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.
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||17 February 2015|
|PDF File Size:||6.63 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.55 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
On the front side of the sheet are listed nine “Appraisal Factors.
Such influence might reflect legitimate managerial considerations, personal bias, or both. She must maintain her military position in order to retain her civilian job. Smith lead unit in boom nozzle and ice shield fform on ACFT -Always ready to step up to cover short notice and back to back TDY’s -He readily leads others and actively participates in launching, recovering and inspections of aircraft -Mr.
These findings are based on the entire record. Upon consideration of the Judge’s decision, the GC’s exceptions, and the entire record, we adopt forn Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommended Order.
Fallaw had been in a supervisory position with respect to Richardson’s civilian position for only the last six qf of the appraisal year. Those ratings might have been based entirely on Fallaw’s opinion as her new supervisor of Richardson’s performance, or have been colored, consciously or unconsciously, by personal animosity towards Richardson, or by some degree of insecurity with respect to Richardson.
Fallaw denied that they were. Thanks for your contributions.
af form –
I neither credit nor discredit, as such, witnesses’ opinion testimony regarding the motivation behind certain actions. The General Counsel has undertaken the difficult task of showing that an employee’s performance appraisal ratings were lowered because of her protected activities.
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. On cross-examination, over the General Counsel’s objection, counsel elicited from Richardson that she filed 12 “EEO cases. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint. Childers’ recommended appraisal form was not available at the time of the hearing and presumably had been destroyed.
The final “appraisal factor” on which Richardson’s score dropped in was “Work Management. 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 these cases, the evidence included expressions of hostility toward protected activities, other strongly suggestive circumstances, or both. At some point a regulatory change required that the person in Fallaw’s position serve as the rating official although she did not work as closely with Richardson as the immediate working-level supervisors did Tr.
Fallaw responded that it did not. This report covered the period of January 1, to September 30, As stated at the beginning this Decision, the task of proving that an employee’s performance appraisal ratings were lowered because of that employee’s protected activities is a difficult one.
Air Force Civilian Annual Appraisals
Fallaw as the alleged discriminating official or responsible management –” Tr. As the presiding judge in Case No. Richardson provided Fallaw with a copy of her appointment to the negotiating team. Such impressions could also account for Fallaw’s unwillingness to [ v56 p ] give Richardson anything but conclusory explanations for some of the ratings at their appraisal interviews. The subcategories in which the marks indicate some, although slight, room for improvement were “Timeliness of Work,” “Support for Organizational Activities,” “Initiative,” and “Communication Skills-Written.
Richardson’s civilian and military positions require substantially the same skills and functions. The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section a 12 and 4 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute the Statute by lowering an employee’s performance appraisal scores because of the employee’s protected activities.
She asked Fallaw to explain a written comment on the critical element, “Work Habit Discipline,” in which Fallaw stated that Richardson could “exceed in this area” by “[p]rofessional, courteous, and cooperative interaction with all coworkers, sections, and organizations” language that Fallaw quoted from Richardson’s performance plan. However, if this is an inconsistency it is not one that suggests an improper motive. Moreover, there has been no showing that Richardson’s union activities had intensified, or that Fallaw was mentioned more often in the grievances Richardson filed during the period covered by the appraisal at issue than during the previous appraisal period.
Gorm advises the supervisor what she needs the time for and for how long, and completes the standard official time form to account for the time.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
The appraisal raters had been the immediate supervisors who assigned and evaluated Richardson’s work. Richardson and Fallaw met in Av to discuss this appraisal. Whether or not one believes that she justified the scores satisfactorily in her testimony, it was part of the General Counsel’s burden to show that those scores were, at least in part, a response to Richardson’s protected activities.