not extend the time limit under QR&O paragraph 7.06(1), Time Limit to Submit Grievance, within which a grievance must be submitted by a CAF member.

4.3 A NOI to grieve must be:
a.submitted by the CAF member to their supervisor; and
b.signed by the CO of the CAF member.

5.1 A grievor is:
a.a CAF member who: i.is in the Regular Force or any sub-component of the Reserve Force (the Primary Reserve, Supplementary Reserve, Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service or Canadian Rangers);
ii.has been aggrieved by a decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the CAF; and
iii.has submitted to their CO a written and signed grievance seeking redress; or
b.a former CAF member who submitted a grievance before their release (see section 16 of this DAOD


----------



## TCM621 (28 Mar 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Short question;  which was submitted - the NOI or a grievance?  IAW the black and white of the policy, a CAF member who submits a NOI is not formally a 'grievor' yet.  There is a requirement in the policy for the CO to sign a mbr's NOI but nothing about acknowledging receipt to the mbr.  Common sense would be for the CofC to reach out to the mbr, as part of informal resolution (the overall goal of a NOI).
> -----------
> 4. Informal Complaint Resolution
> 
> ...


I was looking for an answer to both. I feel like there has to be some formal recognition but there doesn't seem to be. Step 1 is a "verbal" complaint, step 2 is a Notice of Intent and step 3 is submitting the grievance. At no point does the CO have to formally acknowledge anything (as far as I can find) yet the grievor has 3 months to decide whether to submit the formal grievance. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Mar 2017)

Well, they do have to sign the Mbr's NOI if submitted IAW Sect 4(3)(b) of the DAOD and/or WRT to a grievance, they have to acknowledge receipt of grievance to the griever IAW Sect 6.2 (c).  

From there, the next question is *can the CO act as the IA*?  That will determine the next actions required of the CO.

Examination of a Grievance to Identify the Appropriate IA

6.3 In accordance with QR&O subparagraph 7.14(1)(a), Officers Who May Act as Initial Authority in Respect of Grievance, a CO may act as the IA if the CO can grant the redress sought by the grievor. However, if the grievance relates to the decision, act or omission of the CO or if the CO cannot grant the redress sought by the grievor, the CO cannot act as the IA. In these circumstances, the CO must ensure that the grievance is referred to the next superior officer who is responsible for dealing with the matter that is the subject of the grievance (see section 8 of this DAOD).

Sects 6.4 and 6.5 amplify what else has to happen, as Ballz posted earlier, this is the first instance in the DAOD where a set timeline is detailed (10 days from receipt of grievance to forward it on to the CFGA or, if known, the IA).

Sect 9 of the DAOD has all the info that should apply if the CO can act as the IA, in which case they have 4 months to consider the grievance.  They are also required to acknowledge receipt of the grievance as an IA IAW Sect 9.3(a) of the DAOD.

If the (potential) grievor has yet to formally submit a grievance in writing, signed etc they aren't, by policy definition, a grievor at this point, even if they have submitted a NOI. That's why I was wondering.  From the DAOD, Sect 4.

Note – A NOI to grieve does not extend the time limit under QR&O paragraph 7.06(1), Time Limit to Submit Grievance, within which a grievance must be submitted by a CAF member.

Lastly, there is no formal Step 1 thru Step 3 process required.  The mbr can submit a grievance without communicating orally with their CO, or submitting a NOI.  However, the goal is always *lowest level possible* for resolution, and once a formal grievance is submitted, it has to be registered, tracked etc.  If speaking with the CO or communicating what issues the mbr has with a decision/act/omission to their CO via a NOI triggers a resolution process that results in a grievance NOT being submitted and the situation resolved favourable in the eyes of the mbr and CAF, that is the system working at its best at the lowest level.


