# 2011-104 Careers, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–11–30

The grievor contested his Personnel Evaluation Report (PER). He made comments on each allotted rating to demonstrate that he deserved a better PER. Although his PER was reviewed by his Commanding Officer, he continued to insist that the assessments of his performance and potential were inadequate. He therefore requested, as redress, a comprehensive review of his PER and a rewrite that takes into account the higher ratings for certain assessment factors (AF) and potential factors (PF). He also asked that his promotion recommendation be increased to “Immediately”.

Since the letter communicating the decision of the Initial Authority (IA) contained no analysis and failed to elucidate the reasoning used by the IA to justify the denial of the grievance, the Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) set aside that decision.

The PER on file covered only a period of roughly eight months. The Board staff therefore conducted further research in the units where the grievor was working during the observation period to uncover any additional information on his performance during the missing periods. On receiving confirmation that no other information was available, the Board decided to review the PER as written, while noting that it represented only part of the grievor’s performance and potential. The analysis was therefore two pronged. The first part focused on the review of the PER and took into account the information on file relating to the grievor’s performance in his new unit. The Board then considered the potential impact of the comments obtained from the supervisor, in the form of a “Personnel Development Review”, for his four months of service at his previous unit.

The Board concluded that some assessments of the grievor’s performance and potential were inadequate. The Board accordingly recommended that the CDS partially uphold the grievance and grant the grievor a “Mastered” rating for AF 1 (Supervision), AF 10 (Verbal Communication) and AF 11 (Written Communication), and an “Outstanding” rating for PF 3 (Communication Skills), that the word “Immediately” be used for his promotion recommendation and that section 6 of the PER be completed.

In addition, given the major changes to his PER, the Board recommended that the CDS order a review of the grievor’s case to determine whether an additional Selection Board was required.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–07–05

The Final Authority (FA) concurs with the Board’s recommendation to partially uphold the grievance. Contrary to the Board, the FA concluded that the grievor’s PDR was used to some degree in drafting his PER for the period in question. The FA disagrees with the Board’s statement that the narrative should take precedence over the ratings in a PER when the two elements are in contradiction. Although the Board was correct in stating that the information contained in the text should be consistent with the AF and OF ratings, the FA was of the opinion that one should not have precedence over the other and that where there is lack of agreement the author is undoubtedly entitled to correct one or the other when the problem is brought to his/her attention.

The FA also felt that it was premature, in this case, to cast doubt on the good faith of the supervisor who drafted the PER ; the FA did acknowledge, however, that the author had lacked due diligence in failing to ensure that there was agreement between the narrative and ratings. Since the supervisor had failed to make the appropriate checks and corrections, the FA nonetheless gave greater weight to some of the texts. The FA therefore reassessed the problem ratings and ordered that they be changed, as the Board had identified.