PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[284_226]

Perhaps then it was your statement that:

One's supervisors had better have their ducks in a row

which threw us off then.

It shouldn't have thrown you off.  If the member has kept detailed notes and accounting of all the tasks performed in the past year, and the supervisor hasn't, then the end result is going to be that the supervisor didn't have their ducks in a row.  Any successful grievance is based on the premise that the grievor is going to have a better substantiated case than the supervisor, in this situation.  If the supervisor doesn't have records of counselling interviews and documented performance, then they're pretty much doomed in the face of a grievor who has kept everything to substantiate their own performance.

Minimum of 2 feedback sessions is the minimal requirement. 3 feedback sessions is the optimal situation.

My bad.  I think what I meant to say is that a PER supporting a "problem child" or "boy wonder" is going to need that additional level of substantiation of three feedback sessions.

The previous PER has zero bearing. The yardstick used in the writing of the PER is the current years performance by the member. Period. It is not related whatsoever to what the supervisor (the same supervisor or not) wrote or scored the member as in a previous year. The first thing the Redress authority is going to do is tell the member that "previous years' PERs, assesments and scoring are absolutely irrelevant to this current PER and have NO bearing upon it." They can redress all they want but I can guarantee you that a previous years PER will not come into play WRT the outcome of the redress. They may win a higher score if they have evidence to back up why they earned a higher score for the current years work, but they will NOT win it because that's what they had last year.

In the case you speak of, the point was won because the supervisor did not document this years performance correctly. It was not won because the member had a higher score the year before.

Yes and no.  Bringing the previous PER into the grievance eliminates any chance of the supervisor being able to claim that different supervisors might subjectively view the same performance with different ratings.  The system isn't perfect, and since humans do the evaluating, there's always a degree of subjectivity to it.  If one has the same supervisor for two consecutive years, the grievor can essentially rule out the "subjectivity" aspect.

 

[armyvern]

If you have been at a unit for the entire year, then IMHO it would be alright for supervisors to prepare draft versions in Mid-Feb. If this is the case, then the final version of the PER should be reviewed to ensure that any item that may be required to be added for mid-Feb to End-Mar is indeed added.

If you have been at the unit less than a year, then I would fully support the fact that those PER's should not even be attempted to be written until end-Mar.

This is why it is critical that supervisors (and members alike) ensure that the quarterly PDR is written. If you don't get one, go ask for it!! It is also why it is critical that these PDRs be forwarded as per the regualtions to the new section or Unit. So that everyone's performance and end FY PER is based on the entire year and not just a part thereof.

 

[Navalsnpr]

This is why it is critical that supervisors (and members alike) ensure that the quarterly PDR is written. If you don't get one, go ask for it!! It is also why it is critical that these PDRs be forwarded as per the regualtions to the new section or Unit. So that everyone's performance and end FY PER is based on the entire year and not just a part thereof.

When you are posted from a career course, you do not get a posting PDR from the school, you only get a course report. This course report may not arrive onboard for up to 3-4 months. In my trade, our QL5 training is around 24 months, so when I guy arrives from their QL5 course onboard in January, there is no course report or PDR to go by, therefore they only have 3 months to be observed and it is also difficult to write a PDR part 3/4 on the member

 

[284_226]

In any Unit I've served with (including deployed) we also jump started our PERs. Generally speaking, ones performance will be consistant throughout the year. Just because the draft version of it is drafted prior to end-year does not mean that changes to it can not and don't occur if warranted and necessary. I've seen people perform so poorly in the last quarter that they actually fall out of that 'pecking order' of which you speak and I've seen others step up to the plate in that last quarter in such a way that they ended up bumping someone out of that 'pecking order.' Usually though, the performance is consistant with the rest of the FY and no changes need to occur to the PER. Most PERs reflect the performance in areas "overall" and the mention of a specific activity ie "did exceedingly well during end FY budget consolidations" is limited and only certain scores will have specific examples used. A PER can not list every single thing that you do during the FY specifically, it would then be a 10 binder presentation, and therefore not likely to be read by those sitting on your merit board. 

For the most part, I'd agree with you.  However, there are cases where the member could really shine based on "meat" in the last quarter, but doesn't get the benefit of consideration for it.  A change in the scoring might possibly mean a change in section ranking, or base ranking if it was an immediate PER.  How many supervisors are actually going to go through the hoops to fight for an upward change, knowing that it's going to potentially nudge a whole bunch of people that have already been ranked on unit and base merit boards?  It's not a widespread problem, but I'd think it pops up from time to time.

