PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Fishbone Jones]

Ummm?  Whom should be doing the evaluations of their troops then?  Perhaps someone from another unit in another Trade?  Whom do you suggest, that would be able to give as honest an evaluation of their people's work, work ethic, skills, knowledge, aspirations, etc.?

Damn it! There we go again.  :facepalm: Ruining another thread with simple logic.

You maniac! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you to hell! 8)

 

[George Wallace]

Damn it! There we go again.  :facepalm: Ruining another thread with simple logic.

You maniac! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you to hell! 8)

Good thing I removed the Easter Bunny from the options.

 

[Tibbson]

Again, your C of C is getting it completely wrong.  This initiative is meant to save us time.  If you comment on 3 AFs, then three lines of text - that simple.  No crib sheets.  No substantiation.  Once the unit merit board determines rankings it is all meant to be quite simple.

I don't disagree with you but in the case of my Unit we are split around the country into 11 individual Detachments under one centrally located CO (with OCs in each Det).  As a result, I can sit here and work through rankings of the 14 MCpls in my Det but now they want this substantiation sheet for the larger Unit level board conducted by teleconference.  If I rank our top MCpl as Immediate with a score of 92 and some other Det lists their top MCpl as an Immediate also with a score of 92 OR if someone questions the score, then there is this substantiation sheet to argue from. 

I know....the changes are supposed to simplify the process but of course someone up the chain decided to foul it up again. 

Then again my Brother is in a Unit that takes the stance that the comment in the CANFORGEN which states it's to be implemented for the "upcoming PER season" means NEXT year, not this year so they are saying (for now) that they are changing nothing of how they will do their PERs. 

Watch and shoot.

 

[DAA]

CANFORGEN 011/14 is now "officially" available for review on the DWAN.

 

[Tibbson]

How about we wait until the actual CANFORGEN shows up instead of this draft nonsense?

Agreed but when the Career shop sends out the draft so that people can get a heads up on the changes to come it normally signals that it's pretty much a done deal.

 

[McG]

Too much emphasis is put on this bell curve statistics during the assessment.

Too much emphasis?  Any emphasis or use of a bell curve has been prohibited for years.

 

[Tibbson]

CANFORGEN 011/14 is now "officially" available for review on the DWAN.

Is there any notable change from the draft that was floating around?  I don't have DIN access this week.

 

[Transporter]

Is there any notable change from the draft that was floating around?  I don't have DIN access this week.

There were a few subtle changes in some of the wording of one para if I remember correctly but no substantive changes. All the previously-discussed changes remain with no others added. And it does go into effect this current PER year (FY 13/14).

 

[JSR OP]

Direction fm  1CMBG HQ is now out along with three sample PERs:


1 CMBG PERSONNEL EVALUATION 
REPORT (PER) CHANGES FY 2013/2014                           

References:  A.  CANFORGEN 011/14
B.  1 CMBG 5225-1 (BSC) - 1 CMBG Performance Assessment Instruction FY 2013/2014 dated 17 Sept 2013
C.  CFPAS Handbook
D.  DGMC Website CFPAS Home - http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgmc/cfpas-sepfc/index-eng.asp

GENERAL

1. At reference A, Chief Military Personnel approved a number of interim changes to the PER process, which are to be implemented within the FY 2013/2014 PERs, and will remain in place until CFPAS is replaced, which is currently scheduled for 2016.  The goal is to modernize the CFPAS reporting process with short and long-term initiatives.  The following is updated direction and amends the guidance provided at reference B with regard to PERs.

