PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[Fishbone Jones]

I once had a Cpl in the Air Force who spent 60% of her time with the Base band, either practicing or playing. They sent me back her PER 4 times, with suggestions, for me to rewrite. Four times they got it back the same way. They finally wrote it themselves. I kept my original copy of her PER until I got out, in case it was needed. At least I wasn't going to be responsible when an oxygen system she worked on crapped out.

 

[NCRCrow]

My biggest pet peeve is the meeting where they decide what the unit merit listing is, prior to even writing a PER draft.

1.Jones
2.Smith
.
.
26.Bloggins


WTF...Bloggins is always being seen off. Poor SOB!

Communication the one skill on a PER, you will never master!

 

[McG]

I cannot remember the last time I was allowed to write an adverse comment on a PER?   Is the way of the future?   Are we too accommodating/kinder/gentler military?   Is this setting a bad precedent for the next generation of leaders!

Having written many, and edited many more, I believe there is not enough space to write an honest PER (something always gets left out).   However, that is not an excuse to write a narrative that paints a distorted picture.   One of the many things I have fought against is a desire to right justify bullets to achieve a certain score.   I believe each bullet must be scored as honestly as possible, even if it means that the individual ends up with one or two much higher/lower than all the other bullets.   The other thing that I ensure is that the narrative supports the bullet scores (for good or bad), and if the narrative cannot support the scores then it is launched back to the author.   If your leadership is not allowing honest assessments in the PERs, they need to re-evaluate the professionalism in their approach to PERs.

I wrote the PER's with plenty of substantiated evidence and when the PER's were completed, I was told "thats very nice but we had an ogroup and decided this would be the scores for those people."

This past year, we had the supervisors pass the scores they wanted to give up the chain of comd.   These were then compiled into a list that sorted everyone by rank & score.   With few exceptions, these scores did not change (and where the scores did change the supervisors had the opportunity to defend against the increase or decrease).   It still may not be a perfect system, but it was a good balance of reflecting the supervisors' observations while ensuring nobody was scoring their pers more liberally (or tight-fistedly) than anyone else.

some people think that if you write something positive about somebody under "Initiative" that you can't write something in the Areas for Development under "initiative", because it is impossible to have an AoD for something that you had a strength in. Those people should get a "did not meet the required standard" for Intellect and Reasoning.......

Unfortunately, I've seen this too.   Unless you are perfect (and I suspect that none of us are) you can even find room to improve your strengths.   It may also be that while you excel in a certain area within your current rank, you also have room to develop that area to better prepare for the next rank.

 

[Sapper6]

As someone who has some knowledge of career management, I offer the following comments:

Having written many, and edited many more, I believe there is not enough space to write an honest PER (something always gets left out).   However, that is not an excuse to write a narrative that paints a distorted picture.   One of the many things I have fought against is a desire to right justify bullets to achieve a certain score.   I believe each bullet must be scored as honestly as possible, even if it means that the individual ends up with one or two much higher/lower than all the other bullets.   The other thing that I ensure is that the narrative supports the bullet scores (for good or bad), and if the narrative cannot support the scores then it is launched back to the author.   If your leadership is not allowing honest assessments in the PERs, they need to re-evaluate the professionalism in their approach to PERs.

There is no perfect system, plain and simple.  Having seen PERs morph from the 5 page monstrosities to the current one-pagers, it is my opinion that we are refining it in a good way.  The fact remains that eventhough ADM (HR Mil) has reduced the amount of text to be written on an individual, DGMC is still missing approx 5000 PERs from this year.  With a CF population of approx 55K on any given day, I find it abhorrent that certain segments of the CF leadership can live with the fact that approx 10% of their subordinates do not have an annual PER for 04/05.  But I digress.  Of note, DGMC is working on changing the PERs again as it is clear that inflation is becoming more prevalent.  We already know that next year weighting for performance and potential will be switched.

This past year, we had the supervisors pass the scores they wanted to give up the chain of comd.   These were then compiled into a list that sorted everyone by rank & score.   With few exceptions, these scores did not change (and where the scores did change the supervisors had the opportunity to defend against the increase or decrease).   It still may not be a perfect system, but it was a good balance of reflecting the supervisors' observations while ensuring nobody was scoring their pers more liberally (or tight-fistedly) than anyone else.

