# 2015-304 - Alignment of Performance Evaluation Report (PER) ranking instructions with the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System Policy (CFPAS), Canadian Forces Performance Appraisal System (CFPAS), Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)
Alignment of Performance Evaluation Report (PER) ranking instructions with the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System Policy (CFPAS), Canadian Forces Performance Appraisal System (CFPAS), Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)
F&R Date: 2016–02–11
The grievor complained that his annual Performance Evaluation Report (PER) was not completed in accordance with the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS) policy. He pointed out that his chain of command (CoC) had implemented score controls in the branch PER process, considered factors not included in the CFPAS in ranking PERs, as well as evaluated his performance and potential through a comparison with his peers and not on his own merits. He also contended that his performance and potential ratings were not an accurate depiction of his observed performance or his demonstrated potential.
There was no initial authority review of the grievance as the officer who had signed the grievor's PER was directly responsible to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). Therefore, in accordance with article 7.13 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, the grievance was sent to the CDS for final authority review and determination.
The Committee having confirmed that the branch had used score controls concluded that this was in contravention of the CFPAS policy. The Committee therefore recommended that the grievor's PER be re-written to comply with the CFPAS policy in effect at the time.
The Committee also made a systemic recommendation concerning the general use by the branch of score controls in the PER process.
FA Decision Summary
While the FA agreed with the Committee's finding that the use of scoring thresholds by the branch contravened CFPAS policy; he rejected the Committee's recommendation that the grievor's PER be cancelled and rewritten. The FA rejected most of the grievor's contention on the basis that they were not corroborated and stated that “personal declarations by a grievor are not sufficient to warrant changes” to PERs. Of note, the FA noted that a draft PER submitted by the grievor allegedly consisting in the initial version drafted by his supervisor contained higher AF and PF ratings, but refused to consider it as supporting evidence because the grievor did not provide a confirmation of its authenticity by the supervisor, as the FA had requested. The FA also agreed with the Committee that the grievor's performance in his AWSE rank and the award of the CDS Commendation would have a significant relevance, but rejected the Committee's recommendation to include it the PER as the AWSE and the events for which the grievor was awarded the decoration occurred during the previous reporting period. The FA agreed with the Committee's systemic recommendation that the use of unit/formation/group ranking boards to influence PER scoring is a systemic problem amongst the CAF: the FA stated that the CDS has recently addressed the issue in a letter to all Level 1s. He also stated that the CMP staff is working on a new CFPAS and that the CMP was directed to issue specific direction on the issue in advance of the 2016/17 PER season.
- Date modified: