# 2011-088 Careers, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–12–12

The grievor, a member of the Regular Force, was employed in three different assignments during the annual reporting period for his performance evaluation report (PER). During the course of the first three months, an incident occurred which prompted the grievor’s chain of command to assess two of his PER potential factors (PF) as “LOW”, despite the fact that the remaining nine-month period of performance was observed to be more than satisfactory.

When the grievor received his PER for the period, the general narrative comments were positive. However, based on the incident during the first three months of the reported period, the PER did not recommend the grievor for promotion.

The grievor objected to his PER arguing that it was not completed in accordance with the guidelines of the Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System (CFPAS).

The Board noted that the CFPAS policy prescribes that a PER be representative of the entire reporting period and that the quantitative and qualitative assessments must complement each other.

The Board compared the PF ratings to the grievor’s PER narrative and found that the grievor’s PER scoring was essentially based on the incident and was not reflective of the entire reporting period.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff uphold the grievance, that he set aside the PER and that he direct that a new PER be written to account for the entire reporting period.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–02–28

The CDS disagreed with the Committee.