# 2013-104 - Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–01–13

The grievor complained that his Personnel Evaluation Report (PER) scores should not have been lower than his previous assessment, and that his PER did not accurately reflect his performance and potential during the reporting period, failed to adequately recognize two letters of appreciation, and was not administered in accordance with policy.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the scores and the narrative were aligned with the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS) Word Pictures and explained that it was not exceptional for ratings to fluctuate from year to year. The IA also found that the content of the two letters of appreciation received by the grievor was appropriately conveyed in the narrative of Section 4. Finally, the IA denied the grievor's request to re-score the PER, noting that the grievor had not provided any convincing evidence in his representations that would support higher scores.

The Committee first acknowledged that the grievor's Personnel Development Review (PDR) had not been completed but found that the lack of a PDR process was insufficient to invalidate minor PER score adjustments from one year to the next. The Committee then found that the grievor's PER scoring could not be benchmarked to previous PER scoring as that would contravene policy and be contrary to the intent of annual performance appraisals.

The Committee also found, based on CFPAS policy, that there was no obligation to specifically mention letters of appreciation in the PER narrative, noting that the narrative did describe in some detail the grievor's contribution as indicated by the two letters of appreciation. Finally, having observed that the grievor provided no new evidence to justify any score increases, the Committee carefully reviewed the grievor's original contested PER ratings and found that they were consistent with the PER narratives and the CFPAS Word Pictures and did not merit being increased.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–11–28

Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.

Page details

Date modified: