PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[dangerboy]

You said in your thread title that the CFPAS is sexist.  How is it sexist?  We do not have a box in which we check off Male/Female and if the writer of the PDR/PER choeses not to use terms such as he/she and constently refer to you as Pte Bloggins, the reader would not have any indication what sex you are.

 

[George Wallace]

Year # of promotions for NCIOP MS-PO2 Merit List Standings PER scores from previous year (Potential in Order PF 1-6)

2006 Not Applicable Promoted to MS 8M 7ES 1 S, O O AA O AA O (LS PER)

2007 Unknown to author Not Ranked 10 ES 6 S, N AA N AA N O

2008 15 (with a quality line) 22/47 2M 11ES 3S AA O AA O AA AA

2009 10 25/46 4M 9ES 3S, AA AA AA AA O O

2010 4 20/44 4M 8ES 4S, AA AA AA O O O (First PER received in a new unit)

It would appear that you did not merit well enough for promotion or courses.    Other people merited higher than you, and you have to live with that.

 

[Journeyman]

13. Is it really beneficial to promote the Class A reservist over the Class C reservist as it pertains to the need of the organization? .......We need to develop a system that treats both classes fairly and allows both classes to rate their personnel accurately and efficiently.

How do suggest this be done? Either no Class A reservists get promoted, or their ranks differentiate them from "real" full-time reservists -- a la wartime-vintage 'wavy navy' rank insignia? Either way, I suspect you will see the recurring RegF vs ResF schism appear as a Full-time Res vs Part-time Res divide.

How can leadership and potential be effectively reflected on a PER if only the superior gets a say in how you have done in leadership. Leadership is best observed from subordinates.

I would suggest your vision would change the PER system into a mere personality contest. While leadership can be judged by subordinates, and happens routinely in the Mess, I suspect the quality of the judgements may not be well informed, particularly at the junior levels where experience and a view to the "big picture" are more likely to be lacking.

 

[Cdnleaf]

Posting this 5 months after written - I hope your Thanksgiving was better than this morning.  I agree with the first two nuggets in Para 2 - promotion based on merit; and CFPAS being a fair system.  The rest, well not so much.  Good luck with whatever it is you are trying to accomplish and please -  :dontfeedmods:

 

[Jungle]

37. My career has already been destroyed thinking too much about this unjust unfairness in CFPAS. Don’t let it happen to others.

When reading this kind of message (especially considering the length of it...), I like to go to the conclusion first; it usually gives an idea of the flavour of the message.

I was not wrong here; after reading the quote above, there is no need to spend 20 minutes to read about someone who suffers from victim syndrome.

Good luck...  :

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and here I thought I was doing OK leaving as a M/Cpl.

Now I have this gnawing desire to call victim services.  :bla-bla:

 

[Greymatters]

Some thoughts on the original post:

While some of the points are valid (i.e. not all evaluations done to the same standard, score inflation, favortism), some of them are not. 

Just about every point you have made, and many you havent mentioned at all, have been discussed ad nauseum by serving members at one time or another and in the end it works out to one thing - its the best system we've got so far. 

Most of your suggestions dont fix the process - they merely add extra levels of effort and beauracracy.

Check your theories before you suggest them.  '360 feedback' was touted as the solution to all problems for about ten years and still resurges once in a while, but so far has flopped on its back like a dying fish.  It only works in specific occupations and work areas, and the military isnt one of them. 

I dont agree with laying out the arguments in an official looking message format. It can be mistaken by non-CF members as a legitimate message.

You fail to outline your expectations here - basically it sounds like you are asking for a 100% perfect system, which is impossible to achieve.   

If any CF member fails to get their PDRs as guidelines require, its up to each member to fix the problem.  If someone tosses a PER at you and says 'just read it and sign it', its up to each member to stand up and say something.  If you dont feel you are getting a fair assessment, its still the same - use the redress of grievance process.

 

[medicineman]

I find it interesting you use the word "sexist" in this - as someone else noted - as I have been required to write gender neutral PER's for a number of years now, so that when the merit board sits to read them, there is no bias as to who this person may be.

This "memorandum" is way too long to be a memorandum...it is formatted like a message but it isn't one...I would hazard to guess it should be drafted as a service paper and shuffled up the CoC, if this is how you really think.

There is one thing I do agree with - ever since the high score controls were tossed out of the mix, alot of PER's do get inflated, especially from certain units (I won't point fingers - just an observation from within my own branch over the years).  However, the system is alot better than it used to be.  One of the first PER boards I sat was probably the fairest thing I'd seen...we had a scoring system set up by the Clinic SM based on actual work performance, knowledge, experience, leadership potential, and work in the outside community/for the Base/Unit (the old X factor as it were).  We went in prepared for who we rated as our highest performers, then, based on those criterium, gave a numerical score for each, which ended up as the PER grade we worked off of.  This went down the line from the angelic ones to Satan's spawn.  And most often, a similar rating scale was done at other units.  This, coupled with actually having the PDR guidelines in place to ensure there are no surprises, has actually made the system much better than it was when I joined.  In fact, it is far from cruel - if you find you're the object of cruelty, there is a redress system in place.  You basically write your own PER these days.