----------



## TCM621 (29 Mar 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Well, they do have to sign the Mbr's NOI if submitted IAW Sect 4(3)(b) of the DAOD and/or WRT to a grievance, they have to acknowledge receipt of grievance to the griever IAW Sect 6.2 (c).
> 
> From there, the next question is *can the CO act as the IA*?  That will determine the next actions required of the CO.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I wasn't clear but your right there are no formal steps. More like levels of complaint. It seems like all the focus is on the member meeting deadlines and the CoC can do what they want with the except of the 10 days previously mentioned. I feel like there has to be some sort of recourse if your CoC just sits on it and does nothing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Mar 2017)

What level of the CofC is sitting on it...hypothetically?  If the CO isn't the IA, he has 10 days to forward it.  If he is the IA, he has 4 months to render decision, with all steps complete.


----------



## TCM621 (29 Mar 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What level of the CofC is sitting on it...hypothetically?  If the CO isn't the IA, he has 10 days to forward it.  If he is the IA, he has 4 months to render decision, with all steps complete.


Don't want to get into too much detail but the short answer I don't know. And I can't see a scenario where the CO could be the IA but I could be wrong. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Mar 2017)

Rgr;  if he/she is not able to be the IA, then...they have 10 days from receipt to get the train movin' in the right direction.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (11 Apr 2017)

Where would one find information about the PER review request / redress etc. processes.

Everything I'm finding on the DIN is 404'ing


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Apr 2017)

The formal grievance stuff is here  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-2000/2017-1.page#perg

But, as you know, try the lowest level possible route first.  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-2000/2017-1.page#icr

Have you sat down with your superior(s), with copies of your initial PDR, PDR review, brag sheet etc and shown where you believe you achieved a higher score (or has the mbr, if not you)?

Also, with more detail, is the CFPAS Help File, Using CFPAS, Chap 1, Art 119, Replacement PER.

*119. Replacement PER
*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General

1.  The reasons for replacing a PER range from correcting an administrative error to resolving an individual’s non-grievance or grievance request at the Unit level. Every effort is to be made to resolve PER disputes early, locally and informally. With the intent of mitigating and expediting resolution to disputes when they occur, the subordinate should be given time to review the PER and be encouraged to point out errors and omissions in the PER prior to signing. A best practice suggests that the subordinate be given a copy of their PER 24 hours in advance of their interview in order to allow time to read the PER, reflect on its content and prepare for a productive interview. In doing so, the subordinate may present additional information that causes the signatories to agree to make changes to the PER with or without submitting a grievance. Once the subordinate signs a PER, the signature on the PER signifies that he/she has read and understood the assessment, which includes personnel who refuse to sign.  

*Note*: The subordinate’s signature date or date refusing to sign on the PER becomes the reference date for time limits set out below.

2.  When adjudicating as commanding officer for non-grievances or initial authority for grievances, the following should be considered:

a.  the absence of a PDR or existence of a hostile relationship with a supervisor or other poor treatment, alleged or substantiated, is not, in and of itself, justification for higher scores or a better ranking (absence of a PDR is cause for consideration when writing the supervisor’s PER);

b.  the requirement for any change in score or promotion recommendation must be properly substantiated by the person with corroborated information congruent with the word pictures contained in the rating scales at a higher rating;

c.  the scores or ranking a person received the previous year are irrelevant in assessing the current year PER; and

d.  the fact that the person’s file was not selected for Annual Selection Board review or was not scored sufficiently to result in promotion is not justification for a higher score or ranking 

Non-Grievance Request

3.  *Commanding Officer (CO)*.  As the initial means to resolve PER disputes, COs are strongly encouraged to resolve non-grievances and administrative errors early and informally, rather than a grievance. The subordinate must sign the new PER within the specified non-grievance time limit, as a replacement PER’s late arrival greatly complicates the Annual Selection Board process. 

Note: A unit CO who receives a PER dispute concerning a theatre PER must forward the non-grievance request to the appropriate theatre CO or commander (CJOC J1 Grievances).

4.  *Administrative error*. An administrative error has no impact on the Annual Selection Board processes. Errors made to any of the following areas of the PER are considered administrative errors and where uncertainty exists, DMCSS 2 should be consulted:


a.  Section 1 – Identification;

b.  Section 2 – General;

c.  Section 3 – Details of Employment/New Qualifications; 

d.  Fitness Test; and

e.  Signature Blocks.


5. * Non-grievance Time Limit*. The time limit set out for the subordinate to sign the non-grievance replacement PER is no later than 01 August. In order to respect timely submission, the following staffing direction shall be adhered to when submitting current reporting period non-grievance replacement PERs:

a.  for cases of Annual PERs, the subordinate must sign the PER no later than 01 August of the current reporting period;

b.  for cases of Theatre PERs, the subordinate must sign the PER within 90 days from the date that the original was signed; and

c.  when the signing of a replacement PER is expected to exceed the non-grievance time limit, the CO is to contact DMCSS 2 by email to request an extension. Replacement PERs submitted under such grounds shall reference the email approval in the accompanying cover letter.


6.  *Cover Letter*. Submission requirements for Regular Force replacement PERs will vary depending on whether or not the new PER replaces a PER that has or has not already left the Unit:


a.  if the new PER replaces a PER that has left the unit, the CO must provide a cover letter with the new PER submission to the PER Processing Centre IAW chap 2 sect 203, Method of Transmission. The cover letter for non-grievances must;

i.  explain why the submission of the replacement PER was necessary,

ii.  provide an explanation in the event that any of the original signatories of sections 4, 5 or 6 (as appropriate) is not the same as those on the original PER, and

iii.  reference email approving the extension to non-grievance time limit.

b.  if the new PER replaces a PER that has not left the Unit, the new PER is to be submitted as per normal procedures contained in chap 2 sect 203, Method of Transmission. 

Grievance Request

7.  *Initial Authority (IA)*.  The grievance process allows a person to submit a grievance concerning the fairness, accuracy or appropriateness of a PER or its content. To permit COs and next superior officers in the CoC to fully manage PER disputes within their own organizations, streamlining their resolution, the applicable CO or next superior officer in the CoC who is responsible for the completion of the PER is the officer who must act as the IA for a grievance in respect of that PER. IAs are strongly encouraged to resolve grievances early and via informal resolution, as a replacement PER’s late arrival greatly complicates the Annual Selection Board process. The CO or next superior officer in the CoC *cannot* act as the IA when the officer was a signatory of the PER. DGCFGA is to be consulted in such cases to determine the appropriate IA (see DAOD 2017-1, Military Grievance Process). 

*Note*: The IA for theatre replacement PERs is the appropriate theatre CO or commander (CJOC J1 Grievances).

8.  *Grievance Time Limit*. The grievor’s signature date on the original PER is the reference date for the submission of a grievance set out in QR&O 7.06 - Time Limit to Submit Grievance. The following staffing direction shall be adhered to when submitting grievance replacement PERs:

a.  a grievance replacement PER must be signed by the subordinate within 90 days of being satisfied with the IA’s determination; and

b.  *all* grievances must be registered with DGCFGA. In doing so, the subordinate and CoC ensure that time limits are adhered to IAW DAOD 2017-1, Military Grievance Process. Replacement PERs submitted under such grounds *shall* reference the grievance file number in the accompanying cover letter.

9.  *Cover Letter*. Submission requirements for Regular Force replacement PERs will vary depending on whether or not the new PER replaces a PER that *has* or *has not *already left the Unit:

a.  if the new PER replaces a PER that *has* left the unit, the IA must provide a cover letter with the new PER submission to PER Processing Centre IAW chap 2 sect 203, Method of Transmission. The cover letter for grievances must;

i.  indicate that the submission of the replacement PER is a result of a grievance determination;

ii.  provide an explanation in the event that any of the original signatories of sections 4, 5 or 6 (as appropriate) is not the same as those on the original PER; and

iii.  reference the grievance file number.

b.  if the new PER replaces a PER that *has not *left the Unit, the new PER is to be submitted as per normal procedures contained in chap 2 sect 203, Method of Transmission. 

PER Amendments

10.  Replacement PERs submitted to the PER Processing Centre are analyzed automatically on receipt in order to determine any impact on the Annual Selection Board process that may require the convening of Supplementary Board. DMCSS 2 will advise the CO/IA of the results of the case analysis for disclosure to the subordinate/grievor.


11.  In order to avoid having the replacement PER returned to the originator, the CO/IA must ensure that the new PER is completed, specifically ensuring:

a.  no signatures are missing;

b.  applicable time limit for non-grievances at para 5 and grievances at para 8 above is adhered to;

c.  applicable cover letter requirements for non-grievances at para 6a and grievances para 9a above are adhered to;

d.  Dept ID is the same Dept ID as on the original PER;

e.  subordinate’s/grievor’s signature date is the day that the new PER is signed and not the dates as shown on the original PER; and

f.  replacement PER is CFPAS compliant.


*Note*: Replacement PERs will *not* be accepted when they are based on promotions that occur after 31 March with an effective date before 1 April (refer to sect 108(2)) and personnel who Opt Out (see sect 125).


----------



## CombatMacguyver (11 Apr 2017)

Fantastic thanks.


----------



## AirDet (11 Apr 2017)

To re-enforce what Eye In The Sky said, deal with this ASAP. If you don't get a resolution from your immediate CofC then draft the Notice to Grieve. If you do that right away your PER will be kept at the CO's Desk. He can hear and make changes if warranted. This is much easier than the full ROG and means your file won't be at risk for missing the boards.

Trust me on this; the secret is getting it done ASAP and have proof/evidence for everything you claim needs to be changed. The better the proof; the better your chances.

Good luck.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Apr 2017)

Having gone through this recently, the best approach for this is to show why you think you've earned higher dot scores with specific examples.  Had a few guys come with concrete reasons for specific points, was able to take it through to the XO/CO and get the changes made pretty easily.  And that was all via the informal route.

There was some give and take, but generally it was pretty fair, so no grievances resulted.

The thing I always tried to emphasize as a supervisor was that folks got a fair and impartial assessment, which is what we based the score/narrative on, but it's easy enough when you are going through 40+ of them in a month to forget about something that happened near the start of the year.


----------



## Mediman14 (1 Jun 2017)

When completing an Notice of Intent to Grieve - How much detail should be included vs a memo? I have searched DWAN, etc, never saw an example of an NOI. 

Thanks


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jun 2017)

It really depends upon you, but brevity and specifics are usually sufficient. You should allow the addressee sufficient information to look at the case, without tipping your hand in advance.

IE: This memo serves as my intent to grieve the annual PER dated 31 Apr 17.


----------



## NavyShooter (1 Jun 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It really depends upon you, but brevity and specifics are usually sufficient. You should allow the addressee sufficient information to look at the case, without tipping your hand in advance.
> 
> IE: This memo serves as my intent to grieve the annual PER dated 31 Apr 17.



I'd grieve a PER dated *31* April 17 as well....

;-)


----------



## TCM621 (1 Jun 2017)

Very short and to the point as said above just what you intend to grieve and why.


----------



## Pusser (2 Jun 2017)

It's also worth noting that you don't actually have to submit a notice of intent to grieve.  You can just submit the grievance if you're ready.  However, if you would like to have an assisting officer appointed to help you, the NOI could be used to state that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2017)

Pusser said:
			
		

> It's also worth noting that you don't actually have to submit a notice of intent to grieve.  You can just submit the grievance if you're ready.  However, if you would like to have an assisting officer member appointed to help you, the NOI could be used to state that.



AO and AM...different functions.  I am an AM but wouldn't be an AO, for example, IAW current policy.  Also, submission of the NOI is supposed to trigger the assignment of the Assisting Member automatically.  