UNIT PER RESPONSIBILITIES

2. Commanding Officers (CO) are to ensure that all members on unit strength receive an Annual PER or PER Exemptions (PERX) under the following conditions:

a. All military personnel on unit strength effective 31 March will receive an Annual PER.  Reporting period for these PERs will be 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014;

b. All military personnel who have returned from deployment with a theatre PER:

(1) will receive an Annual PER with a reporting period from date returned from theatre to 31 March 2014; or

(2) will receive a PERX in cases where there is not sufficient period of observation, the reporting period will be from the date the member returned from theatre to 31 March 2014;

c. All military personnel who have returned from deployment with a Theatre PDR, will receive and Annual PER.  The reporting period will be 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014 and details from the Theatre PDR are to be included;

d. all personnel assigned to the Advanced Training List (ATL) or Basic Training List (BTL) and who are not expected to join a functional unit prior to 31 March 2014 will require either an Annual PER or PERX from 1 April 2013 to the Change of Status (COS) date in accordance with reference C; and

e. in accordance with reference A, members who submit a request to Opt Out of receiving an annual PER will receive a PERX.  Specific details pertaining to Opting Out are provided in paragraph 5.

LIEUTENANTS

3. In accordance with reference A, Lieutenants will no longer receive an annual PER but will now receive an annual PDR.  The PDR will be signed by their OC as the supervisor and the CO as the reviewing officer.

NARRATIVES

4. There have been several changes to the way in which PERs will be written.  Performance (Section 4) and potential (Section 5) narratives will now be written as bulleted lists, where as the additional review (Section 6) will continue to be written in complete sentences for those applicable PERs.  The following information shall be followed for this fiscal year:

a. General.  The Performance Assessment Factor (AF) and Potential Factor (PF) will commence with the bullet in parentheses.  The use of adjectives and adverbs for the purpose of emphasis are no longer required as they are implied by the dot score. The bullet lists will be left justified and in numerical order, however multiple AFs or PFs can be combined up to a maximum of three (AF10, AF11).  The following generic format is to be used – (AF or PF with identifying number), activity description, result.  The following are examples provided in reference A:

(1) Example 1.  (AF2) Failed to provide meaningful PDRs to all subordinates. Multiple complaints received.

(2) Example 2.  (AF3) Trained team to coordinate major software change.  Team updated 1200 computers in 4 months.

(3) Example 3.  (PF1) Acting Section Sgt for 4 months during Ex DOUBLE TROUBLE.  Achieved most section requirements.

b. Performance – Section 4.  Using the format listed above all AFs receiving the following ratings must be commented on:

(1) UNSATISFACTORY;

(2) NEEDS IMPROVEMENT;

(3) EXCEEDED STANDARD; or

(4) MASTERED.

c. There is no requirement for a standardized opening statement to indicate member’s overall performance.  Further there is no requirement to fill up the narrative space as NOT OBSERVED, DEVELOPING or SKILLED AFs do not require comments. Comments are only required for (AF17) Conduct On/Off Duty if it is “unacceptable”.  Comments on fitness are only required if individuals are not tested or failed, for example (FT) Not tested due to medical restrictions.

d. In cases where all ratings are either Developing or Skilled there will be no requirement to provide a Section 4 narrative.  In these cases “NA” will be the only text in Section 4.


e. Potential – Section 5.  There is no requirement to include an opening statement, and bulleted comments will only be made in Section 5 for PERs with promotion recommendations of NO or IMMEDIATE. 

(1) For those specific promotion recommendations, PF comments will be required for all LOW, ABOVE AVERAGE and OUTSTANDING ratings and no comments will be provided for any NORMAL ratings.

(2) In cases where the promotion recommendation is DEVELOPING or READY, “NA” will be the only text in Section 5

f. Additional Review – Section 6.  The narrative for Section 6 has not changed from previous years and will continue to be written in complete sentences for those applicable PERs.  The narrative will include a ranking, employment or course recommendation and promotion recommendation.  The ranking will only highlight the highest level of ranking ie Div vice Bde or Bde vice Unit.  For PERs that require Section 6 comments, the following will be followed:

(1) Opening sentence.  The first line will adhere to one of the following formats as provided in reference A:

(a)        Members who are in the top 10 or 50% (which ever is less): Rank/Name  ranked XX of XX across all MOSID in the Unit/1 CMBG/ 3rd Cdn Div;

(b)        Member who are not numerically ranked but within the top 10%: Rank/Name is in the top 10% of XX across all MOSID in the Unit/1 CMBG/ 3rd Cdn Div; and

(c)        If member is not numerically ranked but within the top 20%: Rank/Name is in the top 20% of XX across all MOSID in the Unit/1 CMBG/ 3rd Cdn Div.

(2) Content.  The general content of Section 6 should follow the following example formats:

(a)        MCpl Guy is ranked within the top 20% of 101 MCpls across all MOSID in 1 PPCLI.  He is an outstanding leader and is ready for immediate promotion to Sgt.  He has already proven his superior ability to perform the duties of a Section Comd.  MCpl Guy is capable of more senior appointments in the Regiment.

(b)        Capt Bloggins is ranked within the top 10% of  223 Capts across all MOSID in 1 CMBG.  He is a proven leader and has demonstrated outstanding planning skills.  Capt Bloggins is recommended for attendance on AOC, immediately promoted to Maj and considered for sub-unit command.

5. Examples of PERs are included at Annex A.


OPTING OUT OF ANNUAL PER

6. A significant change to CFPAS is the mechanism by which a member can indicate their desire to continue to serve the CAF at their current rank for the remainder of their career.  In accordance with reference A, a member may choose to submit a request to Opt Out of receiving an Annual PER.  Some examples of personnel who may wish to exercise this mechanism are as follows:

a. Members close to retirement;

b. Members releasing;

c. Personnel on Permanent Medical Categories;

d. Personnel who are retained with a pending Medical Release;

e. Members who do not have or will not gain the prerequisite qualification or foundational experience for promotion competition; and

f. Those whose time in rank may be taken to signify that future promotion is unlikely.

7. A member requesting to Opt Out of Annual PERs is signifying that they no longer wish to pursue career progression in the form of promotion.  These members are still required to perform their assigned duties, including potential deployments, attending courses and as required geographical moves (postings).

8. Opt Out Process.  In accordance with reference A and amplified at reference D, the following process shall be followed:

a. Members will initiate this process in discussion with their Chain of Command.  The member must submit a written request to the unit CO.

b. If supported by the CO, the request will be annotated as supported and submitted (via scan) to the applicable Career Manager (CM).  The CO may refuse the request in a case where the member would receive an adverse PER, the CO desires to see the member promoted or for any other reason listed in section 117 of reference C.

c. The CM must determine if the request is in the interest of the CAF based on the overall needs of the service.  Final approval must be received from the CM prior to the request being considered approved.

d. Should the request to Opt Out of an annual PER be approved by the CM, both an annual PDR and PERX will be completed.  Section 4 of the PERX will indicate “Opt Out of receiving a formal annual PER”.  Further the formal request to Opt Out will be kept on the member’s Pers File.

9. In cases where a member subsequently changes their mind and wishes to receive a PER, the member will be required to submit their request in writing.  The Member’s promotion selection file will start building from the first PER after the member decides to no longer Opt Out.  No attempt will be made to reconstruct PERs.

CONCLUSION

10. The fair and just assessment of our soldiers is a function of leadership.  I hold all COs accountable to enforce these new modernization initiatives, which will overtime reduce the administrative workload associated with assessing our soldiers.  I expect that all soldiers will be accurately assessed and that all PERs will be accurately completed and on time.  There have been no change to deadline and late returns will not be tolerated.

11. Questions regarding this matter can be directed to the G1

 

[Transporter]

Under the "old" system, there was a clear distinction in the approaches to writing narratives in section 4 and section 5; section 4 was more descriptive of performance and written in past tense, with section 5 being more about how observed performance was indicative of capabilities for success at the next rank, and written in present tense. A big no-no, and one that was always cautioned every year following merit boards, was that section 5 WAS NOT to be a continuation of section 4.

