Redress of Grievance – Mega thread [MERGED]

[GnyHwy]

Not sure about your unit, but everyone that I am aware of, the score is not set by the supervisor.  The score isn't even necessarily how you performed.  It is how you relate to your peers.  Did you stay still while your unit just took in some superstars?  Is your Corps overloaded with Capts, a lot of them younger than you? 

The score is determined by the OCs and COs above you.  The supervisors just get to do the fun part of trying to explain to his subordinate, why the CoC sees them scored as such.

There may be another factor in play too.  The new flavour of the week is "succession planning".  If you are not seen as a rockstar that will make Col or higher, they may be making room for the persons the CoC sees as capable of succeeding at those lofty heights, and they need to get passed you asap.    The succession planning has also knocked people down a peg, which in most cases probably means they stay stagnet, while the persons that are seen as having higher potential are shoehorned though the ranks.   

That said an SND is quite low, and unless you're making mistakes, getting old, or a bit pudgy, its probably too low.  The two latters are a pretty big deal nowadays. 

You have to ask yourself if it's worth it.  Even if you argue and get another ES, you still won't be promoted anytime soon. 

I can see why you be upset though, and you should be given a good reason for why your CoC doesn't see you progressing with your peers.  Or maybe you can already answer that.

 

[Ralph]

Did you go from an ESAAR in 2013 to a SND this year?

 

[PuckChaser]

The new flavour of the week is "succession planning".  If you are not seen as a rockstar that will make Col or higher, they may be making room for the persons the CoC sees as capable of succeeding at those lofty heights, and they need to get passed you asap.    The succession planning has also knocked people down a peg, which in most cases probably means they stay stagnet, while the persons that are seen as having higher potential are shoehorned though the ranks.   

You mean not every officer can be the CDS?! Blasphamy.

 

[opcougar]

No.....I went from ES for the first 4 PF and Mastered in Dedication to Skilled in the first 4 PF and AA in Dedication.

As mentioned, this new supervisor is newly promoted to the rank, hasn't take the time to know me, and is Francophone

I just feel like the written PER was pulled out of the air

You mean not every officer can be the CDS?! Blasphamy.

I am a DEO that joined in his mid 30s, I am never going to be a LCol, but do take this second career seriously than the average RMC types

 

[Nfld Sapper]

No.....I went from ES for the first 4 PF and Mastered in Dedication to Skilled in the first 4 PF and AA in Dedication.

As mentioned, this new supervisor is newly promoted to the rank, hasn't take the time to know me, and is Francophone

I just feel like the written PER was pulled out of the air

I am a DEO that joined in his mid 30s, I am never going to be a LCol, but do take this second career seriously than the average RMC types

That should have no bearing on the PER....For the record I have had to write assessments for Francophone subordinates and also have been assessed by Francophone superiors...and I am an anglophone.

 

[GnyHwy]

I am a DEO that joined in his mid 30s, I am never going to be a LCol, but do take this second career seriously than the average RMC types

You just answered the question.  You will be held back up, until those average RMC types can pass you.

You mean not every officer can be the CDS?! Blasphamy.

Almost seems that the succession planning approach to this is throw enough crap er I mean young soldiers at the top and some of them are bound to stick.

Pers like Opcougar, as good as they may be, don't stand a chance.

Don't feel too bad though Op, it's simple math.  You were taught how to do a time appreciation.  If you want your soldiers to be 3 and 4 stars, just back it up 3-5 years per rank.  You quickly realize that if a soldier isn't a Maj by the time he is 30, he isn't going to go really high.

You were past 30 before you joined.  Not the answer you wanted to hear, but it is probably the correct one, or at least have a lot to do with it.'

Not all bad though.  You'll be making 80K+ in no time and by the time you do make Major or even LCol, it will be above 100K.  Keep yourself in good shape and you never know.  It just won't happen as fast as the average RMC types young guys. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Good afternoon All,

Hope you are all having a nice Easter break? My was derailed just before the long weekend, and this has to be my worst holiday period ever. Here is my story......

I am a Capt yr 2.....I was presented with my PER on Thurs to sign by my supervisor who was newly promoted and came into the position last APS. Prior to this supervisor, I had a different supervisor who I disclosed my personal situation (Divorce) to when I got posted in back in 2012. I felt the need to let him know and also assured him that a social worker gave me the all clear based on my meetings, that I seem to be focused and handling everything well. I have 20 subordinates by the way...2 were promoted last APS, 2 are being promoted this time around. We even received a commendation for our work.

