PERs : All issues questions...2018-current

[Eye In The Sky]

I am looking forward to seeing the  proposed new PER system.

Personally, I am not.  Why?  Because the same people will either ignore the rules in place and/or make up the ones they want to get the output they want, just like happens now in CFPAS.

This years CANFORGENs state "score controls have been eliminated".  No they haven't.  Unit boards shouldn't influence PER scores.  :rofl:  M'kay!

People who OT or are posted out during the APS don't get the PER that they are supposed to get (dealing with 2 of those this year who were OTs, both MCpls in their previous trades...they didn't even know they were supposed to get a PER covering 01 Ap 17 to their COS date when they OTd).  The list goes on.

CFPAS is not the problem.  The users and their desire if they are higher up on the food chain to impart their own "direction" is the problem.  CFPAS is simple and easy to use, it is the people who fuck it up.

I am, however, 100% confident "senior leadership" will take the next system and warp it like they have CFPAS.  :nod:

 

[ModlrMike]

Part of the problem is that leadership often have no idea how this stuff works because they were never taught. I can't tell you how many Senior NCOs I know who don't actually know how CFPAS works or who to properly staff memos or grievances.

This is not a new problem. I did my SLC in 2000, and was astonished at the number of Sgts and WOs who could not construct a simple memo, let alone understand the components of effective personnel evaluation. The most cited reason was that they were too busy doing their real jobs. They could not understand the irony of their response.

 

[TCM621]

This is not a new problem. I did my SLC in 2000, and was astonished at the number of Sgts and WOs who could not construct a simple memo, let alone understand the components of effective personnel evaluation. The most cited reason was that they were too busy doing their real jobs. They could not understand the irony of their response.

Never said it was new. I hear the too busy working excuse all the time. I don't know about you but I always have a section in my part 1 about developing and evaluating subordinates.

 

[Brood]

I downloaded the latest CFPAS and help files, but I'm missing the opt out option within PERX. Do I have to sacrifice a private first?

EDIT: It was the updated MOS files that I was missing, which CFPAS won't download since I don't have access to the Intranet.  I'm not sure how that was ever supposed to work, but fortunately I knew someone who had the updated files.

 

[Quirky]

Here is a new one for me. Finished a 2 dot ES PER for a developing, jnr Cpl. Lines for ES were accepted but PER was kicked back to me needing justification for S's to 'fluff up' the narrative section. I guess having a two-line PER for a new Cpl isn't accepted anymore?  :facepalm:

 

[PuckChaser]

Writing 2 lines to sum up an entire year of work for a Cpl is laziness and does that member a disservice. I believe the standard for a "Ready" PER is 9 lines performance, and 5 lines potential. Still significantly better than the old "fill the space" method of PER writing we so recently got away from.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The majority of write up's I've done for my own subordinates gets vetted and changed by 2 or 3 levels of the CoC so many times that it's not in my words anymore.

What they actually did isn't as important as whether I use improved or enhanced. Majority of my time is spent on synonyms. It's ridiculous.

 

[dapaterson]

Majority ofBy and large my time is spent on synonymscrafting similar verbiage. It's ridiculousfoolhardy.

FTFY

 

[Quirky]

Writing 2 lines to sum up an entire year of work for a Cpl is laziness and does that member a disservice.

Not when it falls within the writing policy of the unit and CF. I don't recall it stating "when only two lines of narrative are used, comment on S's as to not offend the member". The whole point of the new CFPAS system was to reduce the unnecessary time spent on crap like this. I've handed out double N/As PERs before without issue.

 

[kev994]

I recall seeing direction lately that if they are straight S, at minimum you need to record their accomplishments for the year. For potential “N/A” is acceptable for Ready.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I was having some issues with the Help files on my home PC (Win7), contacted the CFPAS helpdesk and they were able to get me sorted out.  Not a fix I'd of thought of; picture attached to make it easier.

- Installing the updated help files, once you download the ZIP file, before you extract the files, right click on the zip folder and select Properties;
- a window should open up (the image on the left in the attached pic).  Ref the red box...click the UNBLOCK and then APPLY buttons;
- you can verify the security stuff is fixed by selecting Properties again, the window should look like the image on the right of the attached pic;  and
- you can then extract/overwrite the Help files and everything works (or it did for me at least).

 

[stellarpanther]

Does anyone have the reference to opt out of receiving future PER's?

 

[mariomike]

Does anyone have the reference to opt out of receiving future PER's?

See also,

PER opt-out denied 
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/119446.0
OP: "Does anyone have any more info about the option to opt out of a per?"

