Author Topic: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]  (Read 771682 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • 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-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 259,782
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,959
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1475 on: May 24, 2018, 21:25:45 »
Oh man, I just saw this again. ;D

60 pages going back to 2003!!  :o

I'm so glad they're making it easier  ;)

I'm also glad I'm retired.  :whistle:
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline Simian Turner

    is a veteran who enjoys oddities!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 46,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,550
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1476 on: May 26, 2018, 22:12:19 »
If a member is injured while participating in the FORCE Test, and is unable to complete the test afterwords due to TCAT, what should there PER say for the fitness test portion?

I feel it falls under the Not Tested category as the member was unable to complete the test to things out of his control.

From CFPAS - Not Tested: A person was not tested for any reason with the exception of a medical category that covered the entire reporting period. Comment must be made in the narrative.

Not Tested Bullet, then use part of one of the precious 9 lines of the performance text to state that "an injury occurred during Force Test prevented completion during reporting period".
The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline HULK_011

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 289
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1477 on: May 27, 2018, 07:16:28 »
Not Tested Bullet, then use part of one of the precious 9 lines of the performance text to state that "an injury occurred during Force Test prevented completion during reporting period".

Thanks for the reply. It took a lot of digging, but we finally found the same answer. It's just unfortunate that the people who are supposed to know never seem to know, and give the wrong advice.

In this instance, went out of their way to change a members PT result from Not Tested to Failed.

Offline Simian Turner

    is a veteran who enjoys oddities!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 46,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,550
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1478 on: May 27, 2018, 13:42:53 »
If I were the member in this case I would be more content with a Not Tested and an explanation than a Failed with no explanation, if the injury was beyond my control.
The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 14,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 554
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1479 on: May 27, 2018, 15:49:27 »
With the extra room in the box, it'd be nice if the 'not tested' lines didn't count as part narrative.  It'd be easy enough to drop a hard return after and put in the mandatory bit to explain that they were injured.  Maybe that would be a helpful suggestion to send into the good idea fairies?  Would be an easy and minor change that wouldn't hurt anyone else, and actually apply a bit of common sense to the PER process.

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 896,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,636
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1480 on: May 27, 2018, 17:10:43 »
Pretty sure this is the last year, or one of the last years for the PER in its current form. All the RUMINT I've heard is that narratives will be completely gone, so unless there's more options for PT than currently listed, you won't be able to explain why the member wasn't tested.

Offline Mediman14

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 116
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1481 on: June 04, 2018, 16:36:14 »
Here I go again!!!
   Every year for the last 4 years, my PER had been written by a officer who has never did any PER's. I have requested to meet common ground 3 out of the 4 years, and have gotten what I deserved with some compromising involved. It gets very frustrating having to face this over and over again!
  I have been delegated on three separate occasions as A/CSM for a total of 1 month, received emails stating - "Good Job, etc". Somehow, those never make it on my PER. When asked, The response I got " I didn't think it mattered because you are not an CSM". One would think, this would be great under section 5 (Potential).

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 197,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,052
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1482 on: June 04, 2018, 18:43:01 »
I think it should be included.

504. Section 3 - Details of Employment/New Qualifications

1.  Official Appointments/Duties. List the primary duties assigned to and performed by the person throughout the reporting period.   Primary duties assigned while away from the parent unit must be included. Abbreviations and job titles may be used. Duration for particular duties may be noted by parenthesizing the number of months (e.g. (3))

506. Section 5 - Potential

1.  General.  ....Potential assessments are ratings of the individual's ability to perform at the next rank level. Reviewing officers must use the potential factors and rating scale in Section 5 when evaluating the subordinate's potential. A description of the potential factors (PFs) and rating scale is contained in annex B of this chapter. Where possible, these evaluations should be based on observations made of the person when performing tasks or jobs normally performed at the next rank.

 :2c:
Pilot, RADAR...turn right, heading...3-6-5...

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 78,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,699
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1483 on: June 04, 2018, 23:29:31 »
An acring position (as in when your boss is away, you fill in for him) doesn't belong to section 3, but certainly does in Section 5.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 408,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,636
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1484 on: June 04, 2018, 23:34:30 »
An acring position (as in when your boss is away, you fill in for him) doesn't belong to section 3, but certainly does in Section 5.

Depends.  If you backfill for your boss for several months, it should be in part 3 as well, so the members of the board can say "Whoa, this dudette or dude was working at what would normally be the next rank level"; with the 9 line limit, sometimes details like that can get lost in from the narrative.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,219
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,846
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1485 on: June 05, 2018, 10:30:13 »
It can go in section 3, and again in either 4 or 5 (and potentially in 4 AND 5). Basically, if he just did it once, it should go in section 4, but if it is something he is regularly relied upon to do, it can go in section 5. I mean, really you can argue it either way, it's just in how you word it.

Section 3:
Platoon 2ic (10), A/CSM (2)

Seciton 4:
"Performed duties of A/CSM in their absence; adeptly manged numerous complex disciplinary issues."

Section 5:
"Performs often as A/CSM in their absence, providing Command with regular SITREPS on coy personnel; Command is well informed of the status of the coy, and is able to accurately plan and coordinate unit trg and exercises. "

Or something like that.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Mediman14

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 116
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1486 on: June 05, 2018, 12:14:01 »
A/CSM on three separate occasions, for a total of close to 1 month. That is two ranks above what I currently am, but yet I am developing. Four years in rank.

Offline Big Spoon

  • New Member
  • **
  • 2,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1487 on: June 05, 2018, 12:16:48 »
It can go in section 3, and again in either 4 or 5 (and potentially in 4 AND 5). Basically, if he just did it once, it should go in section 4, but if it is something he is regularly relied upon to do, it can go in section 5. I mean, really you can argue it either way, it's just in how you word it.

Section 3:
Platoon 2ic (10), A/CSM (2)

Seciton 4:
"Performed duties of A/CSM in their absence; adeptly manged numerous complex disciplinary issues."

Section 5:
"Performs often as A/CSM in their absence, providing Command with regular SITREPS on coy personnel; Command is well informed of the status of the coy, and is able to accurately plan and coordinate unit trg and exercises. "

Or something like that.


I read that as ineptly managed, which describes many people.

 ;D
+40

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 6,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 631
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1488 on: June 06, 2018, 19:38:01 »
Here I go again!!!
   Every year for the last 4 years, my PER had been written by a officer who has never did any PER's. I have requested to meet common ground 3 out of the 4 years, and have gotten what I deserved with some compromising involved. It gets very frustrating having to face this over and over again!
  I have been delegated on three separate occasions as A/CSM for a total of 1 month, received emails stating - "Good Job, etc". Somehow, those never make it on my PER. When asked, The response I got " I didn't think it mattered because you are not an CSM". One would think, this would be great under section 5 (Potential).

Hey, my potential went down despite being in my third year of an A/ job and being selected for promotion off last year's Per. Somehow my potential is less this year than last year. I have yet to see any changes that positively affect the member vice the people writing it.

Offline Mediman14

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 116
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1489 on: June 14, 2018, 19:33:18 »
 I witness today a Nursing Officer telling a Cpl that her MH illness was a negative point in her PER. Because the Cpl did not tell the officer her MH struggles, it showed a flaw in her character. I was pissed at the officer and waited till the Cpl had left before I strongly expressed my thought on that approach. Turns out that I was also wrong, at least according to a Nursing Officer.
   Imagine, this is suppose to be a Medical Professional. I can't imagine what the NO thinks about other severely injured MH Mbrs.

Offline Mediman14

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 116
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1490 on: June 14, 2018, 19:57:33 »
I should also add to my last, receiving a good job by an email for doing a task is apparently not the same thing as a Bravo Zulu (BZ). According to the English dictionary it is the same, only one is more formal than the other.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,219
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,846
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1491 on: June 15, 2018, 08:16:52 »
If found that we hire NOs and MOs for their technical/medical skill, and not for their leadership skill. I can't believe the lack of basic management, administration and leadership accumen I've seen from medical det commanders.

