# 2011-105 Careers, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–10–25

The grievor objected to the scoring for two potential factors (PF), Leadership and Professional Development, on his 2008/2009 personnel evaluation report (PER). The grievor pointed out that despite his job performance and the expectation to act in a higher rank, his scoring for "potential" decreased from the previous year with no explanation provided during the reporting period. He also stated that he had only received one personnel development review (PDR) although the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS) recommends a minimum of two. He requested an increase for these two PFs.

The initial authority (IA) denied the grievance. The IA stated that the grievor's performance and potential were assessed for the reporting period and that any previous performance or potential were not factored in. The IA indicated that the scores matched the narrative and that the grievor's PER was reviewed by a merit board, which did not recommend any changes.

In a synopsis prepared by a staff member of the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DGCFGA), it was pointed out that the grievor did not provide any justification for his scores to be increased and it was recommended that the final authority (FA) deny the grievance.

The Board agreed with the DGCFGA analyst that there must be concrete evidence provided to substantiate the changes in order for scores to be increased on a PER. The only evidence put forth by the grievor consisted of a very general description of his work in an acting capacity provided by a subordinate; as pointed out in the DGCFGA synopsis, corroboration must come from the member's chain of command and not from subordinates because superiors are most familiar with the individual's demonstrated performance and potential. The Board noted that according to the CFPAS, "potential" assesses how well an individual could perform at the next rank based on what was observed. In the case at hand, such evidence was readily available given the grievor's responsibilities in an acting capacity for five months during the reporting period. The Board found that the PER was written and reviewed with the benefit of his superiors having information directly related to the grievor's performance at a higher rank.

On the issue of PDR, the Board acknowledged that the grievor only received one PDR throughout the reporting period; however, in the Board's opinion this did not in and of itself nullify the PER.

The Board recommended that the CDS deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2011–12–13

The FA agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation to deny the grievance.