# 2013-103 - Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–12–31

The grievor sought a re-evaluation of several Performance Assessment Factors (AF) and Potential Factors (PF) in his annual Personnel Evaluation Report (PER). He argued that his scored performance and his rated potential failed to reflect his actual performance and potential. The grievor also noted that he had not received a completed Part 5 of the Professional Development Report (PDR) upon posting, to his detriment.

The Initial Authority, the grievor's Formation Commander, explained that, absent any third party information to support the grievor's position, the PER could only be reviewed by comparing the Sections 4 and 5 narratives to the Word Pictures provided in the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS) policy and to the assigned ratings. He further noted that the absence of a PDR is not, by itself, a reason to substantiate changes to a PER.

The Initial Authority granted partial redress, increasing one AF to Mastered and two PFs to Outstanding. He also reduced one AF to Skilled. Notwithstanding the stated absence of a Part 5 PDR, the Committee was able to find and retrieve three draft Part 5 PDRs covering three-quarters of the reporting period, none of which were seen by the Initial Authority. The Committee carefully reviewed the grievor's PER, the Initial Authority decision and the three draft PDRs. Because these three draft PDRs covered three-quarters of the reporting year, and were written by two different supervisors during that period, the Committee assigned considerable weight to the opinions expressed therein.

Following a careful analysis, the Committee agreed with the Initial Authority's decision to increase the ratings of one AF and two PFs but did not support the reduced score. In addition, the Committee found sufficient supporting evidence in the three draft PDRs to justify increasing the ratings of four more AFs and two additional PFs.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff partially uphold the grievance by directing that the grievor's PER be rescored and rewritten so that several of the disputed AFs and PFs would be increased, the grievor would receive an Immediate Promotion Recommendation, and the Section 6 Additional Review would be completed

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–08–27

The Final Authority (FA) agreed with the Committee that the grievor has been aggrieved and partially granted the grievance. The FA partially agreed with the Committee's remedy by re-scoring differently two Performance Assessment Factors and one Potential Assessment Factor.