Probationary Officer Termination Packet with Weak Documentation
A field training sergeant forwards a termination packet for Officer Reyes, a probationary officer in week 10 of a 16-week program. The FTO's daily observation reports rate Reyes 'below standard' on officer safety and report writing but contain no specific examples for the last three weeks; the remediation plan was signed only once. Reyes passed the academy at 88%, is bilingual, and has six years of military police experience. Two other FTOs who rode with Reyes for one shift each rated performance 'acceptable.' The department has seven patrol vacancies and is under a hiring freeze. The FTO, a 19-year veteran, has trained four recruits in 18 months and told the sergeant he is 'done training.' The union contract requires a written remediation plan before probationary termination. The chief wants a recommendation by Friday.
1. Evaluate the termination packet. What are the deficiencies, and what decision do you make?
Read the worked answer
The packet does not meet the contract or good practice. The daily observation reports are conclusory; they do not describe specific behavior, dates, times, or the standard applied. The remediation plan was signed only once, so Reyes was not given a real opportunity to correct the deficiencies. Two other FTOs rated him acceptable on their shifts, which cuts against a termination recommendation. The FTO's own workload - four recruits in 18 months - and his statement that he is 'done training' raise a fairness and burnout issue.
I would not terminate on this record. Termination at week 10 would be vulnerable to a grievance and would look like a decision driven by staffing pressure. I would extend probation if policy allows, assign a different FTO, and require a written remediation plan with measurable objectives and weekly reviews. I would also have the training sergeant audit the FTO's other files to see whether the documentation problem is isolated.
The message to the chief: we can protect the department's standards without making a legally weak decision. If Reyes fails the remediation, the record will support a non-probation recommendation.
2. Design a remediation plan for Officer Reyes with measurable objectives and a timeline.
Read the worked answer
The plan should be specific, measurable, and time-bound. For a 30-day remediation period:
- Officer safety: Reyes must complete three scenario evaluations (felony stop, domestic disturbance, building search) with a written critique; passing is no critical safety error and correct use of cover, communication, and control.
- Report writing: submit 10 reports scored against a department rubric; target 90% on elements, probable cause, and grammar, with re-writes within 24 hours.
- Field performance: new FTO completes daily observation reports with at least two specific behavioral examples per rating, positive and negative.
- Weekly review: 30-minute meeting with the training sergeant, the FTO, and Reyes; written summary and next steps.
- Reyes's input: ask him to self-assess and identify what he needs; adult learning improves with participation.
I would also give the new FTO clear instructions: document behavior, not personality; use the same standards for all recruits; and tell the sergeant immediately if Reyes is unsafe. If Reyes meets the objectives, he continues. If not, the record supports the next step.
3. What do you do about the FTO and the staffing pressure?
Read the worked answer
The FTO is a separate issue. A burned-out FTO can produce unreliable evaluations and can damage a recruit. I would remove him from training duties for now, thank him for his service, and offer a break or a different assignment. I would not publicly blame him; the sergeant should have noticed the load. I would review the FTO program: maximum number of recruits per FTO per year, required calibration, and a process for FTOs to flag problems.
The staffing pressure is real, but it cannot drive the decision. Seven vacancies and a hiring freeze make it tempting to push Reyes through or to fire him quickly. Both are wrong. The standard is whether he can be a safe, competent officer, not whether we are short. I would tell the chief exactly that: a termination without documentation creates a grievance; a pass without remediation creates a liability. The defensible path is a documented remediation plan.