PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[George Wallace]

???  Crystal Palace?

???  Crystal Palace?

Where did this come from?  That was in Visoko.

If you are replying to my previous answer in Reply # 66; then I was thinking of someplace in The Valley.

Meanwhile I am just having a gander at the large ammo compound at 24°55'35.05"N  66°54'20.36"E   

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

Wow.  This is a really good thread.  I understand where the initial post is coming from regarding a spouse with a good income.  I am facing the same issue presently, but will not state that I will get out if you post me.  Instead people have three options: Put up and move (three years in a row was not fun, but I managed to get three years at the same place this time), do the IR thing (did not enjoy it, but could be good for others), or get the H*** out.  Its a personal decision and as my boss states at every PDR interview, you are your own career manager.  Stagnation is not good for any organization and change brings experience. 

 

[armyvern]

I have now been overseas 3 times this year alone and have a very lengthy end-year “brag sheet” on my activities, as I have been very meticulous in documenting everything I have done.

Some issues that lead me to believe there may be some upcoming discrepancies in my PER are as follows;

- I have worked all year in my current position and I did not receive my Part 1 (job description) until November.

Technically, if you were attached out to serve overseas 3 times (as you said above), then you've only actually been serving "in your current position" since you last started work there. Was that in November/late October? Or how long until you began working there again last time until you recd that Part 1?

- I did not receive a single part 5 (performance review) until yesterday (January 19th)

Depends upon when you "last" started working there again as per my query in last part. If you just started working there again in Oct/Nov ... getting a feedback session part 5 after 3 months (ie in January) is perfectly acceptable. CFPAS calls for two feedback sessions per year - did you not receive any feedback sessions (ie write-ups) on the work you did during your three deployments this year? If you did, they count and if you have at least two of those ... there is really no "requirement" for any part 5 at all technically.

- I am receiving my PER by January 22nd as I will be deploying to Afghanistan (3 months earlier than my CFTPO Date)

- I had to actually remind my Supervisor (last week) that a PER will need to be written since I will be in theatre during the normal PER season

When did this change of deployment date occur? Recently? Additionally, discussion as to whether or not a PER is required before a deployment always occurs and direction usually comes down from higher every roto on how to proceed ... some members receive "Theatre-PERs" (depending upon the Unit to whom they belong and with whom the will deploy). A theatre PER will negate the requirement for an "annual PER". More info is required to address this bit.

What were the circumstances of your "3" deployments this year? When in the year did they occur? Did you receive write-ups on your performance for those ... did you receive a theatre PER for any etc etc ...

 

[captloadie]

WRT to the theatre PER questions, I believe the current policy is only the odd's and sod's who are attached to a formed deploying unit receive theatre PERs. I thought a change occurred last year (?)  because most Army and Navy units deploy as a whole, it dind't make sense writing a theatre PER and a "Canadian" PER for the same reporting year. However, as you have indicated, for short stints like TAV's or even the old 56 day rotations, PERs were not written.
If you did get a theatre PER, both it, and the home unit PER would be submitted and considered at the board.
At the end of the day, even if you have to grieve the PER, you can only grieve how it describes your performance and potential, not where you ranked.

 

[AirForce]

Captloadie;

Thank you for your reply;

WRT the information on Theatre PER's, if they both go to the board and one asses you higher than the other, how does that pan out? Or are both just read by the board and all the information is compiled together or does the higher / lower one carry more weight?

I wont be grieving the Ranking I will recieve from the PER, only the potential / performance it describes, but thanks for the heads up.

I'm glad these forums are here - they are great for asking those admin questions that you don't really want to claim ignorance for!!

 

[armyvern]

I wont be grieving the Ranking I will recieve from the PER, only the potential / performance it describes, but thanks for the heads up.

Yet, you don't even know what the performance/potential reads yet ...  ???

 

[AirForce]

Yet, you don't even know what the performance/potential reads yet ...  ???

I am only preparing for what could be the "worst case scenario" and learning what my options are. For all I know I could recieve a positive out-come, but I'd rather make sure I have all my bases covered just in-case.

 

[meni0n]

I can`t any info on this situation so I`ll ask here. Is it mandatory that your immediate supervisor writes your PER? I work in the same area as my Mcpl but we came under OPS a couple of months ago and a new Sgt, who is based on a different base. I`ve just been told that the Sgt will be writing everyones PERs, with the help of the Mcpls notes ( mostly just the PDRs ). I am a bit uneasy with this as the Sgt is based at another base and came over to visit the section only once. On top of that I just had to resign my PDR as the Sgt judged that not having any negative points is not good and as the Mcpl put it "Have to put something there", hence making me even more suspicious on getting a fair assessment. 

 

[McG]

If your PDR is all positive without constructive criticism, it is doing you a disservice as it is not providing guidance for you to better yourself.  The Sgt is correct, unless you are perfect the PDR should reflect good and bad.

 

[PMedMoe]

Not to mention, the area for improvement doesn't necessarily have to be "negative" as a former supervisor of mine told me.  On one of my PDRs he put "MCpl XXXX should be sent on a French course to enable her to serve clients in either official language."

 

[meni0n]

I actually had something similar there in the first copy and then it got changed to something completely different, just to fill the space as the Mcpl put it.

