• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
361
Points
910
I copied the 'word for word' info into this thread from the CFPAS Handbook and Policy Directive.  You sound like you are somewhat familiar with the CFPAS application, you should be able to find all the info on policy, requirements, etc in the application Helpfile and Policy Directive in the future.

However, to quote the official policy:

From the CFPAS Help File Version 2007.0.3:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

(* as already said by Cdn Aviator, but some people miss the part "concurrent with", creating a misunderstanding on their part)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as your concerns about your PER being sub-standard to what you expect, I will refrain from commenting other than to say you should wait until your PDR review happens, and address what differences appear to exist on what you've done and what your superior doing the feedback session indicates he/she thinks you have done.  Your feedback *should* line-up with your initial interview/PDR, which should have laid out your critical tasks/expected results.  I would be concerned if my immediate superior said to me "I wont use your initial PDR to...."...well wtf else are you using then?  But, regardless, if you signed the initial PDR and they did not rewrite it, that is the one they are bound to IAW the CFPAS policy/directive.

It appears like you have documented your accomplishments well (brag sheets), but don't be too trigger-happy on being ready to fire away at the PDR review, you might go in alittle hostile and that is usually counter-productive. 
 

AirForce

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Thank you Eye in the Sky;

That was informative and answered all the questions I had. Now that it's more clearer I'm not as worried about them changing the PDR dates around.

Thanks for the advice, I'll most deffinitely see how the PDR review goes before making any firm decisions - I really appreciate your input!
 

PiperDown

Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Can anyone tell me how a PER is scored? ie. perfomance, each bullet is worth a certain amount, and in potential each bullet is worth a certain amount.

also, does anyone know where I can get the CFPAS handbook from the Internet? I am not at work and I have to write a PER.

cheers,


 
A

aesop081

Guest
PiperDown said:
Can anyone tell me how a PER is scored?

Performance is worth 60 points total. Potential is worth 38 points total. Second language is worth maximum 2 points.

Each individual bullet is scored electronicaly when the PERs are scanned for the merit boards. Over the years i have seen different scores for each bullet for each MOCs.
 

PiperDown

Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
0
thanks for the replies.
I still need a bit of direction regarding the scoring. I will be more specific.
under performance, each factor is scored as either ? for unacceptable, or ? for mastered.
conduct on/off duty is scored as ?
for a total score of ?? out of ?? for performance.

potential is scored as either ? for low, or ? for outstanding

anyone know the answers for the question marks?

Cheers,




 
A

aesop081

Guest
PiperDown said:
I still need a bit of direction regarding the scoring.

If you are writting a PER, the score for each bubble is irrelevant to you.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
PiperDown said:
thanks for the replies.
I still need a bit of direction regarding the scoring. I will be more specific.
under performance, each factor is scored as either ? for unacceptable, or ? for mastered.
conduct on/off duty is scored as ?
for a total score of ?? out of ?? for performance.

potential is scored as either ? for low, or ? for outstanding

anyone know the answers for the question marks?

Cheers,

Have you looked at the top of the columns? 
 

MARS

Sr. Member
Mentor
Reaction score
70
Points
380
Exactly what Cdn Aviator wrote. 

There is no numerical score assigned to each factor.  The bubble you mark must...MUST... be an accurate reflection of the associated word picture (from the handbook) which must...clearly... be reflected in the narrative section. 

The scoring that Cdn Aviator alluded to earlier has to do with the merit boards that sit at HQ each year.  Each member of the board reviews the PER and scores the PER out of 60 (for performance as an example) - those scores are then cross-checked, large variances are reconciled and a total score (from 4 board members based on my expereince at the last merit boards) is then tabulated.  Not anything that a PER writer nees to worry about.

Your job is to ensure that the PER is accurate and that the scoring reflects the narrative.  As anyone who has sat on a merit board will tell you, a mere minutes are spent reviewing each file - like 4 or 5 minutes - maybe - depending on the size of the PER load you have to review.  That is not a lot of time to review 3 or more PERs, plus the other things in the file, and then score the PER.  So....clear and accurate PERs are key.  If I (as a board member) can't quickly and clearly identify (from the narrative) why you scored Bloggins as having Mastered various PFs, then the PER gets a lower score than perhaps it deserved.

Brevity, accuracy and clarity.

Hope this helps,

MARS
 
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Did anyone see the CANFORGEN this year on CFPAS issues, its title this year was  "Lessons Not Yet Learned" LOL. :)  It amazes me the amount that they have to reject and the reasons for those rejections.  One thing that I am proud of is that my last unit didn't have a rejected PER on my watch.  :salute:
 
A

aesop081

Guest
Northern Ranger said:
Did anyone see the CANFORGEN this year on CFPAS issues, its title this year was  "Lessons Not Yet Learned" LOL. :)  It amazes me the amount that they have to reject and the reasons for those rejections.  One thing that I am proud of is that my last unit didn't have a rejected PER on my watch.  :salute:

If people followed national directives rather than local , made up, policies..........if.....
 
