PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Gunner98]

A Redress of Grievance that reaches DMCARM is likely to take a minimum of one year to be resolved.  Supplementary merit boards may result.

Not signing your PER is kind of like not paying a parking or speeding ticket.  It will still go on your record.

Mediation works in many cases as the member can submit info that has not been included.  However, if the CFPAS process is consultative as it suppose to be, all of the facts should be in the PDRs including your own representation of the facts.

 

[Cansky]

Remember 2 things, One your supervisor when writing your PER ISN"Tsuppose to know what last years PER was.  Having said that, this only works with new supervisors. Your PER is suppose to be based on the reporting period nothing.  It makes it very difficult when others within the reporting period don't due their jobs.  For example when posted to a new unit your suppose to receive a posting PDR. I have 3 troops with no info from last unit. Very difficult.

Two, If your going to redress you PER, YOU ONLY HAVE 6 MONTHS from the date you sign it.  This is the same for all redresses.  Make sure you keep a copy.

 

[McG]

Only if your supervisor did their job and wrote you up accordingly in your 3 quarterly PDRs can they really justify taking you down from lets say a mastered to a skilled.  If the member hasn't been told what to improve then how can he improve.  Believe me saying "well I told him to get his act together" don't fly   You must have documented proof and the best way is the PDRs.  To just arbitrarily take someone down is grounds for redress and they will win unless you can prove they were counselled in-depth at some time in the reporting period.

Having a lower score than the previous year is not grounds for redress.  As you've pointed to, having a score lower than is consistent with the text of the current year's PDRs is grounds for redress. 

I once had the task to do the research for higher to give an answer to a PER redress.  Generally, the member dropped on dot on each factor from the previous year.  The his argument for each contested point was "my score last year was . . . " and to point that no PDR specifically said his performance was less than the previous year.  Unfortunately for the member, the PDR's function is not to make comparisons to previous assessment periods and his entire chain of command had changed (so such comparisons were not possible either).  Additionally, the text of the PDR fully supported the score.  He was good but not outstanding, and all his lowest scores had been mentioned as an area for development in a PDR.  In the end, there were two or three performance dots shifted right.  All I had to work from where the years PDRs, and where the member could have been given the benefit of the doubt I gave it to him.

If nothing else, it illustrates why all pers should take PDRs seriously.

 

[armyvern]

Upon coming into my section for the first time, and each April thereafter I give my personnel a new Critical Tasks (Pt1) which we go over point by point and sign. The member receives a copy of it. I also provide each one of them with a copy of the word picture book for their specific rank's "performance factors."

I explain to them that if they expect a mastered then their performance had better match the book. Ie "Always" instead of "Usually." There is a big difference between the two and ultimately they are responsible for writing their own PERs. If they don't "always" meet the word picture book mastered description for PF2, they are not going to get a mastered on their PER. They will get the score that matches their actual performance such as "usually," "sometimes," or "never" as the case may be.

I also stress that I expect them to keep track of what they have done over the course of the reporting period and that I expect it to be listed on their "I love me sheets" when I collect them. Some members have told me that it's my job to track them and their accomplishments and yes they are correct. I do this for each and every one of them. Then I like to point out the "actively particpates in the PDR process" section to them, and tell them this is how I expect them to do so. It is actually quite interesting the kind of things that they overlook themselves that I as a supervisor make note of. Some of them are quite shocked to receive copies of their "I love me sheets" back when receiving their PDRs only to find that I've added a whole bunch of items to it.

The FY PER should come as a shock to no-one, especially the one receiving it.

 

[NCRCrow]

Sounds like you are writing & keeping Naval Div Notes...........................

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Oh, no.....*Booker T voice* "tell me you just didn't say that". 

 

[armyvern]

Sounds like you are writing & keeping Naval Div Notes...........................

No. We`ve already been through this. I`m using the PDR/PER sytem. That's what it's there for. No need to double my workload by keeping div notes as well. The PDR forms already contain the areas for me to input my observations and the troops' accomplishments.

Vern

 

[NCRCrow]

Just workin u up on a cold Saturday afternoon.


