# 2011-107 Careers, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–12–16

The grievor took issue with various aspects of his 2009/2010 personnel evaluation report (PER). The grievor stated that his performance was greater than reported, that his ratings had dropped in comparison to previous PERs, that he was not provided with a personnel development review (PDR) and that certain details and qualifications were not mentioned. The grievor requested that his chain of command upgrade most of the ratings initially provided.

The initial authority (IA) acknowledged that the grievor was not provided with "formal PDR interviews", but indicated that the grievor had been provided with ample timely verbal and written feedback on his performance by his supervisors during the reporting period. The IA stated that the grievor's substantiation for increased scores failed to convince him that higher scores were warranted.

Before being referred to the Board, an analyst at the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DGCFGA) conducted a very thorough analysis of the grievance, addressing each of the grievor's contentions and setting out all the relevant facts and applicable policies. Apart from some minor corrections at section 3 of the PER, the analyst recommended that the grievance be denied. The analyst also suggested that the narratives should be modified and that the performance assessment factor (AF) 5 - Working with others - be lowered to "developing" as the grievor was issued an initial counselling during the reporting period.

The Board found that the synopsis prepared by the DGCFGA analyst adequately addressed the grievor's concerns and, for the most part, supported the recommendations. On the matter of the absence of a PDR, the Board concurred with the IA's determination and the analyst's conclusion that the grievor was provided with sufficient feedback throughout the year in order to assess and correct his shortcomings. The Board added that the absence of a PDR, in itself, did not justify a modification to the ratings in the PER.

The Board noted that Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5019-4 - Remedial Measures, indicates that the mention of a conduct or performance deficiency in the PER is left to the discretion of the reporting officer. The Board noted that, while the narrative could have been more artfully crafted, there was no substantial disconnect between the current narrative and the scores assigned. Consequently, the Board did not support the recommendation that the narratives be amended.

With the exception of the addition of the grievor's secondary duty at section 3 of the PER, the correction to the list of course titles, and the lowering of AF 5 to "developing", the Board recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–01–18

Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.