Redress of Grievance – Mega thread [MERGED]

[captloadie]

I have been biting my tongue on this subject because it is a different world it seems in the Officer ranks than when I first started out. Or maybe I was a mediocre Capt at the time. But when I see someone, who as a second year Capt is receiving the scoring the OP did, two things come to mind; he was either one of those exceptional individuals, the 1 in 1000, or the previous PER was inflated. Does the OP know how the other Capt's in the unit fared this year compared to last year? If everybody's PERs were lower, maybe it indicates a supervisor who expects more from his Jr Officers.

The other thing that has been bothering me is the rampant careerism that I see among many Junior officers. They spend more time trying to figure out how to get ahead it seems than they do learning their trade and becoming someone the troops can trust. I know there were always some who strove to get ahead over everything else, but it just seems more common now.

Anyway that's my  :2c: 

 

[upandatom]

I have been biting my tongue on this subject because it is a different world it seems in the Officer ranks than when I first started out. Or maybe I was a mediocre Capt at the time. But when I see someone, who as a second year Capt is receiving the scoring the OP did, two things come to mind; he was either one of those exceptional individuals, the 1 in 1000, or the previous PER was inflated. Does the OP know how the other Capt's in the unit fared this year compared to last year? If everybody's PERs were lower, maybe it indicates a supervisor who expects more from his Jr Officers.

The other thing that has been bothering me is the rampant careerism that I see among many Junior officers. They spend more time trying to figure out how to get ahead it seems than they do learning their trade and becoming someone the troops can trust. I know there were always some who strove to get ahead over everything else, but it just seems more common now.

Anyway that's my  :2c:

THANK YOU MARY MOTHER OF JESUS! (ON TWO POINTS I AGREE WITH)

Someone else said it. That trust thing, is possibly the biggest factor. I have seen some old Officers, and young ones. From what I have seen in my short time is that its Me, Me, Me to often and not enough Us, Us, Us. It may just be the area I work in, but too often have I seen a "Yes we can do that" without talking to or listening to the troops on the ground. We may not be able to do that, an integral piece of kit may be broken, or we may need more to do said job, or plain and simple- We might not be allowed to do it due to security reasons (sigs here remember). Officers using their troops to get ahead for their own goals and ambitions, F@#$ that. It is one thing when that said Officer works with you to accomplish his OBTAINABLE goal, (Might be in line with the Commanders intent, at that point) but when He/she decides to bugger off to catch some rack or even EAT while people are trying to make his/her pipedreams work is wrong. When his troops say hey, I cant do that, they need to listen, and we need to explain why we cant do that within reason, we have to give a justifiable excuse/reason as to why, not just a NO, At that point, if it is coming from higher, the officer can explain to his boss as to why we cant, and what we should do instead, not just a "yes sir, three bags full sir" deal just to make his boss happy and make himself look good.

I fully believe PERs have become way over inflated. If someone has an MOI, they better walk on water, an MOI should not be the norm for a promotion, an MOI is "Member should be promoted now", a Ready should be the norm for promotion "Member is ready for promotion." Speaks for itself.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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.

I had similar thoughts on the TI and scores aspect WRT inflated previous PER.  Maybe it got lost, or the OP didn't like it so disregarded.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So with more time and already at my new posting I hammered it out, completed the memo, at that point told by my at the time current AO said that the Greivance Analyst will get in contact with my former supervisors....

Just for accuracy, there is no AO (Assisting Officer) in the Grievance process, it is an AM (Assisting Member) ref Step 3.  This is an actual qual CAF members can get; AKUY.  MITE Code 119777-0003 ASSISTING MEMBER MIL GRIEV.

 

[upandatom]

Just for accuracy, there is no AO (Assisting Officer) in the Grievance process, it is an AM (Assisting Member) ref Step 3.  This is an actual qual CAF members can get; AKUY.  MITE Code 119777-0003 ASSISTING MEMBER MIL GRIEV.

Thanks for the info for the qual-

I think AO might be an overused term, I asked for help and that is the term that was used, so AO, AM makes sense as well because the best people to help someone with this have already seen and been through the system for it.