Assisting Officer:  

108.03 – DEFINITIONS

In this chapter, "assisting officer" (officier désigné pour aider l'accusé)means an officer or a non-commissioned member who has been appointed to assist an accused pursuant to article 108.14 (Assistance to Accused)

108.14 – ASSISTANCE TO ACCUSED

(1) As soon as possible after a charge has been laid (see article 107.015 – Meaning of "Charge"), an officer or, in exceptional circumstances, a non-commissioned member above the rank of sergeant shall be appointed by or under the authority of the commanding officer to assist the accused.

DAOD 2017-1 Military Grievance Process

Management of the Grievance Process

2.6 The CFGA is responsible for managing the entire grievance process and ensuring associated direction is implemented. Key functions of the CFGA include:
c.the management of training for grievance analysts and assisting members.

Submitting a Grievance

5.3 In order to ensure the efficient administration of a grievance, a grievor:
a.should consider requesting an assisting member prior to submitting their grievance;

Duties on Receipt of a Grievance

6.2 Upon receipt of a grievance, and in accordance with QR&O article 7.09, Commanding Officer’s Duties on Receipt of Grievance, the CO must:
d.assign an assisting member in accordance with QR&O article 7.07, Duty to Assign Officer or Non-Commissioned Member to Assist.

QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 7, Art 7.07

7.07 - DUTY TO ASSIGN OFFICER OR NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBER TO ASSIST

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the commanding officer of an officer or non-commissioned member who submits a grievance or gives notice of their intent to grieve  *shall* assign without delay an officer or a non-commissioned member of the rank of sergeant or above to assist the grievor.


----------



## TCM621 (4 Jun 2017)

I would suggest any supervisor acquaint themselves with DOAD 2017 and 2017—1. That reference spells out the rights and responsibilities very good. 

For anyone over the rank of Sgt, I would suggest the grievance assisting member course on AFile. Besides being able to better support your troops, you will have a good knowledge of the system and can assist your peers and supervisors who aren't familiar with the system.


----------



## Mediman14 (11 Jul 2018)

This question may already be posted, but I am on my phone away from home and this thing is slow! Can a CO be an IA (Initial Authority) if the CO was apart of the decision process that one is grieving? Wouldn't the CO be considered as being biased?


----------



## kratz (11 Jul 2018)

DAOD 2017-0: Military Grievances

It's important to note: the Canadian Armed Forces Grievance System (CAFGS) are the SME for grievances. 

From the reference:


			
				DAOD 2017-0 said:
			
		

> CO of a grievor:  act under QR&O subparagraph 7.14(1)(a) as the IA in respect of a grievance if the CO can grant the redress sought.



For the detailed process, follow DAOD 2017-1, para 9



> 9. Duties of an Initial Authority
> 
> Who May Act as the IA in Respect of a Grievance
> 
> ...



***Edit: to add the DAOD 2017-1 quote.


----------



## Mediman14 (12 Jul 2018)

Can one Grievance a Policy? Especially if it a very vague Policy?


----------



## kev994 (12 Jul 2018)

I believe you would need to grieve the result of the policy. Ie you can’t grieve a local breakfast claim policy until you are denied a claim for breakfast that you believe you are entitled to. You would then grieve the claim and point out that the TD orders say xxx


----------



## Pusser (12 Jul 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Can one Grievance a Policy? Especially if it a very vague Policy?



It largely depends on what you mean by policy.  Are you talking about a regulation or a local commander's direction?  A regulation is difficult to grieve unless you can show that it is inherently unfair, but even then, the government is allowed to make regulations that may seem unfair to some people.  For example, I once dealt with a case where the member listed all of the personal hardships his family had suffered on a posting in support of his grievance over the denial of a posting allowance.  The simple reality though was that he did not qualify for a posting allowance (had not yet achieved career status), so the "unfairness" of the policy was irrelevant.