Crow

 

[ZipperHead]

Here's a tip for all people who have to write assessments: as the Librarian alluded to, use the CFPAS system (PDR/PER sheets) to track your soldiers accomplishments. Instead of having a separate form, book, etc, keep a draft copy of your soldiers PDR/PER on a memory stick (with the requisite Protected  sticker on it.... and no personal info (Svc #, name) included on it if used on a personal computer..... everybody does know this, right?!??! If in doubt, go back to my last post for the link to the CFPAS site, and all the warning info is there for you).

Anyway, when Soldier A does something stellar, record it in point form on the PDR sheet. As well, if they do something less than stellar, same same, in Areas for Development. Also record their accomplishments (courses, making it to work on time more than once a week : ), and then come PDR writing time, it's all there, and you just have to flesh it out and use the correct terminology to satisfy the Staffing Gods. And then, at PER time, open up all the year's PDRs, crack open a fresh copy of a PER form, and copy/paste the pertinent information. Yes, this works if you have the same subordinate for the whole year, but would also work if the previous supervisor forwards you an electronic copy of the PDR's that are required.

As well, one could keep a copy of their own PDR's/PER's, and have the ability to look back and reflect on needs to be worked on, and also keep track of what you have done throughout the year. I don't think that there is anything more agonizing than having your current supervisor say (while writing your PDR/PER) "What did you do over the last 3 months/12 months?????". My memory is decidedly goldfish-like at the best of times, and having to remember anything that I've done 11.5 months ago is pretty much a write off.

Another tip for supervisors: create a folder in Outlook calendar (File->New Folder, or Ctrl+Shift+E) for each of your subordinates, and track their duties, appointments, taskings, courses. This way you can look back over the year to see what they've done, so you won't lose track of the fact that they were on Sensitivity Trg back in May, or that they were tasked for 2 weeks to another unit, etc. Added bonus: you can keep notes in the calendar event (name of person they were tasked to, who they worked with, etc). This also keeps you own calendar less cluttered (than if you had each soldiers appt, tasking, etc showing up in your "normal" calendar. I would be pretty much screwed at work (and home) without Outlook calendar. I also used it to track vehicle information (oil changes, monthly inspections, mileage, etc) for the vehicles in my troop. It's use is limited only by how you utilize it.

Al

 

[orange.paint]

As well, one could keep a copy of their own PDR's/PER's, and have the ability to look back and reflect on needs to be worked on, and also keep track of what you have done throughout the year. I don't think that there is anything more agonizing than having your current supervisor say (while writing your PDR/PER) "What did you do over the last 3 months/12 months?????". My memory is decidedly goldfish-like at the best of times, and having to remember anything that I've done 11.5 months ago is pretty much a write off.

My memory of what I did 3 months prior is vague at best.I realised this when my troop warrant asked me what I had done over the past year.I blew fish kisses,quoted a few things I could remember and left.Not only was it a little his fault for not recording the major duties I had done ,It was mine.Someone once told me "You are your own best career manager".And It's true.After this occasion I strolled down to the SQ shop and picked up a yearly planner.I have for the past 3 years recorded every tasking,point of interest on it.Including who I worked for,final mark and have a file folder in my cabinet at home with all the PDR's/course reports labeled with corresponding dates.

So when the time comes for PER,update of UER all my ducks are in a line.

Also for you people who are redressing your PER (I have not to this date) YOU need to have your information to even argue it.

WHO'S RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO SUPPLY INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE A COMPLAINT?
-It is the responsibility of the member seeking redress to supply the information required to substantiate the complaint.Originals of correspondence and other documents pertaining to a complaint shall,where available,be submitted to the redress authority considering the complaint.If originals are not available,legible copies shall be submitted.

(Any other questions on the redress procedure pm me,I still have the package from PLQ for some reason.)

Basically If you don't have documents its your word against his.....can you play paper, scissors, rank? ;D

And as Allen said solve at the lowest level.

"Before a written formal statement of a complaint is submitted by a member,reasonable efforts should be made by all redress authorities to resolve the complaint at the lowest level."

 

[justmyalias]

First, what is your definition of a "communal printer"?  Where is said printer located?  Were you standing at it when the Print Job started, and is the originator walking towards you?
.....