The current direction for writing sections 4 & 5 (i.e. bullet points outlining AF/PF, activity description, result) seems to change that.  Going by the explicit examples for writing the section 5 PF bullets, it's not possible to write it in anything but past tense and its difficult, if not impossible, to link it to expressions of how it's indicative of potential for success at the next rank (unless it's just supposed to be implied because you're scoring it AA or O). It also seems duplicative as some of the AFs/PFs are pretty much the same in section 4 and section 5, like communication skills, leadership, etc.

Has anyone else wrestled with this and how have you approached it?

 

[DAA]

Under the "old" system, there was a clear distinction in the approaches to writing narratives in section 4 and section 5; section 4 was more descriptive of performance and written in past tense, with section 5 being more about how observed performance was indicative of capabilities for success at the next rank, and written in present tense. A big no-no, and one that was always cautioned every year following merit boards, was that section 5 WAS NOT to be a continuation of section 4.

The current direction for writing sections 4 & 5 (i.e. bullet points outlining AF/PF, activity description, result) seems to change that.  Going by the explicit examples for writing the section 5 PF bullets, it's not possible to write it in anything but past tense and its difficult, if not impossible, to link it to expressions of how it's indicative of potential for success at the next rank (unless it's just supposed to be implied because you're scoring it AA or O). It also seems duplicative as some of the AFs/PFs are pretty much the same in section 4 and section 5, like communication skills, leadership, etc.

Has anyone else wrestled with this and how have you approached it?

Depends on how you are approaching this and whether it is based on the recent CANFORGEN or some locally generated and issued guidance.

 

[armyvern]

I used examples of situations where the troop was doing something at a higher ranked posn etc : "as the A/*whatever, did this. Accomplished that." (*whatever because I have many troops that read here and although I have seen their PERs, they have not 'cause they are always subject to change. 8))

 

[Transporter]

Depends on how you are approaching this and whether it is based on the recent CANFORGEN or some locally generated and issued guidance.

I'm talking pre-CANFORGEN CFPAS guidance/methodology versus what the new CANFORGEN directs. Historically, Section 5 was not supposed to be a simple continuation of section 4 in that it was to describe potential, not simply provide more examples of actual performance. Cautions against this were often identified in annual merit board / PER season lessons learned messages (promulgated by DGMC if I remember correctly).

My point is, the way the new CANFORGEN explains what's required for sections 4 and 5, it's the same i.e. AF/PF, activity description, result.  For example, why would you need to provide an activity description and result for PF 3 (communication skills) when you've already covered that with activity descriptions and results in AFs 10/11 (verbal/written communication)?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I just wanted to work on my written communication and point out that I think it's a GREAT idea to introduce a new PER format RIGHT before PERs are due, causing many of us to rewrite a half dozen or more PERs from the old format we rushed to complete early. 

Waiting until this round was done to give us a year to work out the bugs (and deal with the CoC tinkering with it) would have been a horrible idea.  I'm pretty excited about the prospect of writing the 19th iteration (not kidding) of one of my MOI soldiers.

 

[armyvern]

I just wanted to work on my written communication and point out that I think it's a GREAT idea to introduce a new PER format RIGHT before PERs are due, causing many of us to rewrite a half dozen or more PERs from the old format we rushed to complete early. 
...

You get the "O" in PD!!  That's a Potential factor BTW.  >

Maybe, if your boss is nice, you'll get the "M" in Leading Change up above.

MCpl Sloggins [I'm boycotting Bloggins] rewrote all section PERs to new standard on little notice.  Achieved success.

Damn, give it to all of us this year!! 

 

[Transporter]

I just wanted to work on my written communication and point out that I think it's a GREAT idea to introduce a new PER format RIGHT before PERs are due, causing many of us to rewrite a half dozen or more PERs from the old format we rushed to complete early. 

Waiting until this round was done to give us a year to work out the bugs (and deal with the CoC tinkering with it) would have been a horrible idea.  I'm pretty excited about the prospect of writing the 19th iteration (not kidding) of one of my MOI soldiers.

