PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Mediman14]

I redressed my PER, My Commanding Officer had recently told me that PDR's have no bearing on PER's. In my case, I never received any PDR's including an initial PDR. Has anyone ever hear of this before?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It happens more than you think that PDRs don't get issued. That they aren't issued does not automatically invalidate a PER, however.

Ridiculous example follows- lets say on 15 mar, you were witnessed robbing the unit canteen by the CO, the RSM and and padre. That fact might not make a PDR, but would still be a perfectly valid thing to comment on in your PER.

 

[Biohazardxj]

If something is brought up on your PER that you feel is inaccurate and it has never been mentioned on a PDR or brought to your attention in an formal or informal manner then yes, you do have grounds to question it.  You may want to try and resolve it and the lowest lever first, such as a chat with your supervisor, but if necessary you can redress it.

 

[McG]

With the new nine line limit on PER narrative and non-descript sentence structure, it is very likely that a PER will simply not mention anything that may be taken issue with.  Successful PER grievances that I have seen were generally based on disproving an element of the narrative which substantiated the disputed bullet(s), or demonstrating an inconsistency between bullets and narrative.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It happens more than you think that PDRs don't get issued. That they aren't issued does not automatically invalidate a PER, however.

Initial PDRs are required by policy however.  Critical tasks and expected performance are indentified and that is what much of the PER should be measured against.  How can a mbr be assessed against things they were never made aware of if no initial PDR was issued?

Most of the problems with CFPAS are with people not following it and those people not being held accountable.  There is a help file in plain simple language to follow.  If a mbr doesn't receive their initial PDR that is a CofC failure at many levels.  Start holding those responsible accountable, right up to unit COs. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I redressed my PER, My Commanding Officer had recently told me that PDR's have no bearing on PER's. In my case, I never received any PDR's including an initial PDR. Has anyone ever hear of this before?

Start by reading the CFPAS help file and understanding the CAF official policy.  Did you have a good AM helping you with your grievance prep?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Initial PDRs are required by policy however.  Critical tasks and expected performance are indentified and that is what much of the PER should be measured against.  How can a mbr be assessed against things they were never made aware of if no initial PDR was issued?

Most of the problems with CFPAS are with people not following it and those people not being held accountable.  There is a help file in plain simple language to follow.  If a mbr doesn't receive their initial PDR that is a CofC failure at many levels.  Start holding those responsible accountable, right up to unit COs.

EITS- absolutely, PDRs are required. But the lack of one (or an incomplete one) is not an automatic "get out of jail free card" to win a grievance. I have seen enough PER seasons in my life to know that the vast majority of disagreements over PER scoring and narrative are settled informally at the unit level. In cases where grievances over PERs have occurred, the successful ones (from the point of view of the member with the grievance) are the ones where they are best able to display with concrete examples and evidence how there is a mistake in the scoring of a particular AF or PF.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Agree completely with the aspect lack of initial or even quarterly PDR isn't grounds for granting redress, sorry I should have said that.

It just irks me that leadership from the CO on down fails and a mbr suddenly finds themselves sighs PER they are caught off guard with.  Having said that, I also believe a Cpl or above should be proactive e enough to request initial PDRs when they don't get them.  Sometimes it is just an innocent oversight.  Sometimes. 

 

[Mediman14]

Thanks All for your answers,
  I resubmitted my grievance to the next authority beyond the CO. I have not received a PDR in two years despite my efforts to remind my supervisor. I had often worked above my current rank expectations, but it gets failed to be recognized on a regular basis. My particular unit has a lot of corruption that is never dealt with. atleast it seems that way!

 

[ballz]

I assume you are grieving your FY 14/15 PER? How is that even possible? It shouldn't even have been issued until April 1st at the earliest, and that would be the sharpest admin since sliced bread.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Maybe not receiving a PDR isn't a guaranteed win with the Grievance Authority but it definitely works in the persons favor.

First, with no initial then the benchmark you are judging them against isn't there. Essentially you haven't told them what their job consists of, so how can you say they weren't meeting the standard?

Second, when that goes up the grievance chain it goes up to the next levels in the command chain. Any LCol/Col that sees that the PDRs aren't being done will piss them off to high hell. They probably will decide the grievance is founded simply to prove a point. It shows complete laziness on part of the unit CoC.

Maybe the person receiving the bad PER is a complete bag of hammers, and often this is the case, but if you haven't done your due diligence and told him what his job consists of, the standard expected and at least twice provided formal feedback to say "You suck at this, this and this and here's the action plan you need to follow to improve in the next reporting period" then don't be surprised when Cpl Bagofhammers wins his redress.