 

[sidemount]

THANK YOU MARY MOTHER OF JESUS! (ON TWO POINTS I AGREE WITH)

Someone else said it. That trust thing, is possibly the biggest factor. I have seen some old Officers, and young ones. From what I have seen in my short time is that its Me, Me, Me to often and not enough Us, Us, Us. It may just be the area I work in, but too often have I seen a "Yes we can do that" without talking to or listening to the troops on the ground. We may not be able to do that, an integral piece of kit may be broken, or we may need more to do said job, or plain and simple- We might not be allowed to do it due to security reasons (sigs here remember). Officers using their troops to get ahead for their own goals and ambitions, F@#$ that. It is one thing when that said Officer works with you to accomplish his OBTAINABLE goal, (Might be in line with the Commanders intent, at that point) but when He/she decides to bugger off to catch some rack or even EAT while people are trying to make his/her pipedreams work is wrong. When his troops say hey, I cant do that, they need to listen, and we need to explain why we cant do that within reason, we have to give a justifiable excuse/reason as to why, not just a NO, At that point, if it is coming from higher, the officer can explain to his boss as to why we cant, and what we should do instead, not just a "yes sir, three bags full sir" deal just to make his boss happy and make himself look good.

I fully believe PERs have become way over inflated. If someone has an MOI, they better walk on water, an MOI should not be the norm for a promotion, an MOI is "Member should be promoted now", a Ready should be the norm for promotion "Member is ready for promotion." Speaks for itself.

I agree with your top paragraph, however it doesn't just happen in the officer world, its in the NCM/NCO world as well. The shitty thing is, in 10+ years I can count on one hand with fingers left over, the number of junior officers that I have worked for that I respected and trusted and would do anything I could for that individual. (one was a CFR). IMHO....that number should be much higher but like you have said, a lot of people are out for themselves.....it sucks to say but its true

So I also agree with what you have said about inflating PERs however just to play devils advocate a bit.

For a lot of us we are ranked Canada wide, and merited against folks from other bases who have different supervisors. Now say there are 20 supervisors doing supervisors for a given rank for that trade, 18 of them are objective and amazingly fair in the scores that they give....2 are scoring their guys/gals above and beyond because they want them promoted, and think they deserve it more than folks from other units....
The other units catch wind of this and are now inflating their guys/gals PERs so that they can be competitive with the 2 that are inflating.

This is a vicious cycle that is always happening across the forces...it has been there since I have gotten in, and will continue to be there.

So now, as a supervisor what do you do.....do you mark your guys/gals fair, or do you mark them so they can compete against the guys/gals that have been inflated.

What happens if your boss just plain doesn't like you.....I hate to say it but you for the most part are screwed.....which brings me to my final point: This is why we have the grievence process.....because no person can be completely objective about everything.

From my experience, what is fair and what actually happens are never the same.

Anyways that is the end of my rant haha

 

[GnyHwy]

But who exactly decides this and what exact metrics are they using?

It is decided by the the level above the COs, with the CO's input.  This will change once a person gets to the joint level, where all elements would have to come together.  The metrics are PERs, with a hint of gut feeling (see my definition in my signature block).

By no means would I think a 20 year-old 2Lt should be "career progressed" to be in line to be the CDS in 2040.

I don't think it is being at the 2Lt level.  Maybe at the Lt level for extraordinary cases, but mostly starting at the Capt level.  Sgt/WO for NCMs, with exceptions at the MCpl level. 

Every level has so many people who want to remain stagnant; they're comfortable being a Cpl or Sgt or Capt or whatever.  Every level also has so many people who want to progress to the next rank and have higher aspirations.  If a member knows and expresses their desire to be the Army Commander/the CDS/CMP/VCDS/whatever else, then how are we tracking that desire?

A person's performance and their eagerness to take on responsibility is probably the best way for a person to demonstrate desire.  How it's being tracked?  I'm not sure, but when a person is putting themselves out there enough, they are bound to get noticed.   

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm not going to offer any advise on the main of the subject.

What I will say is that this thread has gone on way longer than it should have.

Spoon feeding the OP is not going to solve anything, however, the OP better get their shit done quick.

This thread, it opinions and tangents is getting nauseating to the point where I want to hide the whole forum because I'm sick of this one thread.

If the OP was as smart as their PERs purport them to be, they wouldn't need to come here looking for answers.

They would either know what has to be done and who in their CoC could help, or Mr\ Mrs Wonderful would know how to navigate and interpret military admin docs to guide them.

This person sounds more like a new Pte that is scared to offend his Chain or can read nothing military beyond a kit list.

Certainly nobody that rates the PERs mentioned or sought.

Spoon feeding the OP is not going to solve anything. Their PER says they're a whiz bang.

They can figure it for themselves instead of being lazy and looking for a consensus from old farts.

They won't learn anything this way.

Let them figure it out for themselves. After all their PER says they are smarter than the average bear.

