# 2021-025 Careers, Personnel Development Review

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-01-25

The grievor argued that two Personnel Development Reviews (PDR) inaccurately reflected her performance and that an Initial Counselling (IC) that she received was not administered in accordance with the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD) 5019-4, Remedial Measures. As redress, she requested that the PDRs be rewritten and that the IC be quashed and removed from her records.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Commanding Officer, found that the PDRs were fair and honest assessments, written within the spirit of the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS). The IA also found that the IC was justified and policy compliant because the grievor's deficiency was established in the PDRs.

In accordance with the CFPAS, the PDR process requires input and feedback between a supervisor and subordinate. The Committee noted that the PDRs contained conflicting evidence and that the grievor was denied the opportunity to participate in the PDR process. Since the grievor did not have any input into the two PDRs, the Committee found that they were not CFPAS compliant. The Committee also noted that both PDRs were over two years old and due to be removed from the grievor's records in accordance with CFPAS policy.

With respect to the IC, the Committee found that it was not justified in accordance with DAOD 5019-4 because it lacked reliable evidence to support the described deficiency. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) grant redress by quashing the IC and removing all references to it from the grievor's file. The Committee also recommended that the FA verify that the PDRs were removed from the grievor's file.

FA decision summary

The FA, the Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, agrees with the Committee's findings and recommendation to afford the grievor redress.