 

[captloadie]

So, the OP didn't say they received a bad PER, just that he wanted to grieve his. The bench mark on a PER would be an S and an N. Technically, it is up to the individual to justify why he has done more than the standard.  PDR's can be a useful tool to set the expected level, but how may of you write them so that each point has a verying degree of performance. You know, x level of effort will get you x score. Yes, the areas of strength and areas for improvement speak to that, but its still a judgement call on the evaluator at the end of the day.

No LCol or Col is going to approve a grievance, just to prove a point.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Maybe not receiving a PDR isn't a guaranteed win with the Grievance Authority but it definitely works in the persons favor.

First, with no initial then the benchmark you are judging them against isn't there. Essentially you haven't told them what their job consists of, so how can you say they weren't meeting the standard?

Agreee.

Second, when that goes up the grievance chain it goes up to the next levels in the command chain. Any LCol/Col that sees that the PDRs aren't being done will piss them off to high hell. They probably will decide the grievance is founded simply to prove a point. It shows complete laziness on part of the unit CoC.

Disagree.

http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/cs-sc/2013-104-eng.html

http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/cs-sc/2013-103-eng.html

 

[CountDC]

Well EIS beat me to it with the redress links.

Not having a PDR does not give the member any form of help on a PER redress as often we can get picked on for things that should be common knowledge for a trade qualified member.  Using clerks as an example - just because we are not given a PDR does not mean we can use it in the argument when we get a bad score for not maintaining PERs files properly as it is common trade knowledge.  Most PER arguments I have seen are based around those type of situations and the member fails to provide evidence to support their case.

I personally experienced the comment "if my PER is not higher than last year I can redress it" comment.  I informed them they can redress anything they want but if that was their only point they certainly would lose as I had no way of knowing what their prior PER was, had no business knowing iaw CFPAS directives and was under no obligation to ensure their PER scored higher.

 

[Poacher434]

I am just wondering if anybody knows where to find or can provide the link through PM of the publication/canforgern/other regarding a merritting system within the CF.

I know there is a system in existance and it differs between PRES and REGF but I am looking for the bible of it all.

I have checked through multiple different sites and thought maybe something within the career managers spectrum, but to no avail I have found nothing.

Thanks much.

 

[dapaterson]

The help file for CFPAS has considerable details on that.  I have not looked for it since before the last great DND Internet re-org, but it used to be available for download on the Internet.

 

[mariomike]

I am just wondering if anybody knows where to find or can provide the link through PM of the publication/canforgern/other regarding a merritting system within the CF.

CFPAS (PERs & PDRs), Assesment Process, Honest Assesments, & Unjust Career Advancement (Merged Topic
http://army.ca/forums/threads/25156.75.html

CFPAS Download 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/113095.0

( Not sure why "CF Merritting system" is posted in the Physical Training and Standards forum? )

 

[McG]

I understood RegF and PRes were ranked separately for potential in section 5, but ranking in section 6 was everybody at the given rank across all occupations and components.

 

[Poacher434]

( Not sure why "CF Merritting system" is posted in the Physical Training and Standards forum? )

I chose this thread because I figured there was a standard that was across the board, with further consideration I guess the administration thread could be a better option.

Perhaps a mod can move this to a more fitting thread?

Also thanks all for the replies, I'll check those out

 

[Lumber]

I'd really like to see some RCN examples of MOI PER's with 16 AF's to cover and only using 9 lines...anyone happen too see one of these elusive beasts that the new CANFORGEN references?

We just finished writing all of our PERs. There up for final review with our XO and PERMON. There will probably more revisions this week; I think one Immediate PER had something like 17 copies stacked together in the folder. Everything from important changes like changing a sentence to better describe the quality of the member's performance, to silly things like changing the name of a position to an acronym, then spelling it out, then changing it back to an acronym!

In answer to your question though, we followed the CANFORGEN to a T. All of our PERs have a minimum of 6 lines and no more than 9 lines. Everything is written Action:Result. I.e. "Frequently arranged supplementary trg for the section at shore facilities. Operators were well prepared for trials and operations." All ES and Mastered AFs are covered.

Even the few Immediate I saw which had 15/16 Mastered AFs (there may have been one with 16/16 but I never saw it) managed to describe them all using 16 lines. The trick was to find example of their performance which demonstrated more than one AF. In the example above, it demonstrated both "Evaluation and Developing Subordinates" AND "Initiative."

I'm surprised that you asked the question, because, what else do you expect to happen? We had to make it work. The only other possibilities were either 1. You just don't give anyone that many ES/M AFs, or 2. You disregard the CANFORGEN and write more than 9 lines.