Author Topic: CFPAS (PERs & PDRs), Assesment Process, Honest Assesments, & Unjust Career Advancement (Merged Topic  (Read 401286 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 129,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,175
Really Mike - you sure...

 Please locate mine for the past year ;D


I've seen them (not mine others) and keep wondering where mine have gone...


Of course I for got to mention there are always people that get missed for one reason or another Kev, really no excuse though for missing soldiers especially in the Bn.  Usually it's indicitive of a lack of organization in the sub-unit I think...where in the Bn did you come from again???  ;D  Since I've started writing PDR/PERs, we've religiously ensured that everyone in the Pl/Coy got one, to the point where I have written up soldiers that I've had for only a week or two. 
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,335
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Mike,  True...
 Thought I did not get a PER one year while in Mortars - none of the CPL's did...

Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

gallantcj

  • Guest
Ok everyone, I guess the best way to sum this up is easy, the CFPAS system can tend to be very ineffective when it comes to evaluations at my rank level, I have spent almost 5 years as a Pte, and it kinda ticks one off...the PDR process is useless to be perfectly honest, other than laying out what is "expected" of a person.  You live up to those goals, and nothing happens, well, let's see, I have a very clean record, and have been promised many things, but in accordance with the Canadian Forces Personnel Assaulting System, I am not meeting my "expected" range of performance.  Plain and simple, the program is still at the hands of a supervisor, and if you tick said supervisor off, well, you do the math...and as far as Career Goals go, I have been working my hands to the bone for the last five years, and am nowhere but a dusty circle that I managed to carve up.  I am not sure as to the opinion of others in my rank level, but I would assume that they are in the same boat.  And for any supervisors out there, please don't tell you ppl something that you have no plans of doing!

I dunno, there is my beef!

Offline Sapper6

  • Army Engr
  • Fallen Comrade
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 630
  • Posts: 353
  • DIVE ARMY!
Ok everyone, I guess the best way to sum this up is easy, the CFPAS system can tend to be very ineffective when it comes to evaluations at my rank level, I have spent almost 5 years as a Pte, and it kinda ticks one off...the PDR process is useless to be perfectly honest, other than laying out what is "expected" of a person.   You live up to those goals, and nothing happens, well, let's see, I have a very clean record, and have been promised many things, but in accordance with the Canadian Forces Personnel Assaulting System, I am not meeting my "expected" range of performance.   Plain and simple, the program is still at the hands of a supervisor, and if you tick said supervisor off, well, you do the math...and as far as Career Goals go, I have been working my hands to the bone for the last five years, and am nowhere but a dusty circle that I managed to carve up.   I am not sure as to the opinion of others in my rank level, but I would assume that they are in the same boat.   And for any supervisors out there, please don't tell you ppl something that you have no plans of doing!

I dunno, there is my beef!

I find it hard to understand why you are still a Pte after 5 years?  Most Reg F trades that I know of, the soldier/airman/sailer is automatically promoted to Cpl after 48 months.   Why am I asking this?

Well, as a Cpl you start getting a real PER vice an annual PDR.   I think the system we have, although not perfect, is pretty good.  As a Pte you are considered an apprentice and shouldn't expect to be given leadership tasks; however, as a Cpl you are becoming a journeyman and now the choice is yours - perform and demonstrate leadership = promotion or do the minimum = stay as a Cpl.

Pretty simple.

S6
Sappers lead the way!

gallantcj

  • Guest
Oh, I can make it easy to understand how I am a Pte after 5 years, it's called having a supervisor that is too busy looking out for their next promotion.  I have had many an occasion on PDR interviews in which I have stated my wishes to be promoted, and my wishes to take Career Courses that will lead to my promotion, and on top of that, I work in a Local Cadet Unit religiously, every Monday and Friday, I take part in what little leadership is put in my path and do everything in my power to assist in house with training, as well as having completed all of my OPME's and also attempting to finish my BBA through Distance Education.  It isn't that I haven't been trying, no one's been listening.  And for any RMS Clk's out there, you know what this means, I DON'T EVEN HAVE MY 5's YET!!!  I have asked time and time again, and the answer is always the same, "wait it out, its coming".  I have heard that for the past two and a half years, it's getting annoying.  Anyway, to top that off, the last boss I had let me know that she felt I had excellent potential, and that she would make sure I would be a MCpl by 9 years in, well, for starters, i'm not that gullable, but even at that, it would be an awful pinch on time, seeing as how I only have four frieking years left before then.

My boss doesn't use the CFPAS system properly, and I have done my part in and out of house to ensure that I get promoted, but it doesn't seem to be working, I have had many people ask me when I am getting promoted, and also telling me that I shouldn't be this angy and bitter at my rank level, and it's all too true, but what am I supposed to do, I am the lowest man on the totem pole, and not moving any faster.  Perhaps this is the time for release???

Offline Sapper6

  • Army Engr
  • Fallen Comrade
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 630
  • Posts: 353
  • DIVE ARMY!
PteG82,

I've been in the Reg F for 19 yrs and your story doesn't add up?  ???  After 48 months you are to be promoted automatically to Cpl.

Are you on a medical category?  If so, that could prevent your promotion to Cpl, but even then there is ways around that through the Career Manager.

Hmmmm.  Trying to help you out....

S6
Sappers lead the way!

gallantcj

  • Guest
Sapper6,

I know the story sound real nice and fun, but that is the farthest thing from the truth, despite your 19 years, my five as an RMS Clk have taught me one important lesson, this so called "automatic" promotion, isn't automatic, it has to be started by your supervisor, and recorded on a CF743A, and forwarded through the chain of command for approval, trust me, it is NOT automatic!

I am not on a medical category, and I have recently (Nov 04) passed my CF Expres, this is not a medical thing, or a fitness issue, it is a fight that I have been fighting for the last well, almost five years, (Enrolled May 1st 00), trust me I wish I could say it was medical, but it isn't so.  Either way, I do believe the tree is finally starting to shake at work, but that isn't the point, it's the principle of it all, why did I have to wait this long before something happened, and why do I not have my QL5's yet, these are the questions I have brought to my supervisors to get no satisfactory answer.

My father has 37 years experience in the military, and he had no problem at all moving up the ranks, he's obviously retired now, but still, he has helped me to better understand my situation, a rather disturbing one at that, and many people have had the time to look at the situation, but as soon as they found out who the supervisor was, they all screwed off in the opposite direction.  I am not about to sit around and get walked on for the rest of my career.

Either way, it won't help me to rant on here, I just wanted to put my 2 cents worth into the forum about CFPAS, I don't find it helpful at all at this point in my career, hopefully that opinion improves.

As far as my CM goes, if I was to be brazen enough to contact my CM, i'd be hung and shot, no questions asked, ppl don't ask questions in my Chain of Command, although this APS may change that.

Thanks

PteG

Offline Sapper6

  • Army Engr
  • Fallen Comrade
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 630
  • Posts: 353
  • DIVE ARMY!
PteG,

Well, if you are truthful, then you have been served an injustice.  As an Army officer, I couldn't imagine not having one of my soldier's CF743As staffed up when they were due.

If you immediate supervisor is the problem then my only suggestion is to ask for an appointment with the Pl Comd.  He/she should know who you are anyway so this shouldn't be a stretch.  Failing that, I would recommend you speak to a Snr Cpl who you trust and could advocate your situation to someone that could make a difference.

In the end, you will get your Cpl rank.  Make sure that you are backdated for pay to your 48 month point.

As for your QL 5s, I know that there was a backlog in Borden for the RMS trade... we had the same problem out West with our clerks. 

Bottom line - hang in there and try not and get bitter.  Easy for me to say I know, but I don't think the CF is populated with guys like your supervisor.  There are really a good bunch of people out there.

Sapper 6

Sappers lead the way!

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
I echo Sapper6's advise. If your immediate IC is as bad as you say, then request an audience with the next in the chain. Do you have a Chief Clerk, or a CSM equivalent you could talk to? If, as you say, in your unit people don't ask questions of the chain of command, it sounds to me like it's time that they did.

On the other hand, there may be a good reason why you have not been promoted, one that you have not been counselled on, and which you may not like when it is explained to you. It appears that the CFPAS system is not being applied wherever it is you are working, so I imagine you do not have a clear, factual idea of what the problem is. Be that as it may, you are owed at least a clear explanation of why, and the opportunity to question it.

Sapper6: IMHO (and based on a bit of experience), it is dangerous to say things like:

Quote
In the end, you will get your Cpl rank.

We do not know this, because we do not know for sure what the problem is. IMHO this falls under the heading of the kind of promises that Pte G82 was complaining about in the first place.

The fact is that in the Army we do not promote ourselves. We do not "ask" for promotion. We work for other people, and either we meet their expectations or we don't go very far. We have a right to expect fair and open treatment, and to have the system explained to us, but that is all. Cpl and Capt are not automatic and both can be withheld by the CO for cause.

Cheers

The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline CdnArtyWife

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 341
Quote
Quote from: mseoptrucker on January 21, 2005, 18:14:02
The trouble I have is that I had to go and make my career intentions known. It was suggested to me that my bosses thought I was happy where I was and that the fact that I always worked hard and produced results where ever I was put showed that I didn't want to leave the floor if you will. i find this a cop out .I just believe I was, for want of a better word forgoten .

Directly from the CFPAS Help File:
Quote
Member's Responsibilities
To prepare for the discussion with the supervisor, members are asked to think of their strengths and weaknesses. The member also reviews Section 1 of the PDR Form in preparation for discussing the Critical Tasks and whether he/she has successfully met the Expected Results. In addition, the member completes Section 3 of the PDR Form by writing a list of accomplishments, which includes work-related and extracurricular activities the supervisor may or may not have observed. The member also completes Section 4, Member's Career Goals, by listing any career goals he/she has in terms of jobs, postings, courses, or other aspirations the member is striving for.

So for what it's worth at this point, you are now responsible for letting your supervisors know what your career goals are, short and long term, and this includes aspirations for promotion in my book, even if it isn't mentioned specifically.   In spite of this, I never fail to be amazed at the number of subordinates who will arrive at a PDR session with Section 3 and Section 4 either not filled out or done so poorly they shouldn't have bothered.   If they can't be bothered to put any effort into preparing for a critical element of their personal and professional development, it tells me a lot.

good post garb811, well said.

Mseo-> There is something to be said about taking the "initiative" and making your superiors aware of your career intents. This initiative is usually one of many qualities that they look for in a leader, and from my understanding the rank of Sgt is usually considered a junior leadership position. Therefore there are certain responsibilities that go hand in hand with promotion, not just the pay incentives.

It is good to know that you are finally on track, good luck to you.....
"For do not forget the soldiers that make up this military are solidly built characters hand hewn from everyday Canadian values: grace, integrity, physical and moral courage, and loyalty." ~ Maj Scott Lang

Offline Sapper6

  • Army Engr
  • Fallen Comrade
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 630
  • Posts: 353
  • DIVE ARMY!

Sapper6: IMHO (and based on a bit of experience), it is dangerous to say things like:

We do not know this, because we do not know for sure what the problem is. IMHO this falls under the heading of the kind of promises that Pte G82 was complaining about in the first place.

The fact is that in the Army we do not promote ourselves. We do not "ask" for promotion. We work for other people, and either we meet their expectations or we don't go very far. We have a right to expect fair and open treatment, and to have the system explained to us, but that is all. Cpl and Capt are not automatic and both can be withheld by the CO for cause.

