# 2013-102 - Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–07–31

During the 2011–2012 reporting period, the grievor worked as an Acting Formation Chaplain, a role normally assumed by an officer one rank higher than his substantive rank. As prescribed by the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS), the grievor received a Chaplain Evaluation Report (CER) for that period, which gave him ratings he did not understand and thought were unjustified. The grievor argued that the rating of “Above Average” he received for the Potential Factors (PF) “Communication Skills” and “Organization and Administration” were not aligned with the performance and potential he demonstrated and the feedback he received from his chain of command. As a redress, he sought a rating of “Outstanding” for each PF which would change the promotion recommendation from “Ready” to “Immediate”.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Chaplain General, denied the grievance. The IA did not agree that the two PFs should be raised because, despite the examples provided by the grievor, the IA viewed them as pastoral responsibilities expected of his rank. The IA also pointed out that although the grievor assumed the role of an Acting Formation Chaplain, he did not have all of the supervisory responsibilities assigned to the position. In the IA's view, in spite of the positive support demonstrated by the grievor's military chain of command praising his performance and potential, there was no evidence that warranted raising the scores of the CER.

The Committee had to determine whether the PFs “Communication Skills” and “Organization and Administration” on the grievor's CER for the 2011–2012 reporting period should be raised from “Above Average” to “Outstanding”

The Committee held an oral hearing which provided additional information and evidence concerning the grievance and how the Chaplain Branch operates with regard to CER.

The Committee found that the Chaplain Branch is unique in that it has a dual reporting relationship. Chaplains report to a military chain of command involved in the assessment of their day-to-day performance, and also report to the Chaplain Branch for all responsibilities associated to their Ministry. In addition, the Committee noted another significant difference between the Personnel Evaluation Report (PER) and CER process: the military chain of command for a Chaplain is limited to providing input concerning performance but has no active role when assessing a Chaplain's potential. Therefore, the potential scores are completely within the Chaplain Branch's responsibilities.

Based on the evidence, the Committee found that while the PER and CER process found in the CFPAS are different, the grievor was treated in accordance with policy and did not suffer an injustice. Further the Committee found that, despite the differing views of the grievor's potential, the evidence substantiated a rating of “Above Average” for the two disputed PFs, and not an “Outstanding” rating.

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

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–04–28

The CDS did not agree with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. The CDS was of the view that although some of the professional attributes can only be assessed by the Chaplain Branch, it is nevertheless subject to CFPAS instructions:the Branch can identified its needs and which Chaplain may best meet those needs, but section 5 narrative and scoring should not be tailored to support those decisions. After reviewing the evidence on file, the CDS increased the rating for the grievor's PFs "Communication Skills and "Organization and Administration" to "O": the grievor's CER has been amended accordingly.