# 2011-024 - Personnel Evaluation Report (PER), Selection Board , Selection Boards

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–05–10

The grievor argued that because his personnel evaluation reports (PER) were not properly ranked during a four-year period, his selection boards were negatively impacted. As redress, the grievor requested that each of his PERs be reviewed in comparison to his peers and that the respective PERs be amended to reflect the appropriate ranking. He also requested that an evaluation and impact analysis be conducted on his career to determine if corrective action was necessary.

Although the grievance appeared to have been framed as being about the lack of ranking on the grievor's PERs, in the Board's opinion, the issue was more about the manner with which selection boards had awarded points for such rankings on PERs. The Board noted that there was no mandatory requirement to rank PERs, other than for the military occupation structure (MOS) ranking and pointed out that the wording "should include some form of ranking" at section 507.1 of the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System was very vague and ambiguous, leaving a great deal to the interpretation of each individual reviewing officer. Given this lack of clear and consistent direction, the Board was of the opinion that it would seem unfair that selection boards would award points based on PER rankings, but noted that it is exactly what happened.

A review of the grievor's PERs for the years in question showed the grievor's performance had consistently been rated as "mastered", his potential as "outstanding", and his promotion recommendation as "immediate"; for the first two years, his PERs contained an MOS ranking, but no such ranking for the last two; as well, there was no mention of ranking in relation to his peers. The Board noted that the grievor's performance scores awarded by the selection boards dropped drastically for the two years without ranking, at a time when his PERs remained virtually unchanged. The Board concluded that the performance scoring criteria used by the selection boards in the two years in question inappropriate in that it considered potential as well as performance and awarded points for those who had been ranked by their unit/base/formation/command even though it should have been evident that not all personnel were ranked in a consistent manner. As well, the Board found that it was not only the grievor who was unfairly disadvantaged by the criteria applied to these particular selection boards, but so was every other member considered by these boards who had not received PER rankings for whatever reason.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff uphold the grievance by directing that the selection boards for the years 2009 and 2010 for Canadian Forces members of the same rank and of the same branch as the grievor be completely redone, removing any specific scoring assignment to PER rankings in the scoring criteria. If as a result, the grievor, or others, are ranked high enough to have been promoted following either selection board, the Board recommended that they be promoted retroactively.

The Board also recommended that, upon completion of the selection boards, the grievor's new ranking be forwarded to the Army to determine what impact, if any, the new ranking may have had on consideration of the grievor by the Army Command Boards and that corrective action be taken as necessary.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2011–08–26

The FA partially agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation to uphold the griavance. The FA disagreed with the method used by the Board to analyse the Performance Scoring. As a result, the FA did not agree with the Board's recommendation to redo the 2009 and 2010 selection boards for CF members of the same rank and of the same branch as the grievor. The FA chose the dot-counting performed by its analyst as the only available option to provide the grievor with a more accurate ranking, than the generic identification of being defined as one of the top three in his rank and branch.The FA was of the view that while the scoring direction to selections boards has changed over the years to reflect lessons learned, it has been the CF's practice to not apply these changes to previous selection boards. Nevertheless, although not willing to completely redo the selection boards for the grievor's rank and branch, the FA decided to add, in the 05/06 PER, that the grievor was one of the three tops in his rank and branch. The FA also amended the 08/09 PER to include what he described as a speculative comment, and finally he will ensure that the initials MF are properly indicated in the identified PERs. The FA then indicated that its decision will constitute notification to DGMC to determine the requirement for a supplementary selection board(s).

The Board's systemic recommendation was addressed since a review of the selection board scoring criteria was completed. NDHQ has realized that the practice of providing points to ranked individuals at selection boards is inequitable. As a result, a review of the selection board scoring was completed and, commencing with the 2011 annual selection boards, the scores were not specifically assigned to the occupation, unit or formation ranking. Instead, the ranking simply enabled the boards to place the PER into perspective and permit flexibility to assign points based on the quality of the candidate rather that the vagaries of unit size and composition.