The printer is the only one for the COY.  I had printed off my own sheets.  Pers A, had printed it off, had picked up other docs, and returned to anther set of duties, leaving that item in the tray.  I would bet $1000 it was nearly 15-20mins since printing was complete.  Not even walking towards., not even clued into it's existence.

a.... If the member hasn't been told what to improve then how can he improve. ....
bJustmyalias...you alluded to just one part of a PER which you said is outstanding.  ......... it was very good in general?
......

a Excellent point.  The very quick things my eyes caught EXACTLY point to this scenario.  IF there was any shred of truth to the damaging comments, the defense is that not once, was any leadership, guidance, feedback given to adjust anything.  How can you expect to perform and improve if you're not regularly given feedback?
b overall..Very good. ;D

Just to add to George and MJP's points with regard to dropping your PER rating.  What you get on your PER should be no surprise if the PDR process has been done correctly.........

Excellent point., and I agree entirely.  What happens when there is no PDR during that period?  It goes straight to PER...and as I've conveyed...the MAJOR surprise to me in those few words...ugh...can't wait to get this over.  IT's been 2 weeks of a mental burden for me to carry silently


Thank you all for the words of wisdom., appreciated.

i-So the rule is...I MUST sign it?  But can request mediation/redress (doubt I'll do this) thereafter?
ii-Only George Wallace mentioned what to do with my question #2.  What to do with the Protected Document?  Report., quietly hand to the pers (assuming you have any inkling of who wrote it).
iii-third question then, is bogus.  You most definately can get a lower PER than previous years.  Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[armyvern]

i-So the rule is...I MUST sign it?  But can request mediation/redress (doubt I'll do this) thereafter?
ii-Only George Wallace mentioned what to do with my question #2.  What to do with the Protected Document?  Report., quietly hand to the pers (assuming you have any inkling of who wrote it).
iii-third question then, is bogus.  You most definately can get a lower PER than previous years.  Thanks for clearing that up.

1) Yes, you must sign it as "being read and discussed." (if you disagree with what you've read then you seek mediation/redress afterwards)
2) Take it and give it to the supervisor whose name appears underneath section 4 (about 1/2 way down the page).
3) True.

 

[284_226]

i-So the rule is...I MUST sign it?  But can request mediation/redress (doubt I'll do this) thereafter?

No, you're not obligated to sign it.  However, there's no point in not signing it.

Article 314 of the CFPAS handbook states:

"The member’s signature on the PER signifies that he/she has read and understood the assessment. A signature does not signify agreement or disagreement. The proper venue to voice disagreement with the PER is with the supervisor and unit during the review period or through submission of a grievance as outlined in CFAO 19-32. If the member refuses to sign the PER, “member refuses to sign” shall be typed in the member’s signature block, dated, and initialed by the supervisor and reviewing officer.  No special treatment is given to such PER's and no NDHQ action is initiated on the basis of the refusal to sign. Selection boards take all such PER's at face value and assess them as if they were signed. "

ii-Only George Wallace mentioned what to do with my question #2.  What to do with the Protected Document?  Report., quietly hand to the pers (assuming you have any inkling of who wrote it).

It should be handed back to the author (who should be the "Supervisor" listed in Section 4 of the PER), if you can tell who wrote it.  Failing that, give it to the Reviewing Officer listed in Section 5 of the PER.

iii-third question then, is bogus.  You most definately can get a lower PER than previous years.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Sure, you can get a lower PER.  One's supervisors had better have their ducks in a row with regard to substantiating the lowered evaluation of the current year's performance, though - especially if the member has the same supervisor for both reporting periods.

 

[armyvern]

Sure, you can get a lower PER.  One's supervisors had better have their ducks in a row with regard to substantiating the lowered evaluation of the current year's performance, though - especially if the member has the same supervisor for both reporting periods.

Actually no. One's supervisor would be going by the word picture book. So the subordinate had better have his ducks in a row to be able to back up why he thinks he's deserving of a higher score. Regardless of whether or not it is the first PER by that supervisor or not.

The supervisor will assess based on the performance of that subordinate IAW the word picture book for the current FY. If you got a "mastered" last year for "written communication" because your correspondance, ie logreps, was "always" top-notch and "always" met deadlines but this year your logrep was overdue on one occasion and I had to hunt you down for it, then you do not meet the criteria for the "mastered" as you have only "usually" performed the task as required in your Part1 "Critical tasks." That bumps you down to an "exceeded standard" from the "mastered."