 

[AirForce]

An unrelated questions;

I overheard conversation stating that only 10% of the mbrs. within the TF that I am employed within will recieve immediate PER's, I found this interesting and attempted to locate some type of doctrine within CFPAS that allows for such limits, which I was unable to find.

I've heard of this before but was under the assumption that the new CFPAS process replaced that form of rating. Is there differences in theatre WRT the CFPAS rating process? I was under the belief that the current form was universal

 

[armyvern]

An unrelated questions;

I overheard conversation stating that only 10% of the mbrs. within the TF that I am employed within will recieve immediate PER's, I found this interesting and attempted to locate some type of doctrine within CFPAS that allows for such limits, which I was unable to find.

I've heard of this before but was under the assumption that the new CFPAS process replaced that form of rating. Is there differences in theatre WRT the CFPAS rating process? I was under the belief that the current form was universal

Are you sure that you 'overheard' the conversation correctly?

"Only the top 10 persons can be scored" (ie "ranked". 1 of # through 10 of #, for example) is normal; Or the top 50% of each rank should there be less than ten pers at that trade/rank level being written.

I've never been posted to a Unit where "limits" were placed on actual ratings being assessed for individuals though.

I've served with Units where the first 13 were assessed as "immediate" (because 13 earned that rating), but only the top 10 of them could be numbered 1 of X etc. I've also served at Units where the top ten recd their 1 of X through 10 of X ratings ... but only 1 through 3 actually recd "Immediates" because that's all that earned them. 

 

[AirForce]

Well regardless of the conversation it seems you answered my question, units can have differing standards as to how they gauge thier assessments. Tnks!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's all moot. This years should be handed in by now. Signed, sealed and delivered.

Wait til next year now. :

 

[AirForce]

hehe, well not in my case, the original still hasn't left the filing cabinet at work - I'm faxing a copy to the CoC tommorrow to be used IAW mediation (where they hopefully decide to create a replacement PER) since they don't have any copies...

Which brings me back to my original question - now that 60 days has passed since the PER was signed, is it now required to staff my memorandum of greivance IAW Sec. 119, or does mediation put that limit on hold? (I've not been able to find anything stating that)

 

[armyvern]

hehe, well not in my case, the original still hasn't left the filing cabinet at work - I'm faxing a copy to the CoC tommorrow to be used IAW mediation (where they hopefully decide to create a replacement PER) since they don't have any copies...

Which brings me back to my original question - now that 60 days has passed since the PER was signed, is it now required to staff my memorandum of greivance IAW Sec. 119, or does mediation put that limit on hold? (I've not been able to find anything stating that)

Regarding your earlier bit about "differing standards". That's not what I posted.

What I said was (to paraphrase): Everyone, at both Units I spoke of, who deserved an "immediate dot" got their immediate dot. But, no matter how many of those "deserved" that dot, only the top ten people could be given a numbered rank 1 of 52, 10 of 52 etc. IAW CFPAS Regulations. The pers who ended up being 11 of 52 ... got an NA of NA in that section of the PER.

If you open up CFPAS on your computer - it clearly lays out that "only the top ten performers" can be 'scored' OR the top 50% of performers if less than 10 pers in that rank and trade at Unit. An "outstanding Cpl" will know where to find that on their baseline  because they will have "always particpates actively in the PDR/PER process" (IE: electronically fills in their 'I love me sheet' on the actual CFPAS sheet and hands in to their supervisor as CFPAS directs).

For example, if there's only 10 Sup tech Cpls at Location X, then only 5 will be ranked. IE 1 of 10, 2 of 10, 3 of 10, 4 of 10, 5 of 10. The rest will get PERs that say "NA of NA". BUT ... there may very well be 9 or 10 or even just 1 who receive "Immediate" promotion recommendations ... but I HIGHLY doubt it. <--- although, many years of experience have taught me that ALL of them believe they should receive that "Immediate" recommendation.

While you are in CFPAS, I highly recommend that you also print off the word picture booklet for your rank. Ensure that you carefully read the wording for the "score" description in each and every factor assessed for your rank. ou'll note that "Mastered" uses words like "always", "unhesitantingly", "extreme", "absolutely", "without fail" to describe what someone needs to do performance wise to receive that particular "score" in whatever assessment factor.

If you believe that you have "met that description" in the applicable assement factor, then gather up your proof for each one you believe you were unjustly scored in ... and send in IAW Greivance process. That's fair and that's why the process exists. Just remember though, if a "mastered" for "reliability" says that "always shows up for work on time and fully prepared" and you think you earned that but didn't get it ... that if your supervisor has a single incident of you being late for a briefing, work, task, appointment, meeting etc throughout the year ... that you didn't "meet" the "always" definition required IAW the CFPAS word picture standards. (Been there, actually dealt with this one).

Good luck to you however it turns out.

 

[BernDawg]

It's all moot. This years should be handed in by now. Signed, sealed and delivered.

Wait til next year now. :

That's funny.  I haven't even seen mine yet.  You're not on an Airforce base are you?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

That's funny.  I haven't even seen mine yet.  You're not on an Airforce base are you?

And neither have my troops.... sent them into the TC early april and they have yet to re-emerge from that office.......

 

[PMedMoe]

Yep, ours went to the Adj a few weeks ago, as well.