PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[DAA]

Has anyone considered the problems of allowing people to stop their own career progression and plateau?  What about the people below them who do want to progress, but can't because the plateau folks are blocking all the billets at the next rank level?  I'm not sure what the state is now, but a number of years ago there was a situation amongst the MarEng Mechs where either 33% or 66% (I can't remember which) of all PO2s were career restricted (as a result of QL6 failure) and unpromotable.  This meant that promotions for MS and Below were VERY competitive and quite rare compared to other occupations.  It was sad to see keen, bright and competent MS & B being unable to progress because there were so many PO2s that could not.  Even sadder were the cases where the MS or even LS was so much brighter and more competent than his/her PO2 supervisor.  Will allowing folks to opt out of career progression create more problems?

It's too late, far too late.  The day they changed the IPS policy, started what we are seeing today, along the lines of promotion numbers.  With the removal of the "IPS Base Rank" followed by a steady increase in %'s of offers, to where we are today.  For all intense purposes, 100% conversion rates.

Allowing personnel to "opt" out, itsn't going to create any more problems with slow/no promotions than there already are.

Or let's play devil's advocate and say that all the top performers decide to "opt out" and those whom are less than stellar decide to "opt in".  Then what happens?

 

[George Wallace]

The unfortunate folk who are at or nearing "aging out" are affected.  Age discrimination will prevent them from that promotion that they may have received without such a freeze delaying their window of opportunity.  Sad fact that does exist, even though we say it doesn't.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The unfortunate folk who are at or nearing "aging out" are affected.  Age discrimination will prevent them from that promotion that they may have received without such a freeze delaying their window of opportunity.  Sad fact that does exist, even though we say it doesn't.

Bullshit.  Promotion is derived from results on the national merit boards.  For NCMs, there are no mechanisms for considering time left to serve anywhere in the process.

 

[Drag]

The only major heartache i have with the changes that are being discussed is not filling out the potential section for non-Immediate PERs.  In my occupations (CELE) Capt - Maj promotions, and in the ATIS Tech trade promotions anywhere up to MWO, regularly happen with a mix of high Ready and Immediate PERs.  You can write an individual that is showing potential to be competitive for promotion in say 2-3 year but is not ready to "immediately" assume the  next rank as a high Ready knowing he will still get looked 2-3 years from now and still be competitive.  Under the new system being discussed, I foresee a significant increase in PER inflation.  The default for anyone showing potential will become an Immediate PER and the scores will trend up to become broadly similar to the USAF system where even individuals with less than 1 year in rank are automatically near right lined because it is the only way to make them competitive against their peers.

 

[PuckChaser]

As opposed to the PER inflation we see now? Master and Outstanding should be a rare score, but its thrown around very easily. If you try to honestly and accurately assess someone's performance, typically you're just screwing them but not bumping a few marks up. I'm willing to see how this works out to combat the broken PER system I see now.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Bullshit.  Promotion is derived from results on the national merit boards.  For NCMs, there are no mechanisms for considering time left to serve anywhere in the process.

Not to sidetrack the PER discussion to much here.  But I disagree, people are discriminated by age(though very unconstitutional) due to the Succession Planning System(at least the way the Army does it).  Yes technically a person has the same chance of promotion based on merit as anyone else whether you are succession planned or not.  But the fact is that if you are too old to fill a tier level position before age 55 you will not be put in SP'd positions, ie CSM/RSM/Ops O/Adj etc, and therefore you will lose those points at the national merit boards.  So indirectly SP does effect your chance of promotion, when you are only offered non SP postions, regardless of your performance at these jobs.

Of course this policy is not on paper anywhere or it would face a court challenge for sure, but it's the defacto policy nonetheless, and I've been told this in person and on the phone myself.

 

[Drag]

Puck Chaser, sound like we need to address a PER inflation problem and not the overhaul the system...  On the RCAF side, on the Wings at least, an unofficial quota system exists where you need the permission of the W Comd to give an individual not ranked in Section 5 an immediate PER.  While this has not fully addressed PER inflation it has helped slow it significantly.  During my previous posting at a Wing we did not breach the "quota" for any rank level in the unit, and were under quota for most.  At my current unit during the ranking boards I have seen as much as 6/7 written as Immediate. 

I think we will make the PER system even more broken as we are seeing in some occupations... I hear from from my Sigs coworkers that the cut of this year for Capt to Maj promotions for making the board was in the 93% range..  To me that means that you have guys getting right dressed PERs in the second and third year in rank, before they fully have a handle on their jobs at their current rank.