PBI,

         Yes, you are correct.   Although I didn't come right out and ask, perhaps there is a discipline or performance issue that he is not been forthcoming with.   If so, the chain of command (ie. CO) does not need to support the promotion to Cpl.   However, that being said it has been my experience that 'in today's Army' we don't hold back Cpl promotion unless there is something very serious going on.   In fact, poor performance noted on PDRs or told verbally to a Pte have not been supported by Formation HQs for holding back Cpl promotion....in my humble experience.   I personally don't agree with this 'unwritten policy' but precedent has been set unfortunately.

S6
Sappers lead the way!

oneill

  • Guest
A interesting topic, one that dogs all army's.
The British Army has a system that every year there are two reports written on every soldier.
A six monthly assessment and annual confidential report.
Thees detail every thing the soldier has achieved thus far,
Good and bad and ugly.
The six monthly is a performance assessment which lets the recipient know where he needs to improve.
The yearly report goes to the Co if you are due promotion.
at any stage you can question the report but the initiators decision is final.
The soldier then signs the report to say that he has seen it.
end of discussion.

There are usually some grievances but not many.


And don't forget it is a soldiers wright to ***** and moan .

Hope this is of some use.

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
So what's the real difference between the UK system and our PDR/PER system? I don't see any.

Cheers.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

CH1

  • Guest
It sounds like the Brits are using what we used to call the PER/POR system. Have to check it out with a Brit WO buddy. It doen't matter what system is used, it has to be designed to cover the statistical majority (?). Hence the flaws. Never did get a reasonable answer to advancement criteria.

One of the items that is usually missed, when the grapes are running, is personal initiative. We all, at some time pass the buck, for what ever the reason. In my own case, I still look over my shoulder, for what I wanted. The illustrious coat of arms on the sleeve. I still can not figure out how I was really good in trade as a SGT, not good enough for what I wanted, but forced to take a commision.

I also know that I saw potential in some of the people that I did PER's on. I tried my best to encourage them to stretch themselves to attain their goals. Some times they won, some lost, & some made their promotions without rhyme or reason.

Back on point, one controls their destiny, within parameters. When one is passed over, was there a lack of disipline, knowledge, tech skills, attitude, etc? Did they try to determine why they were passed over & take corrective actions instead of IA's like temper(my achilles heel)/attitude. There is also a possibility of overt or subvert personality clash with subordinates/superiors. Most of these are in the candidate's sphere of control. Nepotism is an item that one can not control.

I may stand corrected as most of my time has been spent out of the mainstream, in specialized areas.

Offline HFXCrow

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 751
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!

Any comments (especially from Senior NCM's)
Enjoying the ride and doesn't want to get off

Offline George Wallace

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *
  • 409,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30,894
  • Crewman
So you are instructed to leave the Box listing any 'shortcomings'/'requires improvement' empty? 
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline HFXCrow

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 751
In PDR's yes (section 5b).......in PER's no!

Has anyone else seen the PER phenomenon of only writing nice things about adverse people.
Enjoying the ride and doesn't want to get off

Offline George Wallace

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *
  • 409,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30,894
  • Crewman
Well if they are really bad, there should be comments in the CO's box, which will entail the Bde/Formation/Base Comd to fill in the bottom box.   That screws up a person's career for a minimum of four to five years.   Perhaps, we are a kinder, gentler CF, and our top echelons don't have what it takes to fill in those two boxes, after all, they need to justify what they write.  

From experience, I had a WO and CO screw me over that way.   Follow their statements, with statements from the Bde Comd, who didn't know me from a hole in the ground and.........Although I had a great PER the year before and the same the year after, that one year from them demolished my last four years of service promotion wise.   Both of them, however, had proven how tough they were and got promotions.   One went on to work in the reformation of the Army.   Both lost all credibility.   The things I know.........
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

aesop081

  • Guest
In PDR's yes (section 5b).......in PER's no!

Has anyone else seen the PER phenomenon of only writing nice things about adverse people.