And, it is also possible for members to be dinged lower on their PER by something that is not noted on a PDR. PDRs are quarterly. In December members should be getting their 3rd and final of the FY. That still leaves 3 months for the member to do something which warrants noting (either good or bad) on the PER, and rightfully so. To infer that because a shortcoming is not noted on a PDR and therefore can not be noted (or used to justify a lower score on the PER) on the PER and is thus re-dressable is also a fallacy. Still, the member should have been made aware of this shortcoming at least verbally by the supervisor.

In short, the CFPAS process is a two way street. Members and Supervisors alike are responsible for contributing to this system. We are our own best career managers. Look after yourselves. Get in the habit of keeping your "I love me" sheets current as you go along and include all your tasks, duties etc onto them. After all, if you have a hard time tracking your own work how can we expect you to be able to do so on behalf of all of your subordinates? I had 23 subordinates to track and write up. I'm only human, your input is also required.

 

[McG]

Sure, you can get a lower PER.  One's supervisors had better have their ducks in a row with regard to substantiating the lowered evaluation of the current year's performance, though - especially if the member has the same supervisor for both reporting periods.

Wrong.  See my post above.  The current year's score is not based on the previous years score.  The current year's PDRs are what is important.

 

[284_226]

Wrong.  See my post above.  The current year's score is not based on the previous years score.  The current year's PDRs are what is important.

I didn't claim that the current year's score is based in any way on the previous year's score.  The reason for my statement is this:  Hypothetically, if a member gets a "hard-right" PER one year, and goes on the next year with the same or better performance and little or no feedback in the PDR department, and then gets a lower PER the following year, then there's going to be a problem.  The member is going to have the following arguments to make in a grievance:

a.  the member did not receive adequate feedback from the CFPAS process during the year.  The member should have received a minimum of 3 feedback sessions, documented with a PDR.  If the member isn't aware of a shortcoming, they can't be expected to correct it.

b.  the previous PER (by the same supervisor) could be brought into play because the member was evaluated "using the same yardstick", if you will.  Again, if the member was given a "hard-right" PER one year, and something significantly less the next with little or no documentation made on the member, the member could have a potential field day - if they've documented their own performance well.  Their argument will be "Look, I did this, this and this two years ago, and that supported a 'M' dot.  Last year, I did this, this, this, and that, and my supervisor didn't even take note of it, and gave me a 'S' dot".  The supervisor can't claim that the yardstick moved, so they're forced to substantiate that the performance did.  If they didn't take appropriate notes, or document the performance using the PDR system, they're going to have a hard time justifying the lowered score for the current evaluation.

That's about the only way a previous PER could come into play - and I've seen it done.

 

[284_226]

And, it is also possible for members to be dinged lower on their PER by something that is not noted on a PDR. PDRs are quarterly. In December members should be getting their 3rd and final of the FY. That still leaves 3 months for the member to do something which warrants noting (either good or bad) on the PER, and rightfully so. To infer that because a shortcoming is not noted on a PDR and therefore can not be noted (or used to justify a lower score on the PER) on the PER and is thus re-dressable is also a fallacy. Still, the member should have been made aware of this shortcoming at least verbally by the supervisor.

This has always been a sore spot with me.  My current supervisor and I were having a discussion the other day, and he grumbled about the fact that he had to have my PER written by end Feb, while the pecking order and scores were sorted out in the "bun toss" a week or so ago.  In our section, our absolutely busiest time of the year is from mid-Feb to end March, corresponding to the annual "let's spend any money we have left over on IT equipment" and RVD purchases - and corresponding mass influx of PCs that need to be accounted for, imaged, and distributed.  None of this performance gets a chance to be mentioned in a PER, because the PER is already written by the time the work is being done.  If I had my way, there wouldn't be a dot assigned or narrative written until 1 April - which ensures that the PER accurately reflects the member's performance for the entire reporting period.

