Fill Af Form a, download blank or editable online. Sign, fax and printable from PC, iPad, tablet or mobile with PDFfiller ✓ Instantly ✓ No software. Try Now!. CIVILIAN RATING OF RECORD. (Please read Privacy Act Statement on reverse before completing this form.) EMPLOYEE (Last Name, First, Middle Initial). SSN. Examples of Air Force Form A, CIVILIAN RATING OF RECORD, bullets.
|Published (Last):||16 April 2011|
|PDF File Size:||1.45 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.72 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In preparing to rate Richardson for the period, Fallaw sought the input of the working-level supervisors who had observed Richardson most closely. Richardson then asked how she could exceed in that performance element. At some point a regulatory change required that the person in Fallaw’s position serve as the rating official although she did torm work as closely with Richardson as the immediate working-level supervisors did Tr.
Air Force Form A Example Bullets
This resulted again in an overall rating of “Fully Successful. On the reverse side of Form A, space is provided for ratings of “N” Did Not Meet”M” Metor “E” Exceeded for each of the critical and noncritical elements in the appraised employee’s “performance plan. Richardson’s accounts of appraisal interviews with her supervisor, Georgia Fallaw, did not elicit any challenge or, with minor exceptions, contradictory testimony, and is credited in substance. The three “6” scores, the lowest that Fallaw gave to Richardson, included one, in “Working Relationships,” that equaled the score Fallaw had given her the previous year.
af form –
Her occupational status within that job title is “aircraft structural repair technician. Similarly, a prima facie case was established when the supervisor lowered the employee’s scores in every appraisal category from “9” to “5,” shortly after the employee had filed a grievance, where the supervisor expressed chagrin over that filing, and where he testified that the employee’s performance was “great” and had remained the same during the later appraisal period.
How such ratings comport with an overall rating of only “Fully Successful” as measured by the scores on the performance elements remains a mystery to me. On the other hand, although the General Counsel deplores Fallaw’s seeming disregard of the recommended civilian-side scores submitted by Sergeant Longman, Fallaw raised Longman’s recommended rating on critical performance element No.
In my view, the possibility that they were a contributing factor is, at best, no greater than that they were not. Fallaw testified that Major Daley had no jurisdiction in that matter. Such a change is somewhat inconsistent with a plan to retaliate against Richardson, and supports the view that Fallaw called her own shots without any predisposition. As Fallaw cannot be expected to have admitted that she was influenced by personal bias against Richardson that was unrelated to protected activities even if she was and she realized it, her failure to claim that she was does not preclude my assessment of that possibility in determining whether there is a prima facie case.
Harley Wagner, Richardson’s first-line military supervisor and “rater,” and a concurrence, plus additional vorm, by Fallaw as the “indorser. Therefore, that possibility cannot support an affirmative inference.
Richardson received an overall rating of “Fully Successful. Accordingly, I recommend that the Authority issue the following Order. Richardson questioned a rating of “Met” rather than “Exceeded” on a noncritical element called “Extra Duties. Fallaw denied that they 860aa. In that pre- Letterkenny case, the Administrative Law Judge had recommended dismissing the complaint on the basis that, assuming that the General Counsel had established a prima facie case, the respondent had established what would now be considered a Letterkenny affirmative defense.
This was the appraisal immediately preceding the one at issue here. Although the scores recommended by Sergeant Longman were generally higher than Fallaw’s, Longman’s recommended score of fprm on Richardson’s “Working Relationships” was lower than any of the others he recommended for her, thus suggesting his concurrence with Fallaw that Richardson had not performed as well in this area as she had in others.
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions to the attached decision of rorm Administrative Law Judge filed by the General Counsel.
However, her testimony that Fallaw answered by saying that a questioned rating was “Met” indicates that the subject of her inquiry was not the numerical scores on the “appraisal factors” but the letter ratings on the “performance elements.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
The unfair labor practice complaint alleges that employee Sharon Richardson’s supervisor, Georgia Fallaw, lowered the numerical ratings on seven out of nine Manner of Performance Appraisal Factors from the ratings Fallaw had given her the previous year on Richardson’s performance for the period of April 1, to March 31, because Richardson engaged in these activities.
In upholding the Wright Line test, the Supreme Court stated: I have no idea about the accuracy of the description, but I correct the transcript to read “Master Sergeant. What I am saying is that any contributory bias might have included 8600a, the other, both, or neither, and that the evidence that an 86a bias played any role does not preponderate.
In the instant case, there is no direct evidence of antiunion animus on the part of the appraising supervisor. It is insufficient that a number of the grievances that Richardson filed or the unfair labor practice case in which she was a witness involved Fallaw.
Fallaw is also Richardson’s second-level supervisor with respect to her military position. Rather than an overall performance rating, the Enlisted Performance Report contains a “Promotion Recommendation. Richardson questioned Fallaw about why was rated “Met” and not “Exceeded” on a critical performance element called “Communications Discipline” G.
Motivation here is an ultimate fact that will be analyzed later in this decision. As the presiding judge in Case No.
In these cases, the evidence av expressions of hostility toward protected activities, other strongly suggestive circumstances, or both. Fallaw as the alleged discriminating official or responsible management –” Tr.
On the front side of the sheet are listed nine “Appraisal Factors. Wagner placed marks at the extreme “needs little or no improvement” end of the lines for 21 performance categories and placed aff near the end of the line for 4 other subcategories. Richardson also asked Fallaw, among other things, whether her “Met” ratings on other performance elements were based on her union activities.