 

[Crispy Bacon]

For a lot of us we are ranked Canada wide, and merited against folks from other bases who have different supervisors. Now say there are 20 supervisors doing supervisors for a given rank for that trade, 18 of them are objective and amazingly fair in the scores that they give....2 are scoring their guys/gals above and beyond because they want them promoted, and think they deserve it more than folks from other units....
The other units catch wind of this and are now inflating their guys/gals PERs so that they can be competitive with the 2 that are inflating.

This is a vicious cycle that is always happening across the forces...it has been there since I have gotten in, and will continue to be there.

+1 This is indeed a cycle - an argument our unit has every year.  We all start out "yep, this will be the year we mark fairly and give everyone objective PERs."  That lasts for about two weeks until we find out Unit X just ranked 80% of its Cpls as ready for promotion, so what do we do?  Back to the drawing board to make some of our Cpls ready for promotion too.

 

[George Wallace]

+1 This is indeed a cycle - an argument our unit has every year.  We all start out "yep, this will be the year we mark fairly and give everyone objective PERs."  That lasts for about two weeks until we find out Unit X just ranked 80% of its Cpls as ready for promotion, so what do we do?  Back to the drawing board to make some of our Cpls ready for promotion too.

:-\

Promotion to Cpl is not a problem, as it is not necessary to write PERs on Cpls unless they are obviously way above OUTSTANDING.  It is the MCpl and above wherein lies the problems that you refer.  Even then, once the PERs reach the Career Managers and the Boards sit with all the necessary chairs filled, including an "Honest Broker", there should be a filtering and acknowledgement as to what units may have done in their rankings.  It is not such a large military, that those at the Table will not have some knowledge as to whose files they are dealing with.

 

[Griffon]

  :-\

Promotion to Cpl is not a problem, as it is not necessary to write PERs on Cpls unless they are obviously way above OUTSTANDING.  It is the MCpl and above wherein lies the problems that you refer.  Even then, once the PERs reach the Career Managers and the Boards sit with all the necessary chairs filled, including an "Honest Broker", there should be a filtering and acknowledgement as to what units may have done in their rankings.  It is not such a large military, that those at the Table will not have some knowledge as to whose files they are dealing with.

??? You write a PER for a Cpl to be promoted to MCpl, how does promoting to Cpl apply to this?  Did things change sometime in the last couple of years where you are no longer required to write annual PERs for Cpls?

I'm sure that there is acknowledgement a the boards that some units write up their people objectively, but how does the board adjust their scoring on those individuals to put them on a level playing field? That could cause quite the mess and add a lot of caseload to the Grievance Board.

 

[George Wallace]

??? You write a PER for a Cpl to be promoted to MCpl, how does promoting to Cpl apply to this?  Did things change sometime in the last couple of years where you are no longer required to write annual PERs for Cpls?

Did you read what I posted?  You do not need to write PERs on Cpls.  If for some reason you feel a Cpl is obviously way above OUTSTANDING, then you write a PER on them to justify promoting them to the appointment of MCpl.  Otherwise, Cpls files are retained in the unit, not sent to for national ranking at the Merit Boards. 

I'm sure that there is acknowledgement a the boards that some units write up their people objectively, but how does the board adjust their scoring on those individuals to put them on a level playing field?

A Bell Curve ?  You will have to ask the COs and RSMs who attend the Merit Boards as to how they even the playing field. 

That could cause quite the mess and add a lot of caseload to the Grievance Board.

Why would it?  How would anyone know how the Boards sat and made their decisions on whom to promote or not?  Are you suggesting someone would be so unscrupulous as to leak privied information on how the Board conducted its selection?  Would that in itself not be a chargeable offence?


And seriously; what does "ranking a Cpl ready for promotion" really mean?  Nothing, other than they are ready for promotion; not that they shall be promoted.

+1 This is indeed a cycle - an argument our unit has every year.  We all start out "yep, this will be the year we mark fairly and give everyone objective PERs."  That lasts for about two weeks until we find out Unit X just ranked 80% of its Cpls as ready for promotion, so what do we do?  Back to the drawing board to make some of our Cpls ready for promotion too.

 

[Griffon]

Did you read what I posted?  You do not need to write PERs on Cpls.  If for some reason you feel a Cpl is obviously way above OUTSTANDING, then you write a PER on them to justify promoting them to the appointment of MCpl.  Otherwise, Cpls files are retained in the unit, not sent to for national ranking at the Merit Boards. 

I did read it, but the part where you mentioned promotion "to" Cpl confused me.  As far as I knew, but it's been a while, Cpls received an annual PER just as every other rank. There was no differentiation between them and any other NCM rank above Pte.

