PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[medicineman]

Not to sound TOO cynical, but because that makes sense ( the linking of postings to managed readiness cycles), it'll never happen - someone will come up with a way too complicated solution for dealing with things that only they can implement (because only they really understand it) and will keep them in their desk through several managed readiness cycles.  Of course because it's complicated, it'll therefore be considered better (simple can't possibly be effective or even good you know :sarcasm.  I think we all see where this goes...sarcasm off.

MM

 

[Kirkhill]

I think the idea of syncing the cycles sounds like a great idea but its one of those ideas that only looks good on paper.  If it was just a matter of doing that it would work but by the time you factor in such things as illnesses, injuries, other medical issues, retirements, releases, promotions, disciplinary matters, training requirements for career courses, other assorted training issues, administrative matters, qualifications required by a Unit or tasking and a whole host of other potential disruptions to the plan of keeping people in place longer it quickly becomes a much less attainable objective.

If so then the OTHER course of action is re-validate the High Readiness Unit every time there is a change in personnel...... What price inspectors, ranges, retraining and requalifying?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not to sound TOO cynical, but because that makes sense ( the linking of postings to managed readiness cycles), it'll never happen - someone will come up with a way too complicated solution for dealing with things that only they can implement (because only they really understand it) and will keep them in their desk through several managed readiness cycles.  Of course because it's complicated, it'll therefore be considered better (simple can't possibly be effective or even good you know :sarcasm.  I think we all see where this goes...sarcasm off.

MM

I think SAP would be a good IT based solution to these management coordination problems, right?  >

 

[Kirkhill]

I think SAP would be a good IT based solution to these management coordination problems, right?  >

Got any consultants in mind?  ;D

 

[daftandbarmy]

Got any consultants in mind?  ;D

SAP: rhymes with 'not me' 

 

[Kirkhill]

SAP: rhymes with 'not me' 

:cheers:

 

[medicineman]

I think SAP would be a good IT based solution to these management coordination problems, right?  >

Now who's being sarcastic?  Lol.

MM

 

[Scootermcg]

Does anyone have any more info about the option to opt out of a per?

I submitted my request as per the cfpas manual to opt out of the per system this  year.  Reasoning:
-release date in September
-only a few weeks observed at current unit with no input from previous unit

My request was denied with reasons stated "it doesn't meet the criteria".  Although one of the specified reasons to opt out is retirement/release.

I have indicated my desire to submit a grievance for that decision, and they are pushing me to sign the per anyway. 

Any advice? Any reference materials other than cfpas manual?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You're pulling pin. Who cares what it says?

 

[Scootermcg]

Lol valid point, and I really don't care about the content. 

But at the same time I'm not wrong in my request, and I still have 3 months to make noise about it.

 

[mariomike]

Does anyone have any more info about the option to opt out of a per?

No, but it has been discussed:
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=w9pcVbStHYqN8Qei7YDYAQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:army.ca+%22opt+out%22+PER

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You and your CofC have to agree on the opt out. 

Ref is the CANFORGEN released in (IIRC) Feb or Mar this year as well as 2014 winter timeframe.

 

[DAA]

Does anyone have any more info about the option to opt out of a per?
I submitted my request as per the cfpas manual to opt out of the per system this  year.  Reasoning:
-release date in September
-only a few weeks observed at current unit with no input from previous unit
My request was denied with reasons stated "it doesn't meet the criteria".  Although one of the specified reasons to opt out is retirement/release.
I have indicated my desire to submit a grievance for that decision, and they are pushing me to sign the per anyway. 
Any advice? Any reference materials other than cfpas manual?

The CO of your Unit has final say on "opt outs" regardless of the reason as to why you have asked for this.  However, keep in mind, that you need to submit your request "during" the reporting period and not after.

At the end of the day and if you don't want the PER, just slide it right back across the desk and refuse to sign.  You have nothing to grieve here, move along and don't depart on bad terms.

 

[ModlrMike]

I believe there is a provision to mark the PER "member refused to sign".

 

[George Wallace]

I believe there is a provision to mark the PER "member refused to sign".

Your signature on the PER is that "you have read it"; not that "you agree with it".  If you disagree with it, you have the Redress procedure to follow should you want to grieve it. 

 

[Kat Stevens]

Your signature on the PER is that "you have read it"; not that "you agree with it".  If you disagree with it, you have the Redress procedure to follow should you want to grieve it.

Unless I woke up in the PRC this morning, being forced to sign anything is coercion.  I refused to sign PER that I got mid way through a Bosnia tour, written by a guy from another unit who had been my boss for a grand total of two months, and was a streamer who disliked me for years prior. I got yelled at, cajoled and finally threatened if I didn't sign. I still refused, as I didn't feel what I was asked to sign was my PER, therefore I couldn't sign it because it was someone else's.  Hasty rewrite and I signed, but I thought it was quite hilarious the amount of headless chicken hide n seek it caused.

 

[George Wallace]

Where did I say you were forced to sign.  I said that all you were signing was that you had READ the PER.

 

[MJP]

Unless I woke up in the PRC this morning, being forced to sign anything is coercion.  I refused to sign PER that I got mid way through a Bosnia tour, written by a guy from another unit who had been my boss for a grand total of two months, and was a streamer who disliked me for years prior. I got yelled at, cajoled and finally threatened if I didn't sign. I still refused, as I didn't feel what I was asked to sign was my PER, therefore I couldn't sign it because it was someone else's.  Hasty rewrite and I signed, but I thought it was quite hilarious the amount of headless chicken hide n seek it caused.

LOL Sometimes it works out.

Generally in those kind of situations they should have just written mbr refused to sign and sent it in for processing and allow the mbr to grieve it.  They aren't signing it because they agree with it just that they acknowledge it anyway. 

 

[kratz]

Where did I say you were forced to sign.  I said that all you were signing was that you had READ the PER.

The statement on the form indicates the member's signature indicates reading the PER.

I agree, a member may have read a PER...but even this many years later, nothing forces a member to sign anything. While choosing NOT to sign a PER makes things difficult for the COC, there process has measures in place allowing for this, though not your best COA.  YMMV

 

[Kat Stevens]

Where did I say you were forced to sign.  I said that all you were signing was that you had READ the PER.

Where did I say you said I was?  See?  I can play that game too.  I was ordered by a Sgt, a WO, an MWO, a Lt, and a Maj more than once to sign it.  I think they were shocked that a lowly Cpl would defy all their mighty mightiness.