I agree with this system.  Again, is it perfect? Probably not.  However, what it allows is some control on scores coming out of a unit.  The fact remains that regardless of what your MOSID is or what unit you are in, the bell curve of humanity applies.  In other words, you will more or less have 15% of your people who are 'needing improvement', 70% who are 'skilled/exceeded the standard", and 15% who are 'mastered'.  Of course there will be exceptions, and that is why we don't have score controls sent down from NDHQ.  Finally, having now seen PERs written from across this great country of ours, there is still discrepencies on how people write PERs.  That is why, Career Managers brief COs and RSMs on how their PERs look from a national perspective.  Remember the bell curve?  No one can prove to me that a certain geographic region has all of the best XXXX (insert rank) and therefore should have a disproportionate share of the promotions.  That gentlemen is why the chain of command may have to maneuvre a few dots one way or another.  Gross misrepresentation of a soldier higher/lower is extremely rare, but sometimes you may have to swallow your pride and move the guy's dot one over to the right/left to line up with  a picture that is dictated from higher - which is in the best interest of the Army, Unit and Individual.  Did I say that I haven't seen the perfect appraisal system yet?

Unfortunately, I've seen this too.   Unless you are perfect (and I suspect that none of us are) you can even find room to improve your strengths.   It may also be that while you excel in a certain area within your current rank, you also have room to develop that area to better prepare for the next rank.

Agreed.  It was always my policy of telling the individual what his strengths were and his areas for development prior to him/her looking at the PDR/PER.  People tend to listen more and get less focused on where the dots are.

Finally, it would be nice to say in a utopian world that we don't need the dots/scores and someone should be promoted on the narrative.  Well, I'm here to tell you that is really what happens anyways.  The dots translate to a numerical score that is determined when the PER is scanned into software at DMCARM 2.  The raw scores will determine whether you make the promotion board or not.  However, from first hand  experience, I will tell you that the narrative takes over at that point.  Board members are quite astute and can see through an "inflated" PER when the "dots" don't jive with the narrative.  So, the lesson here is that you must back up all your "Mastered/Outstanding/Immediate" PERs with hard examples.  If you can't fill the narrative box with well written justification....then maybe that guy isn't as good as somebody thinks.

S6 (suffering quietly in an NDHQ job)

 

[Chimo]

Well written Sapper6, I share your pain. Keep up the god fight! 

 

[Armymedic]

My issue is what,other then the Word Picture book, defines what a skilled, Exeeding Standard or Mastered soldier is. That document is generic, and too often in my experience treated as gospel. So bad at my unit, that one officer told me that I had to write one soldier as a ES vs M because they only met one of the three recomendations in the Word Book for a mastered cpl in a particular PER area and therefore did not have the prerequisite number of M vs ES, while the soldier was obviously immediately ready for promotion (and merited to be anyway!?!).

I believe there should be more discussion, like PD sessions, ref the "merit boards" and how to rate your people, and said scale should be understood by all in the chain, and maintained, not changed with each APS.

 

[Sapper6]

Armymedic,

Sadly, the Word Picture Book, which is part of the CFPAS, is the only "official" guide to writing PERs.  However, my experience with combat arms PERs is that they seldom use the Picture Book.

Again, my experience is that the leadership of a particular unit determines who is ready to be promoted immediately through a unit board.  Hopefully, there is discussion and lots of justification to substantiate any supervisor's claim.  Then the PER is written to match the Immediate promotion recommendation.  Usually, a Mastered performance and Outstanding write-up must follows the Immediate promotion recommendation.  Sound a little ass-backward?  It is, but it is the only way to do it consistently across an particular unit.

In your case, there was a disconnect if the soldier was merited as immediate but your officer told you to write him up as ES.  Doesn't make sense.

As far as PD sessions go, it is my experience that the unit Adjt gives a brief to all unit 2ICs who in turn briefs all Tp/Pl WOs on how the PERs will be administered.  With respect to unit merit boards, I would expect to see the unit CO, RSM, All OCs, All SSMs/CSMs and the Adjt.  Sometimes the unit CC acts as secretary up to the point that his rank is discussed. With the normal turnover of leadership positions every 2 yrs, there should be plenty of folks still around from the previous year to speak up if someone is being treated unfairly or if the criteria changes too wildly.