A Bell Curve ?  You will have to ask the COs and RSMs who attend the Merit Boards as to how they even the playing field. 

You can't use a bell curve.  In order for it to be appropriate you would have to ensure normal distribution of personnel in the different units, and then have a normal distribution within the unit.  If an occupation has a tendency to send it's best and brightest, then using statistical techniques gets shot out of the water.  It also wouldn't be accurate if you have too few members at a given rank (less than 30) at a unit.

Why would it?  How would anyone know how the Boards sat and made their decisions on whom to promote or not?  Are you suggesting someone would be so unscrupulous as to leak privied information on how the Board conducted its selection?  Would that in itself not be a chargeable offence?

Oh, that's funny.  People thought it was weird when I didn't talk about my PER with them.  I found my co-workers on numerous occasions sitting there and comparing dots and rankings...

 

[GnyHwy]

Oh, that's funny.  People thought it was weird when I didn't talk about my PER with them.  I found my co-workers on numerous occasions sitting there and comparing dots and rankings...

He is talking about the yearly promotion boards, not the PER itself.  (At least in the Arty) they use what is called a Scoring Criteria (SCRIT) at the board.  The criteria such as jobs performed, how many MOIs,  education, language profile etc, and their weights, should be made available to everyone.  The actual discussion and negotiation i.e. the minutes, will not be made available. 

Also, most Cpls will likely see the PER disappear.  We will likely see promotions to MCpl being done by the COs of the unit.  A Cpl will likely only be written when they are close to promotion.  Average Joe Cpl will probably start getting PDRs the same way we write Ptes.

 

[MJP]

Did you read what I posted?  You do not need to write PERs on Cpls.  If for some reason you feel a Cpl is obviously way above OUTSTANDING, then you write a PER on them to justify promoting them to the appointment of MCpl.  Otherwise, Cpls files are retained in the unit, not sent to for national ranking at the Merit Boards. 

I think you are wrong.  Cpls do get PERs, are ranked and do go for national ranking (or intra-regimental ranking).

Also, most Cpls will likely see the PER disappear.  We will likely see promotions to MCpl being done by the COs of the unit.  A Cpl will likely only be written when they are close to promotion.

We might for certain trades and I certainly don't think it is a bad thing.  Nationally managed trades will garner a bunch of issues if that were to happen. 

 

[George Wallace]

You can't use a bell curve. 

I was being facetious, as to the "?" after the suggestion.

Oh, that's funny.  People thought it was weird when I didn't talk about my PER with them.  I found my co-workers on numerous occasions sitting there and comparing dots and rankings...

Feel free to discuss your PER or PDR with your friends and colleagues all you want.  It may not be ethical or whatever, but it is your prerogative.  Frankly, it can lead to a lot of malcontents within a unit when they start doing that.

 

[392]

Did you read what I posted?  You do not need to write PERs on Cpls.

Up until January of this year with the changes to the PER system, Cpls received PERs like everyone else.

Edit: and in the Cbt Engr trade, those Cpl PERs were seen at the national merit board just like the rest.

 

[Navy_Pete]

My big take away from this is that the PER process in the army units is far different from what I've seen.

Did the combined ranking board for the unit this year for the NCMs, and one of the big things we were reminded of (multiple times) is that things like SL profile and other items that factor in promotion were not to be considered when ranking the PERs.  So unless it happened to be that reporting period and was related to one of the AFs/PFs, it wasn't even in the PERs.  Same goes for PG, fit testing (only had to be current), etc.  Basically, how likely someone was to get considered for promotion didn't matter, and it was judged on performance in that reporting period. 

So a 1st of 2nd year capt (Lt(N) in our case) could easily get higher scores then someone in the promotion zone (or new Cpl or whatever).  It was a pretty interesting experience, and was actually a lot more impartial then I expected.

Not entirely confident the same thing happened at the officer ranking boards, as the 'fairy godfathers' still seem to have an undue level of influence, but overall the process normally seems fair(ish).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Nothing in the changes to PERs or CANFORGEN changed the requirements for Cpls WRT receiving a PER.

 

[Griffon]

I was being facetious, as to the "?" after the suggestion.
Ack.

Feel free to discuss your PER or PDR with your friends and colleagues all you want.  It may not be ethical or whatever, but it is your prerogative.  Frankly, it can lead to a lot of malcontents within a unit when they start doing that.

I was never one to take part, didn't see the merit in doing so.  I'm just pointing out that it does happen,and that it could cause issues with trying to resolve the current issues by adding a subjective perspective to PER ranking at the boards because the member comes from a certain unit that is suspected of inflating scores.

Edit:sp