The best way to win a policy grievance is if you can show that the policy is not being applied or interpreted correctly in your case, or that even if the policy is being applied correctly, your particular case warrants an exemption in order to ensure that you are not disadvantaged in comparison to your peers.

Here's an example of a policy grievance that I won.  Under the foreign service directives (FSD), the Crown is required to ensure that a dependant receives pretty much the same level of education on an overseas posting as they would receive in Ottawa.  The  FSD specifically states four school boards for comparison, one of which is the Ottawa Carleton District School Board (OCDSB).  While my son was attending an OCDSB school, he was issued a laptop computer for his exclusive use, by the Board, at no cost to me, as part of his Individual Education Plan (IEP).  There is a directorate at NDHQ called Children's Education Management (CEM) that oversees dependant education and they have an approval process for overseas schools.  My son was enrolled in an approved school; however, one of the conditions of his acceptance at the school was that he needed to update his IEP (which involved consultation with a specialist).  The specialist and the new IEP recommended my son have a laptop computer for his exclusive use.  The difference was that his overseas school did not issue computers, so I bought one and submitted a claim.  The claim was immediately denied, because the FSD clearly states that computers are not an allowable expense.  I argued that the paragraph where that is laid out is clearly intended for extracurricular activities as it included things like yearbooks, sports uniforms, etc.  I also pointed out that the FSD specifically states that education standards comparable to the OCDSB (the school system my son had just come from) must be maintained and that the OCDSB had in fact, provided a computer to my son free of charge.  Nevertheless, CEM denied the claim and I grieved it.  Using the same arguments I had already detailed to CEM, I won my grievance and was fully reimbursed for the computer (although I did have to turn it in to the IT folks at my support unit when it came time to come home).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jul 2018)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Can one Grievance a Policy? Especially if it a very vague Policy?



QR & O, Vol 1, Chap 7

Section 1 - General

7.01 - RIGHT TO GRIEVE

Subsection 29(1) of the National Defence Act provides:


"29. (1) An officer or non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Forces for which no other process for redress is provided under this Act is entitled to submit a grievance."

(G) [7.01: repealed by P.C. 2014-0575 effective 1 June 2014]

(C) [1 June 2014]

NOTE

The decision, act or omission which aggrieves an officer or non-commissioned member may include an Act, regulation or policy which governs their conditions of service, even if the authority to amend that instrument or to provide the redress sought by the grievor lies outside the Canadian Forces.

(C) [1 June 2014]


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jul 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> DAOD 2017-0: Military Grievances
> 
> It's important to note: the Canadian Armed Forces Grievance System (CAFGS) are the SME for grievances.
> 
> ...



Just to add, a piece from the DAOD (Section 6) as well for amplification...

6. Duties of a Commanding Officer

Examination of a Grievance to Identify the Appropriate IA

6.3 In accordance with QR&O subparagraph 7.14(1)(a), Officers Who May Act as Initial Authority in Respect of Grievance, a CO may act as the IA if the CO can grant the redress sought by the grievor. However, if the grievance relates to the decision, act or omission of the CO or if the CO cannot grant the redress sought by the grievor, the CO cannot act as the IA. In these circumstances, the CO must ensure that the grievance is referred to the next superior officer who is responsible for dealing with the matter that is the subject of the grievance (see section 8 of this DAOD).
----------------------------------------
If someone was looking for informal resolution before going the formal grievance route, this is also something worth considering along with the Notice of Intent...From QR & O, Vol 1, Chap 7.  Kind of like low level, informal representation after disclosure (decision being given to you that you aren't happy with).

7.04 - ORAL COMPLAINT

The right to grieve does not preclude an officer or non-commissioned member from making an oral complaint to their commanding officer before submitting a grievance.

(G) [P.C. 2000-863 effective 15 June 2000; P.C. 2014-0575 effective 1 June 2014]


----------