 

[284_226]

When you are posted from a career course, you do not get a posting PDR from the school, you only get a course report. This course report may not arrive onboard for up to 3-4 months. In my trade, our QL5 training is around 24 months, so when I guy arrives from their QL5 course onboard in January, there is no course report or PDR to go by, therefore they only have 3 months to be observed and it is also difficult to write a PDR part 3/4 on the member

Have things really slid that far at the school?  I know when I was there, every student was given the opportunity to hand carry their own copy of a course report for their own records.  There's nothing stopping them from giving a copy of that to their supervisor, pending the arrival of the "official" copy through the mail...

 

[Navalsnpr]

Have things really slid that far at the school?  I know when I was there, every student was given the opportunity to hand carry their own copy of a course report for their own records.  There's nothing stopping them from giving a copy of that to their supervisor, pending the arrival of the "official" copy through the mail...

I just left the school and 99% of the instructors are actually in class or the trainer instructing all day long with little to no breaks between courses. From Jan 06 until my posting in Jul 06, I had only 8 days that I wasn't required to be in class instructing all day long.

So to answer your question about things sliding at the school, the answer is no. We are teaching twice the number of students with a section that is sitting around 75%.

Course reports are written and submitted as soon as humanly possible.....

 

[284_226]

I just left the school and 99% of the instructors are actually in class or the trainer instructing all day long with little to no breaks between courses. From Jan 06 until my posting in Jul 06, I had only 8 days that I wasn't required to be in class instructing all day long.

So to answer your question about things sliding at the school, the answer is no. We are teaching twice the number of students with a section that is sitting around 75%.

Course reports are written and submitted as soon as humanly possible.....

I'm not doubting you, as I know quite well that the old trade is bleeding in experience and numbers pretty badly - so the school being short staffed is no big surprise.  Still, don't the students have to sign their course reports at the end of the course, or are they being forwarded to the home/gaining unit for student's signature after their course is complete?  In the grand scheme of things, it shouldn't matter to the member either way, as the course report forms part of the package at the following merit board.  The merit board should and does realize that if the member is on course for 9 months, that there's only going to be 3 months of observation towards the PER.  The other time is covered by the course report.

 

[armyvern]

When you are posted from a career course, you do not get a posting PDR from the school, you only get a course report. This course report may not arrive onboard for up to 3-4 months. In my trade, our QL5 training is around 24 months, so when I guy arrives from their QL5 course onboard in January, there is no course report or PDR to go by, therefore they only have 3 months to be observed and it is also difficult to write a PDR part 3/4 on the member

True. I however have taken the initiative to ask the member who has completed the course for a copy of the course report in question, which they would have been given upon signing it. Once, the member had washed it. In that case I called CFSAL and they were gracious enough to fax me a copy of it.

The situation you describe above is absolutely correctable with a little work on the supervisors part.

Edit: typo

 

[armyvern]

For the most part, I'd agree with you.  However, there are cases where the member could really shine based on "meat" in the last quarter, but doesn't get the benefit of consideration for it.  A change in the scoring might possibly mean a change in section ranking, or base ranking if it was an immediate PER.  How many supervisors are actually going to go through the hoops to fight for an upward change, knowing that it's going to potentially nudge a whole bunch of people that have already been ranked on unit and base merit boards?  It's not a widespread problem, but I'd think it pops up from time to time.

Did you even read my post that you quoted? I stated that when the performance justified a downward or upward move during the last quarter it was done. At least it has been at the various Unit's I served in. Even the "meat" in the last quarter however does not negate the other 9 months of the members performance which must still be taken into account; otherwise we'd have a whole bunch of pers who only 'performed' from Jan til Mar.

 

[Navalsnpr]

Still, don't the students have to sign their course reports at the end of the course, or are they being forwarded to the home/gaining unit for student's signature after their course is complete?  In the grand scheme of things, it shouldn't matter to the member either way, as the course report forms part of the package at the following merit board.  The merit board should and does realize that if the member is on course for 9 months, that there's only going to be 3 months of observation towards the PER.  The other time is covered by the course report.

Course reports are written, and sent through the service mail system to the member's OR or SHO, where they are logged and sent down the chain of command for signature by the members. Upon completion, they are sent back to the school and D MIL C

 

[armyvern]

Course reports are written, and sent through the service mail system to the member's OR or SHO, where they are logged and sent down the chain of command for signature by the members. Upon completion, they are sent back to the school and D MIL C

Well there's part of the problem right there then. I have always, and I mean always, signed my course report the last day of the course. When I have instructed I have always, and I mean always, had them ready to be signed on the last day of the course. Whether that meant working 16 hour days or whatever to get it done after everything else occured. It was part of my duties as staff. No student should be leaving a school without a signed course report. That is when they get screwed around.

 

[Navalsnpr]

Just because CFSAL does it that way does not mean that all CF schools do it the same way. Course reports are written and submitted up to the Divisional Commander for review and signature prior to it being released by the member. If the Divisional Commander is away on TD or Leave, then they will be processed upon his/her return.