CANFORGEN 014/16 CMP 011/16 281603Z JAN 16
CHANGES TO CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (CAF) MILITARY PERSONNEL EVALUATION REPORT (PER) FOR THE 2015/2016 REPORTING YEAR

REF: A. CANFORGEN 220/14 CMP 102/14 181519Z DEC 14
B. CFPAS HELP FILE
C. CANFORGEN 120/15 CMP 055/15 061540Z JUL 15 (CAF ANNUAL SELECTION BOARDS FILE REMOVAL DUE TO EXPIRED FITNESS)

Reply #1252
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/636/post-1415270.html#msg1415270
C.  OPTING OUT, ANOTHER DRT INITIATIVE, HAS PROVEN VERY POPULAR AND HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN MANAGING PER WORKLOADS AND INDIVIDUAL EXPECTATIONS. IAW REF B ARTICLE 125, OPT OUT REMAINS AN OPTION FOR PERSONNEL WHO DO NOT WISH TO HAVE AN ANNUAL PER. PERSONNEL WHO OPT OUT, DO NOT NEED TO RESUBMIT EACH YEAR, BUT UPON POSTING SHOULD INFORM THEIR NEW CO OF THEIR ELECTION TO OPT OUT. TO ENSURE EFFICIENT UNIT PER ADMINISTRATION, A MBR SHOULD SIGNAL THEIR INTENTION TO OPT NLT END OF JANUARY 2016. MEMBERS AND COMMAND TEAM ARE ENCOURAGED TO REVIEW ARTICLE 125 OF REF B FOR OPT OUT PROCESS IMPLICATIONS AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Has anyone here opted out of the PER process?

https://navy.ca/forums/threads/636/post-1424065.html#msg1424065

etc...

 

[AKa]

"Opt Out/ Opt Back In" is in Chapter 1, section 125 of the CFPAS Help file. 

However, I found the link to the official memo format isn't working for me now.  If anyone else has the same issue, feel free to PM me and I'll be happy to share mine privately.  When I was down south, I didn't have access to the updated CFPAS help files and submitted a non-standard memo requesting opt out.  My CM was rather shirty about it.  Don't make the same mistake as me!

I've opted our for four years now.  It's been liberating.

Cheers,

AK

 

[Navy_Pete]

Does anyone know if the ref for PERs for postings to the ATL was updated for this year?  Expect to get one for the first portion of my reporting period from my last unit before starting the PGT, but want to double check.

 

[Zephyrcaptain]

If you only have 5 months in the reporting period as the remainder was on sick leave and mandated by the flight doc to recovery, does this mean you are still given a normal PER as a majority of the year is not represented and puts you at a disadvantage to compete with peers.

Does anyone have any experience or knowledge that can help?

 

[211RadOp]

From the CFPAS help file article 118. PER Exemptions:

1. There is no defined minimum observation period to produce an Annual PER. However, in those rare instances where observation is so limited as to render it impossible to accurately report upon a person's performance and potential, then the unit CO may consider rendering a PER Exemption (PERX). The CO's authority in this regard must be exercised judiciously with an awareness that under no circumstances should an exemption be selected simply to save staff effort. Where uncertainty exists, DMCSS 2 should be consulted.

 

[MJP]

If you only have 5 months in the reporting period as the remainder was on sick leave and mandated by the flight doc to recovery, does this mean you are still given a normal PER as a majority of the year is not represented and puts you at a disadvantage to compete with peers.

Does anyone have any experience or knowledge that can help?

How does only having 5 months puts someone at a disadvantage?  Tour PERs are 3 months + and are used in conjunction with annual PERs or stand alone if home unit does a PERX. Generally one's performance and potential isn't influenced by the amount of time but rather their ability/capability to perform at a certain level.  An average person generally doesn't get above average just because they were observed longer.

 

[CountDC]

5 months is enough time to observe and produce a PER that would be better than a PERX unless the member or his superior is useless.  The other option would be a PERX which when merited for promotion does not count as high as a PER.  Logically writing a PERX on a good worker simply because they are only observed for 5 months due to illness/injury would be a penalty.

Here's another good one.  Mbr gets promoted near end of Mar.  As they are the new rank prior to end Mar their PER has to be written for the new rank even though they have only worked a day or two in that rank while still doing the exact same job. 

 

[MJP]

5 months is enough time to observe and produce a PER that would be better than a PERX unless the member or his superior is useless.  The other option would be a PERX which when merited for promotion does not count as high as a PER.  Logically writing a PERX on a good worker simply because they are only observed for 5 months due to illness/injury would be a penalty.

Here's another good one.  Mbr gets promoted near end of Mar.  As they are the new rank prior to end Mar their PER has to be written for the new rank even though they have only worked a day or two in that rank while still doing the exact same job.

Aye I am in complete agreeance a PERX for 5 months of supervision without strong justification is just poor leadership.  More than enough time to ascertain mbr's performance and potential.