S6.

 

[Gunner98]

Getting an adverse PER through the labyrinth can be a challenge as well, but one sometimes worth fighting for.

The NCM career manager told our Sr NCOs that NCM PER scores were too low last year ( read not competitive). To me that means we did not exaggerate enough, or at least as much as everyone else.

It has only taken a few years for the CFPAS system to become as abused as all of those of the past 20 years.  IMHO there could be more promotion authority given to COs.  If you promoted them you gotta keep them for a couple of years.  You reap what you sow.

Conversely the supervisors including CO are seldom around long enough to have to see the results of the harvest and that is why they must rely on centralized boards. A system where everyone(including an honest broker) reads how you rate your crop.  If the crop turns to crap someone else around the table may be stuck with the crappy harvest for a couple of years.

 

[Armymedic]

The NCM career manager told our Sr NCOs that NCM PER scores were too low last year ( read not competitive). To me that means we did not exaggerate enough, or at least as much as everyone else.

Or your troops are not performing as well as everyone else's...

n your case, there was a disconnect if the soldier was merited as immediate but your officer told you to write him up as ES.  Doesn't make sense.

That was in the performance section...In potential he still had 5/6 Outstanding, and was still promoted. The whole discussion was section by section of the book, with me justifying each section of performance as per the word picture book. I am still confused by the whole episode, as how each section relates the actions of the individual up to personal interpretation.

 

[Gunner98]

Army Medic,

Promotion Recommendations are not based on performance, they are based solely on Potential scores, see excerpt from CFPAS Handbook:

The promotion recommendation indicates the member's overall readiness for promotion to the next rank based on the member's assessed potential. Minimum eligibility requirements/criteria for promotion to the next rank (e.g., time in rank, applicable military qualification) are not factors in assigning a promotion recommendation category. The promotion recommendation is to be made by the reviewing officer.

immediate. Member is considered to have outstanding potential for progression to the next rank as described by the "OUTSTANDING" category in the Potential Rating Scale. A minimum of 4 Outstanding assessments factors, with no low ratings, equates to an Immediate Promotion Recommendation.

ready. Member demonstrates consistently high potential for progression to next rank as described by the "ABOVE AVERAGE" category in the Potential Rating Scale. A minimum of 4 Above Average assessment factors, with no low ratings, equates to a Ready Promotion Recommendation; and

 

[Sapper6]

That was in the performance section...In potential he still had 5/6 Outstanding, and was still promoted. The whole discussion was section by section of the book, with me justifying each section of performance as per the word picture book. I am still confused by the whole episode, as how each section relates the actions of the individual up to personal interpretation.

Armymedic,

Understood.  I am aware that it is possible to have an ES in Performance and an O in Potential, it is rare but that is how the CFPAS was designed.  There was meant to be a separation between Performance and Potential.  For example, the real young up-and-comer who has outstanding potential but hasn't quite Mastered his performance yet, or conversely, the experienced soldier who completely understands his job (Mastered) but doesn't have the qualities to move to the next rank (Normal/Above Average).  Unfortunately, the CFPAS has been abused in my opinion and there seems to be 'bands' of PERs.  There's the M/O/I, the ES/AA/R and then all the rest.

With regards to the Word Picture Book, I agree.  Many of the sections don't relate to specific MOSIDs and that leaves it up to personal interpretation.

S6.

 

[armyvern]

I am aware that it is possible to have an ES in Performance and an O in Potential, it is rare but that is how the CFPAS was designed.   There was meant to be a separation between Performance and Potential.  

I've seen this quite often as a support trade. Lot's of re-musters in, many with exemplary leadership skills gained during years of experience in former hard army MOCs. If newly re-mustered, they can be quite lacking in the performance ratings as they just don't have the background knowledge in their new MOCs to back-up ES or Mastered scores. Yet when it comes to Potential scores, they are very easily justified. Thus the differentiation between the potential and the performance.

 

[ZipperHead]

Either I am right-out-'er, or maybe I haven't dove in to the instruction manual for CFPAS (I am a man, after all  ) enough, but the way I see how the word picture book SHOULD work (we use similar procedures to assess soldiers during field trg) is that if in doubt about how a soldier performed in a certain skill group/set, read the word picture book to see where GENERALLY that soldier fits (ES, M, etc) and then use the word picture book as a GUIDE. I have seen assessments that were written word-for-word using the word picture. I'm hoping that that isn't the way that some people write them (I definitely don't), as that would cause the "cookie-cutter" syndrome, and remove the ability for a soldier's attributes to be covered in a more honest and descriptive way. As it is, the CFPAS is written for office workers, not field soldiers, and it can be difficult to tailor an assesment to suit a soldiers performance while in the field, or more importantly, while deployed.

I don't see why they couldn't create MOC specific assesments or at least seperation in leaders/followers (they do it for Padres, Sr Officers/DND Executives, CWO's etc) that would allow a little more flexibility in assessing somebody in their trade.

There are a few fields that make me cringe everytime I read them: Leading Change, and Ethics and Values. The military is one of many organizations that fear change, and implying that one has to be "leading" change means that you would have to be going against the norms of the institution, or God forbid, turning into a sensitive, diversified, tree-hugging, mindless drone to be "with it". I think, at the lower levels anyways, a more reasonable term would be Accepting/Following Change. As for Ethics and Values, that one makes me want to vomit with rage. How can anybody assess somebody on Ethics and/or Values. If I'm a chronic alcoholic, wife-beating, DUI-ing, DVD-pirating crack-whore, who am I to assess the ethics of someone else. What is ethical to one person may be unethical to unother (abortion, gay marriage, gun possesion, spanking their child, etc). And would promoting a person who is blatantly unethical not be condoning unethical behaviour (I'm sure anybody with more than 6 months in the military has seen this happen.......). I'm not pro-antiethical behaviour: I just don't feel that I am capable of judging others on it (nor am I comfortable in the thought that someone whose ethics and values are contrary to mine could tube me on that account).

There will never be a one-size-fits-all in this regard (witness having the different formats for those that I already mentioned), but I'm sure we could still look at improving the system (see!!! I'm leading change!!!! Alert my "supervisor": another civilian-speak term that I hate).

Al

 

[Armymedic]

Promotion Recommendations are not based on performance, they are based solely on Potential scores, see excerpt from CFPAS Handbook:

Understood.   I am aware that it is possible to have an ES in Performance and an O in Potential, it is rare but that is how the CFPAS was designed.   There was meant to be a separation between Performance and Potential.  

Yes, I developed that understanding after this same example. I had two soldiers in the same yr which fell onto the opposite ends of that Perf vs Potential specrum. Which brings me to my next suggestion for improvement of the system. Potential guidance is a single (no rank, no trade specific) outline per point on PER as to what constitutes L, N, AA, or O. Again up to personal interpretation. If we are to put more wieght to Potential, then I believe there should be more distinct guidance given per trade/rank level, because its not the obvious ones we have trouble with...its always those border line ones which cause me to pull out the last few remaining hair I have.

My complaint is occasionally people take that "guidance" to gospel, and it is my opinion that it doesn't give enough specifics to be used it that way. And now, I am a Sgt, expected to guide a new MCpl in supervising and evaluating our subordinates in accordance with the guidance given in those documents.

 

[Sapper6]

A Luomala,

Agreed.  Whew. Good rant.  Like I said earlier, there is no perfect appraisal system.

Armymedic,

I feel your pain.  I know that DGMC (Career shop in NDHQ) is working on a new CFPAS.  What I don't know is the time-frame for roll-out.  I'll look into this and try and post the answer back here.  Finally, I too hope there is more direction coming down on how we are to write up the Potential box, since it is going to hold more weight for the Sr NCOs and officers next year.

S6.

 

[Gunner98]

Army Medic

Concerning, "Potential guidance is a single (no rank, no trade specific) outline per point on PER as to what constitutes L, N, AA, or O." 