A

aesop081

Guest
From CANFORGEN 034/08

SELECTION BOARDS CONTINUE TO DISCOVER INSTANCES WHERE NARATIVES HAVE BEEN CUT AND PASTED FROM YEAR TO YEAR OR FROM ONE SUBORDINATE TO ANOTHER. SUCH INSTANCES GENERALLY HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT N THE INDIVIDUAL

or

NARATIVES DO NOT ALWAYS REFLECT THE SCORES GIVEN DUE TO LACK OF SUBSTANTIATION. THIS MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR SELECTION BOARDS TO EVALUATE FILES. SELECTION BOARDS DO NOT SCORE QUOTE IAW THE DOTS UNQUOTE. CLEARLY SUBSTANTIATED NARATIVES SUPPORT HIGHER SCORES FROM THE BOARDS

or, my personal favorite.....

THE DEADLINE FOR PERS TO ARRIVE AT NDHQ IS 01 JUN EACH YEAR. ON 24 AUG 07, 3322 PERS WERE NOT RECD AND ON 01 DEC 07, 1895 PERS REMAINED DELINQUENT CREATING A POTENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR SUPLEMENTARY SELECTION BOARDS.


 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,277
Points
890
"Faire un exemple pour encourager les autres".  Hang a LCol for failing to have his PERs in on time, and I'll bet there will be many fewer delinquent ones the following year.

But that would involve enforcing the rules...
 

BernDawg

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
CDN Aviator said:
If people followed national directives rather than local , made up, policies..........if.....
I, wholeheartedly concur, Mon ami.
 

Armymedic

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Artilce by Allan woods who states it is the bureaucrats both in uniform and out within DND that is causing a surge of releases amongst soldiers.

link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/645309


Bureaucrats killing Forces morale, soldiers say

Allan Woods
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Every soldier loves a bit of spit and polish. But too much shine and not enough substance appears to be pushing Canada's finest out the door.

Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen who have retired are complaining that the dirty work of war is losing ground to a force obsessed with image, political correctness and the kind of inclusiveness one might expect to find in the most corporate of corporations.


more on link
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
436
Points
880
In the surveys at bases in Gagetown, N.B., and Edmonton, the average length of service of retiring members was 16 years – just four years short of receiving a pension.

It can't just be the bureaucrats. 

 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Actually, that is fairly high.  Consider the numbers of members who join the CF and only last through their first Engagement, that means that there is a very large number of pers serving well over 25 years and earning a good pension.
 

Towards_the_gap

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
210
On the other hand, one thing that struck me when I transferred across from the British Army was the level of bureaucratic bullcrap that you have to deal with in the CF.

The REAMS of paperwork that junior (sect comd level) leaders are expected to complete. During 6 1/2 years in the British Army, I wrote a total of 2, yes 2 memorandums, and I didn't have them red inked to death before they even got to the addressee. And I left as a sect 2I/c as well.

The brits had a nice system of a pad of paper pre-printed with TO and FROM on the top. You hand wrote the rest.

Also, take a look at Pravda err I mean the Maple Leaf. And look at how much news is dedicated to front line, combat units. I think the last issue had a 2 page spread on some sort of 'display unit' that travels the country to events and shows off pretty pictures to civvies. How much money is wasted on things like this?

Where is the CF's strategic focus? War fighting? Or information ops, WITHIN canada????

How many e-mails do I get at work that concern war fighting, or information relevant to operations? And how many are useless, DND Info Ops type releases that I immediately delete, and block the sender.

Why are fitness standards so relaxed at training units? Why are soldiers arriving in the field army out of shape, medically unfit or simply unfit for military service? Why is it nearly impossible to fail a course these days? PC-ness would be my guess.

I would not be surprised if a lot of those releasing asked themselves the same questions, and came up with the answer, nothing will change, so why stay?

 

kilekaldar

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Having spoken many junior NCOs who are exiting the forces, taking hard won experience from Afghanistan with them, they almost universally have told me that they are leaving because of the garrison bureaucrats. A minority of senior NCOs who display bad or non-existent leadership, the obsession over petty office politics and 'busy work' over combat readiness and realistic theatre specific training has left a lot of people bitter and disillusioned. It doesn’t take many garrison bureaucrats like this for a poisonous work environment that leaves a large number of people angry, frustrated and wondering if they could be doing something else with their time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top