My 2013 PER under PF, had me at ES for the following: supervising, eval and developing subs, leading change and working with others. The same applied to ethics and value, reliability, accountability and resource management. The rest was a mixture of Mastered and ES

Now fast forward the current supervisor....I also disclosed to him my personal situation for his SA, and occasionally briefed him verbally on how the Troop is doing. He seems to have made assumptions based on my personal situation and my brief brag sheet, to write my PER. He mentioned that he didn't have much to go by when he put me at (Skilled) for the following for PF: supervising, eval and developing subs, leading change and working with others.

Under ethics and values & Dedication.....he had me at ES down from Mastered previously.

I feel like my clock of life had just been turned back 2yrs, and there is no way this can be good for my progression. I am also dealing with someone who is not an Anglophone. My divorce has nothing to do with my work, and for him to comment that because of the divorce, it takes time to get over such a thing, is just wrong. I mentioned to him and showed him my last PER, and made it known that I don't think my previous experience dealing with the same job all of a sudden disappeared, to which he replied he will see what he can do but isn't promising anything. He also blamed me for not presenting a loaded 'brag sheet'. If I knew the brag sheet was going to be used as the Gospel, am sure I could have written 10 pages of BS

So here is my question for the senior folks here i.e. people with more time in that I have.....How do I go about grieving this without rocking the boat? I spent part of yesterday drafting up the 'Notice of Intent' (NOI), and will be following up with the Grievance process docs

Your suggestions and advice welcome.

Cheers

Grieving a PER is a difficult thing, so you will want to make sure that your ducks are in a row prior to starting the process.  I would recommend talking to the CO prior to submitting a grievance... in reality, the CO/OC (as noted already) decide on your meriting and the boss just makes the "points work"... (s)he an likely give you the "full picture" of why your score is where it is.

If you do a grievance, you will need to justify each score, so will need concrete examples.  It's your responsibility to prove that your performance and potential are what you believe they are.  You note the "francophone" aspect of your boss, but unless you can prove that the language difference definately caused your score to be adversely affected than it will likely weaken your overall case.

For potential, it is extremely difficult to grieve as it is almost completely opinion based.  If you believe, for example, that your leadership is outstanding but was rated as above average you must prove that it is outstanding.  It's very difficult to do.

Finally, as also noted, scores went down a lot as aspects such as degrees and language profiles began to be considered for potential for the first time in a long time.  For example, at the artillery school there were captains with 2-4 MOIs that went to MAAR because they didn't have a BAB french profile.  one went from an almost perfect MOI, including a theatre MOI, for profile and degree.  Yet another, with a qualifiction that only 3 other people in the CAF have went from high MOI to low MAAR because of language and degree.  The point? It happens.

Grieving is your right, and if you feel strongly about it, than by all means do it.  Just make sure that you have your ducks in a row!

 

[sidemount]

Grieving a PER is a difficult thing, so you will want to make sure that your ducks are in a row prior to starting the process.  I would recommend talking to the CO prior to submitting a grievance... in reality, the CO/OC (as noted already) decide on your meriting and the boss just makes the "points work"... (s)he an likely give you the "full picture" of why your score is where it is.

If you do a grievance, you will need to justify each score, so will need concrete examples.  It's your responsibility to prove that your performance and potential are what you believe they are.  You note the "francophone" aspect of your boss, but unless you can prove that the language difference definately caused your score to be adversely affected than it will likely weaken your overall case.

For potential, it is extremely difficult to grieve as it is almost completely opinion based.  If you believe, for example, that your leadership is outstanding but was rated as above average you must prove that it is outstanding.  It's very difficult to do.

Finally, as also noted, scores went down a lot as aspects such as degrees and language profiles began to be considered for potential for the first time in a long time.  For example, at the artillery school there were captains with 2-4 MOIs that went to MAAR because they didn't have a BAB french profile.  one went from an almost perfect MOI, including a theatre MOI, for profile and degree.  Yet another, with a qualifiction that only 3 other people in the CAF have went from high MOI to low MAAR because of language and degree.  The point? It happens.

Grieving is your right, and if you feel strongly about it, than by all means do it.  Just make sure that you have your ducks in a row!

