# 2011-090 Careers, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–09–28

The grievor contended that his personnel evaluation report (PER) did not accurately represent his performance over the reporting period nor did it reflect his potential. Moreover, he argued that the PER was detrimental and disabling for his future career. The grievor provided information that he considered substantiated higher ratings in each of the performance assessment factors (AF) and potential factors (PF) where he had asked for increases. As redress, he requested that his PER be rewritten to reflect the increases requested.

The Board had to determine whether the PER was a reasonable and fair representation of the grievor’s performance and potential for the reporting period contested.

Although the grievance was somewhat out of time, the Board nonetheless believed that it was in the interests of justice to consider the merits given the grievor’s intention to pursue the issue of his PER, first expressed within six months of his signing the document.

In a PER grievance, a member is obliged to substantiate any proposed increases to ratings; the standard is based on the “balance of probabilities”. The grievor provided his explanation as to why he considered that some of the ratings for his PER should be increased. An analyst at the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority prepared a synopsis of the grievance that included a detailed analysis of each of the disputed PER factors. The analyst reviewed the evidence while considering the Canadian Forces Personnel Assessment policies. The synopsis suggested that the grievance be partially upheld since the grievor provided sufficient substantiation to warrant an increase to one AF and one PF rating.

The Board examined and agreed with the conclusions and the recommendations found in the synopsis. In particular, the Board found that the PER review summary was comprehensive and fairly stated. The Board agreed that, except for one AF and one PF rating, the grievor’s PER accurately reflected his performance and potential.

The Board recommended that the grievance be partially upheld and that there be an increase to the grievor’s AF 12 (Applying Job Knowledge/Skills) rating from Developing to Skilled and to his PF 3 (Communications) rating from Normal to Above Average.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2011–11–30

The FA agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be partially upheld.