The general idea of potential was to compare a person at their current rank to their potential to meet the expectations of the next rank level.  This means comparing them to the next rank level or more senior supervisor and evaluating the likelihood of them filling those shoes with the current skills, talents and abilities.  The likelihood is reflected in the chart - Section 305 Potential Rating Scale.

The individual expectations for performance were originally to be based on MOC (Rank) Specifications and now MOSID expectations that si what MOSART was all about. (Military Occupational Structure Analysis, Redesign and Tailoring)

I prefer, the British style PER statements whch includes basically writing a story about what you observed such as, "He has the courage of conviction to keep me informed of everything, even the things he knows I would not want to hear."  Or " He is an excellent problem identifier and solver, ensuring the safe execution of his tasks and fulfillment our missions."

 

[ZipperHead]

Gunner98, I completely agree with you on the British style of assessment. I try as much as possible to write assessments like that. The problem is when someone who isn't good at wordology (those with limited education or intellect.... I have read some HORRIBLE assesments, along the lines of: "He done good this year.") tries to write something, it comes out incoherent. Hence, the Word Pictures. Unfortunately people just copy/paste right from the manual, so we end up with generic assessments because people are unwilling/unable to put any thought into writing an assessment.

Face it, nobody said you have to be smart to be in the Army, but some people take that to heart. I cringe thinking about assessments written in about 10 years by the MSN/AIM/techno-nerds/hip-hop generation: "He wuz a kewl leet hax0r this yeer. Woot!!"

Al

 

[Greywolf]

I agree that the current evaluation system is ineffective.  It does not really accurately evaluate someone's performance.  I'm a private (been in for one year, excluding the time for basic training and QL3) and I'm not being arrogant here, but I must say I'm a damn good worker.  My section was understaffed, and on several occasions, I happened to be the only one left in the whole section so I was basically put in charge.  On those occasions, the section ran smoothly with no problems whatsoever...everything was done on time.  On many other occasions, even when there was one or at most 2 others working in the section, I was left with the majority of work.  I'm a supply tech and even though I was the one with the least experience in the section, I was supposed to be in charge of doing up ALL the orders for all the units, processing invoices (All that come through the section), plus picking stock in the warehouse, and several other duties around the compound.  Normally, 2 people would be hard pressed to get everything done.  But I have always managed to clear up the workload within 3 days (i.e. nothing is ever left undone for more than 3 days).  No mistakes either!  All the customers that come through have been satisfied when I was working in the section.  But when it comes time for my evaluation, my supervisor tells me that since I'm a private, the evaluation is supposed to be average.  It can't be "Too good".  It seems to me the evaluation doesn't really assess my performance at all. 

And then what gets me the most was when I applied for commissioning, the OC wrote that she cannot write up a recommendation for me (basically saying "cannot comment" in most of the categories) because I haven't been in long enough and she can't assess my work performance.  Well, did she ask my immediate supervisor, the MCpl about my work performance in the section?  NO.  No phone call, no letter...  Actually my MCpl went and asked if she needed a letter written up on my job performance, she said "No, that's not necessary".  Well, indeed how would she be able to write up a recommendation for me if she doesn't go and find out what kind of work I do? 

Am I pissed?  Yes.  And one wonders why so many people want to leave the military!

 

[armyvern]

I agree that the current evaluation system is ineffective.  
- No mistakes either!  
- All the customers that come through have been satisfied
- It seems to me the evaluation doesn't really assess my performance at all.  
- I applied for commissioning, the OC wrote that she cannot write up a recommendation for me

Well I'm a Sup Tech too. Do you want to come work for me in Gagetown?? I wouldn't recommend you either because that would mean the section would fall apart and fail once you left. Unit would therefore not achieve it's mission goals.
You'd only get a PDR as a Pte. No PERs until you're a Cpl....
I could use you in Clothing Stores....and I guarantee you'll make mistakes and they'll be noted in your "Areas for Improvement." This is not necessarily a bad thing...we learn by our mistakes, and one tends to find when they are willing to accept their mistakes and take responsibility for them, it goes further towards the write-up than not . We improve upon them.  I've yet to meet a single Sup Tech who doesn't. I'm wondering exactly what section you work in? Your job description below tends to lead one to believe you are in the MAIN Whse or in SPSS. I'm also assuming that by mentioning "invoices" you are actually referring to picking slips? I don't seem to recall a single warehouse (including those of us that also worked out in the H110 compound as part of our daily duties) where we actually handled invoices, as that is a customer services/LPO section function, not a warehouse function. I don't think your over in the Maint Coy QM because I guarantee those EME guys and the ET would definately have picked you up for something.