Best advice right there ^

Anything that you want/need changed you have to be able to JUSTIFY it. You need to provide examples and unfortunately you cannot use "my last years PER was higher" nor can you say "they have no justification to put me lower"

You need to prove that you deserve the bubbles where you want them.

This is if you have PDRs it makes it much easier.

Start off with you CoC and let them know that you intend to Grieve your PER. Some times they will work with you so as to avoid the grieving process.

If you do decide to grieve, realize that it will take a lot of time, you will have to be very patient and jump through a lot of hoops, but stick it out!

 

[Sunnyns]

You can use not getting PDRs to your advantage as well since if there was a problem and you were not notified of it, how can you fix it.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You can use not getting PDRs to your advantage as well since if there was a problem and you were not notified of it, how can you fix it.

I didn't read anywhere that the OP didn't get a PDR this cycle.  But if that is the case, yup that is an issue. 

To the OP, you really can't grieve anything and not rock the boat and put a few ripples in the water. 

If you do go grievance route, get an Assisting Member despite your rank. 

Not to sound like an arse, but maybe your performance was down from the previous , maybe the previous superior wrote you a little higher than he/she should have.  You mention that you are a 2nd Capt and you had Master and such previous year.  My first thought was "those could have been inflated".

Just something to consider.

 

[Ostrozac]

Remember the primary purpose of a PER -- promotion to the next rank, and promotion boards only look at the last three PERs.

You mention that you're a second year Captain. Does your MOSID routinely promote fifth year Captains to Major? If it's more like seventh year Captains, then even if you grieve, win, and get a better PER, no one will ever use it -- because your 2nd year in rank PER will have aged out before your file gets to the Major promotion board.

And I'll second that checks in the box seem to be all the rage lately. If you're not qualified to be a Major (second language, ATOC, AOC, CAFJOD) then you really can't expect to be written up like you should be one immediately.

 

[opcougar]

Thanks everyone for your responses thus far.....as mentioned, I don't really want to rock the boat and the last thing I need is the Maj holding it against me moving forward.

I have 3 modules left on my MBA that am taking, all OPMEs are done, but 2nd language doesn't exist. My MOSID promotes 5th year Capts to Maj.

I know it's possible to get promoted without a 2nd language profile....a friend of mine had that this past APS.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Thanks everyone for your responses thus far.....as mentioned, I don't really want to rock the boat and the last thing I need is the Maj holding it against me moving forward.

I have 3 modules left on my MBA that am taking, all OPMEs are done, but 2nd language doesn't exist. My MOSID promotes 5th year Capts to Maj.

I know it's possible to get promoted without a 2nd language profile....a friend of mine had that this past APS.

If that's the case than they shouldn't have been. I can only speak for the artillery, BUT in years past all kinds of people were promoted without french or without degrees.  Now, to go to staff college the majors are doing second language to get the BAB or else they dont go (= career stop).

 

[ModlrMike]

So language and education are considerations at the unit level now? Previously they had been part of the merit board's 10 potential points.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So language and education are considerations at the unit level now? Previously they had been part of the merit board's 10 potential points.

That seems to be the trend (although I disagree with it).  The explanation that I have received is that: why put a file forward to merit board with a ranking, that does not match what the board is looking for?

I think that approach misses the point that you may have identified talent at the unit level that could then be developed and nurtured. It also risks sending the wrong message: the guy who did average work and spent all his extra time on a second language and education is going to outscore a hard working dude who did some crazy operational work.

 

[GnyHwy]

So language and education are considerations at the unit level now? Previously they had been part of the merit board's 10 potential points.

Yes, it is quite wrong in my opinion.  Seems that the new approach is to look forward to the scoring criteria (SCRIT) which is used at the promotion boards to see if a person will stack up.  The PER process and the SCRIT seem to have merged, effectively taking away and discreteness of the two processes.

I think that approach misses the point that you may have identified talent at the unit level that could then be developed and nurtured. It also risks sending the wrong message: the guy who did average work and spent all his extra time on a second language and education is going to outscore a hard working dude who did some crazy operational work.

Tacco also nails it on the head, and I agree fully.  We have all seen the guys slugging it out doing the dirty (deadly) work only to see others with extra time padding their stats.