If we move that way we might as well adopt the USAF enlisted system where there is nearly no difference in EPR score between your superstars and your middle of the road performer.  As a result their promotions are mostly based on rand advancement testing and mbr education upgrading.  I do not believe that that is the way the CF should go as I've seen that system reward the individual who lets his work suffer for a month studying for a test and hurts the mbr that focuses on his primary job.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Puck Chaser, sound like we need to address a PER inflation problem and not the overhaul the system...  On the RCAF side, on the Wings at least, an unofficial quota system exists where you need the permission of the W Comd to give an individual not ranked in Section 5 an immediate PER.  While this has not fully addressed PER inflation it has helped slow it significantly.  During my previous posting at a Wing we did not breach the "quota" for any rank level in the unit, and were under quota for most.  At my current unit during the ranking boards I have seen as much as 6/7 written as Immediate. 

I think we will make the PER system even more broken as we are seeing in some occupations... I hear from from my Sigs coworkers that the cut of this year for Capt to Maj promotions for making the board was in the 93% range..  To me that means that you have guys getting right dressed PERs in the second and third year in rank, before they fully have a handle on their jobs at their current rank.

If we move that way we might as well adopt the USAF enlisted system where there is nearly no difference in EPR score between your superstars and your middle of the road performer.  As a result their promotions are mostly based on rand advancement testing and mbr education upgrading.  I do not believe that that is the way the CF should go as I've seen that system reward the individual who lets his work suffer for a month studying for a test and hurts the mbr that focuses on his primary job.

Yes adopting the USAF system would definitely not be a solution.  You can't adopt their meriting system and not adopt the fact that they promote people whether their is a job opening or not.  It would just be one more piss off if we gave people exams, they did outstanding on them, and then told them sorry there is not MWO/Major spot for you this year, come back next year and try again :-/

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Not to sidetrack the PER discussion to much here.  But I disagree, people are discriminated by age(though very unconstitutional) due to the Succession Planning System(at least the way the Army does it).  Yes technically a person has the same chance of promotion based on merit as anyone else whether you are succession planned or not.  But the fact is that if you are too old to fill a tier level position before age 55 you will not be put in SP'd positions, ie CSM/RSM/Ops O/Adj etc, and therefore you will lose those points at the national merit boards.  So indirectly SP does effect your chance of promotion, when you are only offered non SP postions, regardless of your performance at these jobs.

Of course this policy is not on paper anywhere or it would face a court challenge for sure, but it's the defacto policy nonetheless, and I've been told this in person and on the phone myself.

Fair one - I deliberately stated that promotion was not limited by rank.  Appointment to a succession planned position (and I will grant for some trades, that effectively limits promotion to CWO) is very much effected by years of service.  This in and of itself of course is not at all a contravention of human rights, which is why we use that terminology vice years TO serve.  On the officer side, selection for JCSP (which for two Army trades is directly linked to promotion - everyone else, not so much) is rigidly prescriptive wrt YOS.  No point creating a Staff Trained Major just in time for them to hit CRA.

On the whole, I consider the system to be very fair with respect to all aspects of a file, including age.  Performance trumps everything, on the whole - and I say this from the perspective of one who joined at the age of 26, and has been fighting the age thing my entire (relatively successful) career.

 

[dapaterson]

However, oddly enough, JCSP does not incur obligatory service.  There are folks who have their DWD in the mess in Toronto just after they graduate.

 

[AirDet]

Under the new system being discussed, I foresee a significant increase in PER inflation.  The default for anyone showing potential will become an Immediate PER and the scores will trend up to become broadly similar to the USAF system where even individuals with less than 1 year in rank are automatically near right lined because it is the only way to make them competitive against their peers.

I have no doubt that is exactly what's going to happen. What I'm interested in seeing is how that will all pan out at the boards in the fall.

 

[George Wallace]

Bullshit.  Promotion is derived from results on the national merit boards.  For NCMs, there are no mechanisms for considering time left to serve anywhere in the process.

Just back from a funeral at Beechwood and catching up.  Sorry if you think it is BS.  It isn't.  I had an OC tell me straight to my face, in front of witnesses, in the Mess tent at RV '92 that I was going nowhere as I was "too old".  Witnesses volunteered to bear witness should I have decided to fight that.  I didn't and served another thirteen years, without promotion.  So! Call BS all you want, but it is a fact.