I can't provide any insight into the application for Commissioning as I always thought that we could not apply for one. I thought you must be recommended by the Chain of Command for a Commissioning if they observed outstanding performance and potential and if they also observed "Officer-like qualities." Kincanuks could probably address this issue best with correct information, whatever it is.  ???

 

[ZipperHead]

I have to make an observation here on what Greywolf said: why is it that Pte's can't have a PER written on them? Is it because we ASSUME that they won't display any of the attributes that we would like to see. Is it that we don't EXPECT them to, because they are only a Private? When they hit Corporal, bang!, a switch is tripped and they are now good to go!! Pretty simplistic, if you ask me.

I also noticed that Greywolf is 29. That would lead me to believe that they had somewhat of a life before the army. A "real" job probably. A family, no doubt. Having to manage themselves, and maybe a few dependents. This is where the system has to recognize that not everyone goes from high-school to recruit-school, or from momma's apron to the Sgt-Major's. Having said that, older recruits have to understand that the "system" is designed for less mature personnel, with the expectation that an 18 yr old Pte is going to perform differently than a 28, or 38, or 48 yr old Private. I have heard a soldier who joined at 33 say that after 3 years in (the military) that they should be a MCpl, because they are older than some of the MCpl's in the Regt. Uh, not quite.

I recall a time that when I was a Trooper (Pte), there were a few of us (Tpr's) running Admin Troop, as all the leadership were gone on course. We basically took turns doing what we had to do, and the work got done. Nothing burned down. We didn't get any glorious write-ups out of that, but we were recognized down the road (the majority of us got our leadership trg ahead  of the pack). Everyone is expected to perform at the next rank level (Pte -> Cpl, Lt-> Capt, etc), so it isn't uncommon, particularly now that there is a "boom" in recruiting, and an increase in the releases, for people to perform 2 ranks higher. I was a MCpl acting as a Tp WO, and luckily because it was for over 6 months, I was "creditted" with it on my employment history on my PER, but once I hit Sgt, I was at the bottom of the pile, as though I had never been acting Tp WO. C'est la vie. I was recently a Tp Sgt, and through releases/postings/etc I went to Tp WO/Tp Leader for about 3 months. No write up, no thanks for coming out. It is referred to as doing your job.

The moral of my story: maybe we should, as an organization, have a higher expectation of what a Pte is capable of, and write them up where applicable (in certain cases), and go against the way things have been done for time immemorial. Or leave it the way it is, and ensure that Privates (especially the older, more mature Private's that have joined in recent history) know what their place is (be a good Private: be seen (working hard), and not heard (bitching about what they think things should be like). I don't know if the system needs to be changed, or people need to change their expectations.

I'm not ragging on you Greywolf: you bring up a good point. I have seen it with some of the soldiers that I have had working for me who joined a little later in life. They don't want to be lumped in with all the teen-agers, and they actually want to be challenged in their work, not just being a "good Private" and doing no less than they are expected, nor more. It fairly sucks having to write up a hard working keen Tpr as less than a pooch-screwing lazy-a$$ Cpl, just because of seniority. But with the write right-up (and behind the scenes work) a keen young Private can (and should) be recognized. It worked for me (just never mind the next 14 years, as they are an example of what NOT to do with your career  )

And, just to bring a little more rain onto the parade, I suspect that the reason that Private's don't get a PER, is due to the paperwork/staffing it would entail. Maybe that's reason enough, as the unit AO (Admin Officer) is usually the busiest person in NATO for the 3-4 month PER blitz.

I probably didn't give an answer (I think I confused myself somewhat) but if you look deep inside, there may be something to be learned. Or it's the APS (aluminum pot syndrome) convincing me I came up with a pearl of wisdom (the Sr NCO curse).

Al