I hear ya. I'm currently redoing all of mine which, surprisingly, is not as straight-forward as I thought it would be but it's coming along. I keep wanting to default to my old writing style and favourite AF/PF descriptors   

Lots of questions but not many answers at this point.

 

[DAA]

I'm talking pre-CANFORGEN CFPAS guidance/methodology versus what the new CANFORGEN directs. Historically, Section 5 was not supposed to be a simple continuation of section 4 in that it was to describe potential, not simply provide more examples of actual performance. Cautions against this were often identified in annual merit board / PER season lessons learned messages (promulgated by DGMC if I remember correctly).

My point is, the way the new CANFORGEN explains what's required for sections 4 and 5, it's the same i.e. AF/PF, activity description, result.  For example, why would you need to provide an activity description and result for PF 3 (communication skills) when you've already covered that with activity descriptions and results in AFs 10/11 (verbal/written communication)?

Yup, new process, new rules and even more "creative" interpretations to come down the pipe.

The entire process this year, will no doubt be subject to increased "scrutiny" at unit level and the need for some to strictly adhere to their own interpretation of the new guidance.

I myself, shall be writing PERs as best I can, which does service to my subordinates, within "reasonable" confines of the current policy.  However, in the back of my mind will always be the ever present fact, that there will be someone else later on down the road, who will read this and have to put this assessment into some form of context and compare it against other members of the CF.

So, if you think you are struggling over writing it, imagine what it's going to be like sitting on a Merit Board 5-6 months from now and having to interpret it.  The later of which, being experienced people, just might fall into the habit of relying on "what they know or accept" .

Just my opinion.

 

[Transporter]

Yup, new process, new rules and even more "creative" interpretations to come down the pipe.

The entire process this year, will no doubt be subject to increased "scrutiny" at unit level and the need for some to strictly adhere to their own interpretation of the new guidance.

I myself, shall be writing PERs as best I can, which does service to my subordinates, within "reasonable" confines of the current policy.  However, in the back of my mind will always be the ever present fact, that there will be someone else later on down the road, who will read this and have to put this assessment into some form of context and compare it against other members of the CF.

So, if you think you are struggling over writing it, imagine what it's going to be like sitting on a Merit Board 5-6 months from now and having to interpret it.  The later of which, being experienced people, just might fall into the habit of relying on "what they know or accept" .

Just my opinion.

I don't disagree. Just curious to see how others have been moving forward with the new direction.

 

[Old EO Tech]

I don't disagree. Just curious to see how others have been moving forward with the new direction.

It's going to be a work in progress for everyone, I remember when CFPAS first came out, it took years of pendulum swinging for a standard to settle out.  I expect the same for these changes, and then again in 2016 when the completely reprogrammed CFPAS is released.

I know at my unit, sub units are trying to make a standard looking MOI and non-MOI PER, and on Friday examples of each from each Coy went to the Adj,  he will then have a PD session with the Coy 2IC's to say what examples are what he wants and what going to need changes.

I'm not sure if Bde/Div/CA is planning on sampling this years results and providing any guidance, I'm sure we will see a CANFORGEN from CMP this fall after they see the results of our labour

 

[Transporter]

It's going to be a work in progress for everyone, I remember when CFPAS first came out, it took years of pendulum swinging for a standard to settle out.  I expect the same for these changes, and then again in 2016 when the completely reprogrammed CFPAS is released.

I know at my unit, sub units are trying to make a standard looking MOI and non-MOI PER, and on Friday examples of each from each Coy went to the Adj,  he will then have a PD session with the Coy 2IC's to say what examples are what he wants and what going to need changes.

I'm not sure if Bde/Div/CA is planning on sampling this years results and providing any guidance, I'm sure we will see a CANFORGEN from CMP this fall after they see the results of our labour

Agreed. This year will be interesting for sure. I've seen example draft PERs from multiple units, from MOI to Ready and there are already differences in interpretation/approach emerging. As I've noted above, biggest issue I see is section 5 becoming nothing more than an extension of section 4, which used to be a no-no. Watch and shoot I guess.