 

[armyvern]

I didn't claim that the current year's score is based in any way on the previous year's score.  The reason for my statement is this:  Hypothetically, if a member gets a "hard-right" PER one year, and goes on the next year with the same or better performance and little or no feedback in the PDR department, and then gets a lower PER the following year, then there's going to be a problem.  The member is going to have the following arguments to make in a grievance:

Perhaps then it was your statement that:

One's supervisors had better have their ducks in a row

which threw us off then.

a.  the member did not receive adequate feedback from the CFPAS process during the year.  The member should have received a minimum of 3 feedback sessions, documented with a PDR.  If the member isn't aware of a shortcoming, they can't be expected to correct it.

Minimum of 2 feedback sessions is the minimal requirement. 3 feedback sessions is the optimal situation.

the previous PER (by the same supervisor) could be brought into play because the member was evaluated "using the same yardstick", if you will.  Again, if the member was given a "hard-right" PER one year, and something significantly less the next with little or no documentation made on the member, the member could have a potential field day - if they've documented their own performance well.  Their argument will be "Look, I did this, this and this two years ago, and that supported a 'M' dot.  Last year, I did this, this, this, and that, and my supervisor didn't even take note of it, and gave me a 'S' dot".  The supervisor can't claim that the yardstick moved, so they're forced to substantiate that the performance did.  If they didn't take appropriate notes, or document the performance using the PDR system, they're going to have a hard time justifying the lowered score for the current evaluation.

The previous PER has zero bearing. The yardstick used in the writing of the PER is the current years performance by the member. Period. It is not related whatsoever to what the supervisor (the same supervisor or not) wrote or scored the member as in a previous year. The first thing the Redress authority is going to do is tell the member that "previous years' PERs, assesments and scoring are absolutely irrelevant to this current PER and have NO bearing upon it." They can redress all they want but I can guarantee you that a previous years PER will not come into play WRT the outcome of the redress. They may win a higher score if they have evidence to back up why they earned a higher score for the current years work, but they will NOT win it because that's what they had last year.

In the case you speak of, the point was won because the supervisor did not document this years performance correctly. It was not won because the member had a higher score the year before.

 

[Navalsnpr]

When I was posted to Shearwater, I remember that one of the units called us at the help desk inquiring as to when the latest version of CFPAS would be available. Mind you it was 15 Dec, so my response was call me next year!!

If you have been at a unit for the entire year, then IMHO it would be alright for supervisors to prepare draft versions in Mid-Feb. If this is the case, then the final version of the PER should be reviewed to ensure that any item that may be required to be added for mid-Feb to End-Mar is indeed added.

If you have been at the unit less than a year, then I would fully support the fact that those PER's should not even be attempted to be written until end-Mar.

The Promotion boards did advice the MOC's that the PER's need to be better written as there appeared to be many problems with them. For example, Potential remarks in the performance section and vice versa. This is probably why many units choose to have PER's written before the end of the reporting period.

 

[armyvern]

This has always been a sore spot with me.  My current supervisor and I were having a discussion the other day, and he grumbled about the fact that he had to have my PER written by end Feb, while the pecking order and scores were sorted out in the "bun toss" a week or so ago.  In our section, our absolutely busiest time of the year is from mid-Feb to end March, corresponding to the annual "let's spend any money we have left over on IT equipment" and RVD purchases - and corresponding mass influx of PCs that need to be accounted for, imaged, and distributed.  None of this performance gets a chance to be mentioned in a PER, because the PER is already written by the time the work is being done.  If I had my way, there wouldn't be a dot assigned or narrative written until 1 April - which ensures that the PER accurately reflects the member's performance for the entire reporting period.

In any Unit I've served with (including deployed) we also jump started our PERs. Generally speaking, ones performance will be consistant throughout the year. Just because the draft version of it is drafted prior to end-year does not mean that changes to it can not and don't occur if warranted and necessary. I've seen people perform so poorly in the last quarter that they actually fall out of that 'pecking order' of which you speak and I've seen others step up to the plate in that last quarter in such a way that they ended up bumping someone out of that 'pecking order.' Usually though, the performance is consistant with the rest of the FY and no changes need to occur to the PER. Most PERs reflect the performance in areas "overall" and the mention of a specific activity ie "did exceedingly well during end FY budget consolidations" is limited and only certain scores will have specific examples used. A PER can not list every single thing that you do during the FY specifically, it would then be a 10 binder presentation, and therefore not likely to be read by those sitting on your merit board.