:2c:

MM

 

[navymich]

13. Is it really beneficial to promote the Class A reservist over the Class C reservist as it pertains to the need of the organization? This is a very interesting question. Class A personnel have a wide range of skills and generally adapt easier than their Class C counterparts. However, Class C personnel are far more knowledgeable about the organization and produce the majority of the results. We need to develop a system that treats both classes fairly and allows both classes to rate their personnel accurately and efficiently.

I am a former Naval Reservist.  I had a variety of contracts and have been employed on Class A, B and C.  I spent the first 10 years employed as Class A and B.  At the end, I was employed Class C for almost 6 years.  When I began my Class C contract, I was appalled to find the full time pers on the ship talking down about the "NRD people" and it regularly turned into a huge discussion about PERs and merit boards.

Class A reserves are doing the job that a reserve is supposed to do:  1 night a week, a weekend here and there, courses and sailing during the summers, maybe an exercise over March Break.  They are therefore rated on their job based on the time spent.  So if you have a Class A that has attended all parade nights, extracurricular activities, is current on trade courses, and has done an outstanding job doing this, then they have earned themselves a high PER.

No, that doesn't compare to the Class B/C who is being paid 24/7.  But at the same time, the Class B/C must be outstanding during that whole 365 days of work time vice the allocated time for A.  It's not easy finding common ground between the classes, but neither should lose out based on when they are working.

You can't devise separate rating systems either because how does that work for the member that is at his home unit as Class A for half a year then starts a Class C contract?  He shouldn't lose out on a year because of a different ranking system or merit board.  I agree, that Class A member might have some catching up to do when they are all of a sudden put on a watch on their own, but we are all part of the same team and therefore rated the same.

Everyone else has stated what you can do about this problem, and commented on your other points.  But this is my  :2c: worth, from someone else that has been in the same system that you were and lived to tell about it.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

DIST LIST


Action


NAVRESHQ/N11

OFFICE OF THE OMBUSMAN

OFFICE OF THE VETERANS OMBUSMAN

First off, it's Ombudsman not Ombusman.  Your opinion piece is filled with spelling mistakes and typos - it really makes it hard to take the message seriously.  Secondly, what are you expecting the VA Ombudsman to do about the CF PER system???

 

[xena]

The OP signed up, made these three posts, and hasn't been back since.

Don't feed the trolls.

Just my opinion, of course...

 

[jewalsh]

I probably shouldn't have used "sexist" in my title.

I handed in detailed list of accomplishments to my superviors and redressed 3 different PERs with very little luck. If your supervisor does not care or that they do not provide adequate div notes, you cannot win your redresses.

A 360 degree approach is much better than our inflated and "immediate supervisor biased" system. THe quality of our supervisors will become better and in return encourage higher retention and stop some top people from leaving the CF to pursue another career.

 

[jewalsh]

As well I pass this up the chain of Command and mailed several copies to NAVRESHQ.

 

[medicineman]

I handed in detailed list of accomplishments to my superviors and redressed 3 different PERs with very little luck. If your supervisor does not care or that they do not provide adequate div notes, you cannot win your redresses.

I would actually think that not providing adequate Div notes would be grounds for winning a redress as there is nothing to base the PER on...if that's the case, fire your AO who's helping your redress, because they suck.  I've known people that have won not only redresses, but promotions with 2 years of backpay as a result of redresses that have landed on the CDS's desk - and they were based on sorry excuses for backing up the narrative in the PER.  From my experience on both sides of the fence, as a general rule, if you've felt the need to redress 3 PER's, that's usually indicative of a pattern not with your supervisor, but with you.  If you don't like to hear that - sorry, it's an observation I've made over the years...and believe me, I've had some negative reports in my day I felt were not deserved, but in retrospect, were dead on.

MM

 

[aesop081]

There is no feedback from others, only your immediate supervisor.

Nope, far from it. My last 2 PERs were reviewed and signed by my flight commander ( my bosse's boss), my commanding officer and my Wing commander. During the writting process, my PER was reviewed, feedback was provided by other supervisors along the chain and changes were  made as required.

The immediate supervisor is too afraid to counsel personnel on areas for improvement as this is deemed as harassment;

I'm sorry but i have no such fears. If what is written is backed up by specific, concrete examples, there is nothing to worry about. I write my PDRs and PERs in that way and have had no problems.

c. Discourages counselling, accountability and organizational skills;

I do not see how it does any of this.

d. Compromises integrity by circumventing honest, face-to-face assessments;

Again, reality is far from your comments. I just went through a round of PDRs and i can assure you that the assesment in all cases was done face-to-face and was honest.