Where it gets bassackwards, is in some persons (decision contributors) eyes it's probably seen as a wasted nomination if someone without the extra points (language, education etc.) gets put forward.  To further exacerbate this, a fair bit of points at the scoring board are up for debate and are subjective, which will inevitably cause localized judging systems which will be far from standard.  Once a person is seen to have a chance to score high at the SCRIT, they will inevitably be written high for performance, simply to match the preconceived beliefs about them because of the extra points. 

One not even need do their job to be written high for performance.  Persons can (and rightfully so), see the SCRIT and focus their efforts to gathering extra points.  In the process of gathering extra points, one will undoubtedly neglect their current job.  Not to worry though, it will be overlooked, because if you are seen as scoring high at the SCRIT, you will get a high PER. 

Can you say cart before the horse?

To get back to the OP's problem, which won't have a satisfying ending.  Yes, the CoC is trying to assess if a person can make it to the General Officer level, even though they may have just finished puberty.  Maybe we can change the saying to putting the cart before the pony.


     

 

[George Wallace]

Yes, it is quite wrong in my opinion.  Seems that the new approach is to look forward to the scoring criteria (SCRIT) which is used at the promotion boards to see if a person will stack up.  The PER process and the SCRIT seem to have merged, effectively taking away and discreteness of the two processes.

Tacco also nails it on the head, and I agree fully.  We have all seen the guys slugging it out doing the dirty (deadly) work only to see others with extra time padding their stats.

Where it gets bassackwards, is in some persons (decision contributors) eyes it's probably seen as a wasted nomination if someone without the extra points (language, education etc.) gets put forward.  To further exacerbate this, a fair bit of points at the scoring board are up for debate and are subjective, which will inevitably cause localized judging systems which will be far from standard.  Once a person is seen to have a chance to score high at the SCRIT, they will inevitably be written high for performance, simply to match the preconceived beliefs about them because of the extra points. 

One not even need do their job to be written high for performance.  Persons can (and rightfully so), see the SCRIT and focus their efforts to gathering extra points.  In the process of gathering extra points, one will undoubtedly neglect their current job.  Not to worry though, it will be overlooked, because if you are seen as scoring high at the SCRIT, you will get a high PER. 

Can you say cart before the horse?

To get back to the Ops problem, which won't have a satisfying ending.  Yes, the CoC is trying to assess if a person can make it to the General Officer level, even though they may have just finished puberty.  Maybe we can change the saying to putting the cart before the pony.
   

This is why I have always had a Love/Hate appreciation of the PER system.  I have found the PDR/PER system the only humanly fair and honest system that can be created to evaluate personnel; but it is manipulated and corrupted by the humans who use it to fulfill agendas, theirs or their superiors.  Tweaking this system can only make it more fair if the human equation is taken out of it, and that is not likely to happen.

The corruption of this system is not new.  It has been abused for decades.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

You just answered the question.  You will be held back up, until those average RMC types can pass you.

...... It just won't happen as fast as the average RMC types young guys.

Bullshit. 

I have been around the system for some time now, and have occasionally held positions that had some insight into meriting etc.  The RMC myth is just that.  In the Infantry at least, it matters not one jot where you came from.  What matters is how you perform.  A former Regimental Colonel of the PPCLI was frequently heard to say that the only principle of career management that mattered was that "performance cannot be denied".  He joined late, and did not get a Bachelor's degree until after he was a LCol, so it is possible that he was right.

 

[opcougar]

Again....thanks everyone for your advice and suggestions, it is duly appreciated! So the first thing I did this morning was seek a couple of senior officers, and asked their opinion after showing them examples to substantiate my stance. They advised me to approach the supervisor with caution about my dissatisfaction with the PER. Additionally, I was told NOT to ask for a "better PER", but instead be clear with exactly what I'll like to happen.

I approached the supervisor, and his response was and I quote "I don't want to talk about it, grieve it if you have an issue with it". I then gave my NOI, and followed that up with a memo to the CO.

The supervisor's demeanor , has been the status quo whenever am trying to brief him or bringing matters to his attention. I must add that he is newly promoted (last APS).

Looks like the boat has been rocked, but at least I am standing firm on what I believe is wrong considering my troop met its mandate in the FY, and we were commended by higher. I was the one steering the ship

 

[garb811]

Uhhmm...why didn't you simply request a meeting with the CO?  That's the next step in informal resolution before going to Redress of Grievance.  Strike out with the CO, then you submit the paperwork.  By submitting the NOI now, it could be taken as an attempt to strong arm the CO when you do meet with him/her.