 

[Infanteer]

Just back from a funeral at Beechwood and catching up.  Sorry if you think it is BS.  It isn't.  I had an OC tell me straight to my face, in front of witnesses, in the Mess tent at RV '92 that I was going nowhere as I was "too old".  Witnesses volunteered to bear witness should I have decided to fight that.  I didn't and served another thirteen years, without promotion.  So! Call BS all you want, but it is a fact.

So, a statement by someone in the mess tent at RV 92 constitutes meriting policies in 2014?

 

[Journeyman]

Maybe he was just being kind by attributing it to your age.    >

 

[George Wallace]

So, a statement by someone in the mess tent at RV 92 constitutes meriting policies in 2014?

The same policies are in effect today as they were in 1992.  Discrimination existed then, as I am sure it exists now.  The example that lead down this path, about "aging out", is still valid.  Some day you may witness or experience it yourself.  Perhaps if you look within your own unit, you may find an example or two.  Times have changed.  Policies haven't seen many major changes.  Some things still remain the same and with a turn of the head, or a wink and a nod, or turning of a blind eye, are still happening.  PDRs and PERs are the closest things we have humanly possible to giving members a fair assessment.  They are not perfect and can still be abused, but I can not see any better system.

 

[MJP]

The same policies are in effect today as they were in 1992.  Discrimination existed then, as I am sure it exists now.  The example that lead down this path, about "aging out", is still valid.  Some day you may witness or experience it yourself.  Perhaps if you look within your own unit, you may find an example or two.  Times have changed.  Policies haven't seen many major changes.  Some things still remain the same and with a turn of the head, or a wink and a nod, or turning of a blind eye, are still happening.  PDRs and PERs are the closest things we have humanly possible to giving members a fair assessment.  They are not perfect and can still be abused, but I can not see any better system.

I have sat in many a merit board and age has never been a factor.  I have seen a large number of people at all ages meet what most people in their room considered their potential in terms of rank (or some cases a rank or two above).  Funny enough they don't usually get promoted after that point, except it seems by attrition.

 

[armyvern]

I have sat in many a merit board and age has never been a factor.  I have seen a large number of people at all ages meet what most people in their room considered their potential in terms of rank (or some cases a rank or two above).  Funny enough they don't usually get promoted after that point, except it seems by attrition.

My experience in those boards mirrors yours.

 

[George Wallace]

I am not saying that this is running rampant in the CAF, only that it does exist.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The same policies are in effect today as they were in 1992.  Discrimination existed then, as I am sure it exists now.  The example that lead down this path, about "aging out", is still valid.  Some day you may witness or experience it yourself.  Perhaps if you look within your own unit, you may find an example or two.  Times have changed.  Policies haven't seen many major changes.  Some things still remain the same and with a turn of the head, or a wink and a nod, or turning of a blind eye, are still happening.  PDRs and PERs are the closest things we have humanly possible to giving members a fair assessment.  They are not perfect and can still be abused, but I can not see any better system.

Again, bullshit.  The Army of today is the Army that I always wanted to join - and I was at RV 92.  There is little room for dullards, small-minded bullies and discriminatory thinkers, and no room for "a turn of the head, or a wink and a nod, or turning of a blind eye".    We stamp that shit out wherever we see it.  The Dinosaurs are slowly dying off, taking most (but admittedly not all) the toxic leaders with them.  Ten years of war has a way of sorting out priorities.

It truly is a different Army than the one you served in, and to that I say thank the gods.  I only wish that you could be part of it now.

 

[Old EO Tech]

I have sat in many a merit board and age has never been a factor.  I have seen a large number of people at all ages meet what most people in their room considered their potential in terms of rank (or some cases a rank or two above).  Funny enough they don't usually get promoted after that point, except it seems by attrition.

I think the merit boards are very fair as well.  It's not the merit boards themselves that are the problem but some of the systemic careers policies that happen outside the boards.  Such as the Succession planning system I mentioned in my previous post.  And I have also seen CM/Corps Leadership bypass the principles of the merit list and promote out of order, age being one factor, or simply geographic location and lack of posting credits.  While merit boards are highly regulated and overseen, what decisions are made afterwards do not have that level of oversight, and if a member is not being very proactive and tech-netting a lot, he/she is unlikely to even realize they are getting screwed over :-/