Personnel come to their new jobs for a year or so and try to impress their supervisor to get a great PER. Then they move on to their next posting;

Do you think it is dramaticaly different anywhere else ?

This leads to people afraid of taking risks and using their initiative which in turn churns out poor problem solving leaders; and

Maybe in some circles. I have seen people make honest mistakes, get written up for it on a PDR and still get a great PER in the end because they sorted themselves out. That being said, in the end, this is a competitive process. 2 members having identical evaluations have to be differentiated somehow.......

g. This system strongly discounts knowledge. A knowledge test should be written each year that covers topics of in trade knowledge, administrative procedures applicable to the members rank etc.

That leads to widely available study guides that everyone has access to. A couple of nights of craming and...voila....you have a pass and everything is flushed right after. I served a breif exchange with the US Army and have seen this exam thing work first hand.

(where OJPRs were not getting signed off since the supervisor is suppressing the subordinate from advancing in the trade in fear of losing their own job to them which in turn causes people to quit).

This is your opinion and nothing more. My job is to guide subordinates through a similar training program and i pride myself on their succees and getting them trough it. I am not worried that their success somehow is a threat to me. Quite the oposite, if they succeed, i succeed.

While CFPAS is not perfect, it is not all that bad compared to what we had prior. While you have done a good ammount of research, you also demonstrate flawed understanding of merit boards and selection process. I also detect a bit of "sour grapes" in your attitude and the fact that you had to redress 3 PERs is also, to me, an indication that alot of your problems are self-inflicted.

 

[jewalsh]

CDN Aviator, thanks for reading the document and taking time to comment. Obviously you pride yourself on your solid leadership skills. If I was rated at your wing, my evaluations were have reflected the effort, and my true performance and potential.

I also thank everyone else who took the time to read and comment.

I too pride myself on following CFPAS as it was meant to be and take great pride in helping about 100 people complete their OJPRs.

It would be nice to hear from supervisors who failed to follow CFPAS properly and see what their comments would be.

Overall, most superiors are too afraid to counsel their personnel for their flaws or give lower marks to people. Hence one of the reasons that PERs are over inflated. "Immediates" are handed out like candy for nearly every rank as a result. Then there are supervisors who are pricks and score their people lower than they should. Hence some of our truly top performers get the shaft get pissed off and quit for civilian jobs where their efforts would be appreciated

 

[Towards_the_gap]

As imperfect a system that CFPAS is, it still does work. As others have stated, your typo-ridden rant, err I mean memo, does nothing to further your cause, and stinks of sour grapes. The flaws in the CFPAS system are only those which you will find everywhere else in life - human flaws. Unless we create a super race of military cyborg robots a la Universal Soldier, there will always be cases of favouritism, dislikes, and unfairness. CFPAS, if used properly at all levels, minimises this as much as possible.

Also, a yearly exam in trade knowledge and administration would only produce a bunch of study guides and people who care more about said tick test than actually performing their jobs on operations. I am a combat engineer, and in no way would I want my sappers knowledge tested yearly on a written test, because you cannot study for what we do, and alot of our job involves massive amounts of innovation, ingenuity, and thinking outside the box, all of which cannot be taught by book.

Finally, if I am correct, only officers of field rank (Major and above) are entitled to use their rank when retired i.e. Maj (ret'd) so and so. Putting MCpl (Ret'd) makes you look a bit sad. Move on with your life, and accept that the military perhaps wasn't for you.

 

[Occam]

Finally, if I am correct, only officers of field rank (Major and above) are entitled to use their rank when retired i.e. Maj (ret'd) so and so. Putting MCpl (Ret'd) makes you look a bit sad. Move on with your life, and accept that the military perhaps wasn't for you.

You're incorrect.  See "QR&O 15.09, Use of Rank Title and Wearing of Uniform after release" and A-AD-200-000/AG-000 - The Heritage Structure of The Canadian Forces, page 11-4.

 

[PuckChaser]

Don't like your PER? Redress of Grievance. I've had a supervisor redress his PER and win. It took a year, but he won because he had the documentation to back it up. Promoted with backpay. Yes, people with supervisors who don't care will always right justify excrement pumps. Easiest way to not get spun up is to just do the best job you can do and not worry about everyone else's PERs.

Towards_the_gap: I really find your comment about MCpl (Ret'd) offensive. My father spent 40 years in the CF, and was only able to transfer to the RegF after 10 years of being told he was "too old" because he was 30 when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came out. He went from MWO (qualified to be CWO) to Cpl who had to redo his QL5 and JLC/JNCO. The system screwed him for 12 years, because in the 90s, supervisors were afraid of subordinates with more knowledge than them. My father was proud of his time in the service, and is proud to have MCpl (Ret'd) after his name.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

I stand corrected!

Puckchaser - My apologies for any offence taken. Being under the mistaken impression stated above is why I made that comment. Remainder of my post stands of course, however I retract the bit about being sad for using ret'd rank at the JNCO level.

That being said, I would not use it myself, however that's a personal choice.