I don't see it as a problem, I see it as a mechanism that is in place to ensure that the course reports are correctly written prior to signature by the member. Course reports are sent to the merit boards just as PER's, therefore course reports must be afforded the same scrutiny that PER's are.

 

[armyvern]

Are you telling me that your Divisional Commander goes away on leave or TD and does not delegate his duties to someone else during his absence? That's certainly unusual.

And yes, CFSAL course reports must also make their way up to the Comdt (or their delegated authority during their absence) for his/her review/vetting/comments and signature prior to being presented to students as well.

 

[Navalsnpr]

Are you telling me that your Divisional Commander goes away on leave or TD and does not delegate his duties to someone else during his absence? That's certainly unusual.

Above my pay grade.... And besides, 50% of the courses I taught were during the 1600-2359 or 0000-0759 shift. I'm not waking the Div Commander up during those shifts to review a course report.

 

[armyvern]

Put them in his secure mailbox at the OR? I know I certainly didn't hand deliver mine. Have the OOW wake him? I don't know. But it seems like a wholey preventable situation to me.

 

[284_226]

Did you even read my post that you quoted? I stated that when the performance justified a downward or upward move during the last quarter it was done. At least it has been at the various Unit's I served in. Even the "meat" in the last quarter however does not negate the other 9 months of the members performance which must still be taken into account; otherwise we'd have a whole bunch of pers who only 'performed' from Jan til Mar.

I did read it, and the point I was trying to make is that more often than not, it's deemed to be more work to substantiate an upwards/downwards move in the last quarter than to just leave things the way they are.  I'm not saying there aren't supervisors that won't take that effort, but I am saying that it's rare.  A lot of it comes down to the position - some positions don't have duties that vary from one part of the year to another, while some positions are heavily weighted toward a great deal of work at the fiscal year-end.  I'm thinking of dots related to resource management, initiative, problem solving and decision making.  A person might go the first 9 months without demonstrating anything more than "skilled" levels in those AFs; however, when the proverbial crap hits the fan at year end, they shine through.

Having everyone wait until 1 April before they start work on PERs isn't unreasonable, considering that would leave two full months to get the whole process done and have the PERs at DMCARM by the 1 June deadline - or perhaps the 1 June deadline needs to be moved to the right...on the face of it, three months seems like quite a bit of time to have the files ready for the Electronic Selection Boards in the fall.

 

[McG]

... there are cases where the member could really shine based on "meat" in the last quarter, but doesn't get the benefit of consideration for it.  ...  How many supervisors are actually going to go through the hoops to fight for an upward change, knowing that it's going to potentially nudge a whole bunch of people that have already been ranked on unit and base merit boards?  

If a member's performance in the last months of the year merits a change in the draft PER, then that change should happen.  If this is not happening where you are, blame your unit for not using CFPAS properly & get after people to sort it out.

CFPAS scoring is not supposed to be based on some form of bell-curve either.  That means if one individual's performance improves or dives, there is no requirement to re-score anyone else.

 

[McG]

Having everyone wait until 1 April before they start work on PERs isn't unreasonable, considering that would leave two full months to get the whole process done and have the PERs at DMCARM by the 1 June deadline

Keep in mind that your solution does not fit the realities of our soldiers at war in Afghanistan.  As most of the BG soldiers deploy as part of their own unit or sub-unit, they are getting annual PERs.  They certainly need flexibility in when PERs can be written and waiting for 01 Apr will not help anyone.

 

[284_226]

If a member's performance in the last months of the year merits a change in the draft PER, then that change should happen.  If this is not happening where you are, blame your unit for not using CFPAS properly & get after people to sort it out.

Agreed; however, sometimes it's easier said than done.

CFPAS scoring is not supposed to be based on some form of bell-curve either.  That means if one individual's performance improves or dives, there is no requirement to re-score anyone else.

Not re-score - re-rank.  If a raised PER moves a member from a "Ready" to an "Immediate" recommendation, then they most certainly will be looking at having to be ranked in MOC, as well as having the additional review done.  Additionally, if the scores are raised sufficiently, then it may well have an effect on ranking on a base/wing merit board - which would be indicated in the additional review section, would it not?  (I've never been on a base/wing merit board, so I'm guessing here...)

 

[284_226]

Keep in mind that your solution does not fit the realities of our soldiers at war in Afghanistan.  As most of the BG soldiers deploy as part of their own unit or sub-unit, they are getting annual PERs.  They certainly need flexibility in when PERs can be written and waiting for 01 Apr will not help anyone.

One could also argue that those who are operationally deployed would be the ones that stand the most to gain from ensuring that the entire reporting period is considered on a PER.  I personally don't know how to address that particular concern.