It was that way when i used to write them too.   I think it is now systemic in the CF.   A combination of supervisors not wanting to have adverse effects on a members career and the fear of harassement proceedings have tainted the value of the PER system.   I know we are all told that if what we write can be substatiated and behave ethicaly there will be no problems but i find that in the world of harassement you are "guilty before proven otherwise", supervisors at all levels have chosen the easy way out to avoid unwanted complictations.   That is of course my own opinion only.   This all, IMHO , has ead to a cultur of unwilligness to write negatives in a member's PER.

Offline HFXCrow

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 751
I do not think as a military we give an honest assessments of our people and the bad habits continue as they get promoted.

My point of view, the CF is so scared of hurting anybody's feelings.

The H word is definitely a tactic used by the weak when they have no legitmate cause or moral courage to do what is expected of them.

Enjoying the ride and doesn't want to get off

Offline SHELLDRAKE!!

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 40
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 402
  • BIG GUN GO BOOM
 On two seperate occasions I have written PER's for people that work directly for me and are not seen in any way by the higher ranks in their daily duties. 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."

 So in effect you have an ogroup consisting of senior NCO's and officers that never spend more than 5 minutes a day (during a smoke break) with these soldiers and they determine what the soldiers performance for the year has been. Makes me sick.
"Artillerymen believe the world consists of two types of people; other Artillerymen and targets"-unknown

Offline Allan Luomala

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 637
I think that PDR's/PER's are a huge waste of time, as they have become so generic as to become useless. That and the fact that there are so many misconceptions about what you are "allowed" to write in them. An example of this is that 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.......

The impression that you are not able to comment on someone's physical fitness just because they passed that super-challenging fitness test that is the AFS is beyond agonizing. So just because I attended harassment/diversity/sensitivity training on Apr 1st, I am good to go, and able to be an arsehole/non-diverse/insensitive for the rest of the year??!?! Same thing for the fitness test standing. If a person is a sack of goo, that should be fair game for commenting on, regardless of passing the AFS (which I'm fairly sure my 74 year old mother could do, and I'm certain my mother-in-law, who is 73 and more active than a good chunk of the people I encounter day-to-day (rides her bike, canoes, plays badminton)).

I am actually disappointed when I get an overly flowery assessment, that mentions nothing about my obvious shortcomings. To me, it is a sign that people are either too lazy to write an effective (and honest) assessment, or afraid of the dreaded redress of grievance, and take the safe way out.  I have received a few good ones in the last few years, but generally I know what they are going to say before I sign them (which either indicates I am so in tune with what is right/wrong with me, or that I am cynical and jaded...... perhaps a bit of both).

Another pet-peeve of mine is one minor thing that is done in the period around the reporting period, and lo and behold, it appears on the assesment. I'm sure I could cure cancer at the beginning of the reporting period, but forget to spell-check one of the assessment's that I write, and the whole curing cancer thing is forgotten, but under Communication it would read "Sgt Luomala must ensure that he thoroughly proof-reads all his written communications to his superiors before submitting them." And yes, I try to avoid doing the same thing to my subordinates, but I have to admit it probably has happened (hypocrisy is the greatest luxury).

Personally, I think everyone should have to do a "self-assessment" that is reviewed by their superiors, just to see if the person is right out of 'er. Anything that is put on the assessment wouldn't neccesarily be used against the person, but it's a good indicator of what a person would need to work on (or be recognized for.... though each person has (should have) the opportunity to pass on to the superior any accomplishments, trg, etc), and the good old "action plan" could actually take on some meaning. Maybe this is too radical of an idea, where people would have to actually use critical thinking skills and realize their limitations and pursue self-improvement......

Anyway, in lieu of real battles, the paper battles must be fought......

Al

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • "Look, I don't know if shooting penguins will help the environment or not. But I do know that the decision shouldn't be in the hands of people who just wanna kill for fun."
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 219,792
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,132
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
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.
At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.
-P.J. O’Rouke-


DISCLAIMER - my opinion may cause manginal irritation.

Offline HFXCrow

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 751
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!
Enjoying the ride and doesn't want to get off

Offline MCG

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,255
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.