I've literally had to quote to them their own medical leave policy to prove to them they were wrong about how much sick leave they could grant.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,133
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1492 on: June 15, 2018, 08:49:06 »
I witness today a Nursing Officer telling a Cpl that her MH illness was a negative point in her PER. Because the Cpl did not tell the officer her MH struggles, it showed a flaw in her character. I was pissed at the officer and waited till the Cpl had left before I strongly expressed my thought on that approach. Turns out that I was also wrong, at least according to a Nursing Officer.
   Imagine, this is suppose to be a Medical Professional. I can't imagine what the NO thinks about other severely injured MH Mbrs.
If the NO is the members chain of command, which it reads like the NO is since the NO didn’t have access to her medical file to access that info directly, the NO has no more right to that information than I would as a non-MH supervisor. Your medical category or MELs also cannot be used in that manner to directly justify a lower score on a PER simply because the supervisor wasn’t told the specifics of the medical problem.

The Cpl should request a meeting with her next level in the CoC in a further attempt at informal resolution and specifically address that being brought up.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,351
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1493 on: June 15, 2018, 08:54:30 »
If found that we hire NOs and MOs for their technical/medical skill, and not for their leadership skill. I can't believe the lack of basic management, administration and leadership accumen I've seen from medical det commanders.

I've literally had to quote to them their own medical leave policy to prove to them they were wrong about how much sick leave they could grant.

Lumber: This is not limited to the military. Civilian doctors and most nurses are totally useless at basic management or administration ... and don't even get me started on their leadership.

I should know: Two doctors in my immediate family.  ;D

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 154,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,924
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1494 on: June 15, 2018, 09:03:36 »
Lumber: This is not limited to the military. Civilian doctors and most nurses are totally useless at basic management or administration ... and don't even get me started on their leadership.

I should know: Two doctors in my immediate family.  ;D

The world, generally, needs platoon warrants. In pretty much any enterprise or profession, you need some cranky, snarly people who've seen and dealt with way too much stupid BS and who have developed an innate ability to simply be effective and take care of stuff. Who can tactfully but firmly deal with superiors, and who can inspire, motivate, discipline, break down, mentor, and build up subordinates without breaking stride.

I think part of the problem is that in the CAF must necessarily use rank for pay grades, and consequently assigns further leadership / managerial tasks to people who wear a rank simply out of necessity to pay them equitably.
+100
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,351
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1495 on: June 15, 2018, 09:26:08 »
I fully agree, Brihard.

Perhaps you remember the days when Padres, while wearing an officer cut uniform and belonging to the officer's mess, did not wear any rank on their uniforms, and worked on the principle that they "assumed" the rank of whomever they were talking to - so they would never be senior or subordinate to anyone in their "flock", so to speak.

So here's an interesting question. Is there any real requirement, in the CAF, for the NO or MO to actually hold a rank, other than being considered officers? I mean, if we are not going to train them properly or expect them to assume leadership, then does specific rank really matter or could we give them a separate pay scale (which they already have anyway) without tying it to a rank structure?

I don't know the answer, I am just musing here.

Offline Mediman14

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 116
Re: CFPAS – All things PER, PDR, software ect… [MERGED]
« Reply #1496 on: June 17, 2018, 09:12:11 »
I have to agree that there is no leadership training given to NO's and MO's, however, with many things the CAF get wrong, I don't how the CAF can expect leadership coming with a person who has degree. A degree doesn't make you into a leader.
 I have worked with some awesome NO's and MO's who are great at their jobs but what makes them great is that they listen to those who experience such as Warrant or Sgt. Then you have those who "show" or pretend to listen but really don't, the automatic attitude of I'm a officer therefore I am better and know better than you. That is what I refer to as because you have a degree, it doesn't make you a leader.

 There is a place in the CAF for NO's, only in the medical aspect with regards to patient care. Otherwise the rest of the military administration should be left to others.

Given all that, is the CAF setting up some of our officers for failure? Where is the accountability? What is Accountability?



« Last Edit: June 17, 2018, 09:38:04 by Mediman14 »