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):||25 March 2018|
|PDF File Size:||20.33 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.25 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Ofrm 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.
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.
Neither animus nor a propensity to flrm can be presumed merely because one does not expect Fallaw to have welcomed this honor. Accordingly, I recommend that the Authority issue the following Order. However, the changes were relatively slight and there were several possible explanations for the scores. Richardson questioned Fallaw about why was rated “Met” and not “Exceeded” on a critical performance element called “Communications Discipline” G.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
Nor does it pass on the fairness of the ratings. The record does not reveal what input she received from Richardson’s working level supervisors for that year’s appraisal. However, “[t]he mere fact that. Thus, even if the scores are not fully supportable, and even if Fallaw’s unhelpfulness at the April interview in response to Richardson’s requests for elucidation is reprehensible, we are left with more than one alternative explanation.
Air Force Form A Example Bullets
Richardson’s “Work Productivity” suffered to some extent, according to Fallaw, from her lack of a sense of urgency with respect to some deadlines. Wagner placed marks at the extreme “needs little or no improvement” end of the lines for 21 performance categories and placed dorm near the end of the line for 4 other subcategories.
In her appraisal for the April March period, Fprm gave Richardson exactly the same ratings as in the previous year with respect to each of the critical and noncritical performance elements.
A score of is in what [ v56 p ] is designated as the “Low Range,” is “Central Range,” and is “High Range. Fallaw answered that Richardson “would go outside of my chain of command and not use my chain of command,” but gave Richardson no examples of that conduct Tr. The Authority is not to substitute its judgment for that of the rater.
Fallaw explained Richardson’s score of “6” on “Working Relationships” the same as in the previous year with the observation that she got along a some people but “had great difficulty getting along with others” and was weak in her sensitivity to fellow workers Tr. Richardson received an overall rating of “Fully Successful.
Her occupational status within that job title is “aircraft structural repair technician. Exceptions and cross-exceptions to that Decision have been filed, and the case is pending before the Authority.
Fallaw did not recall that such a conversation occurred Tr. Richardson provided Fallaw with a copy of her appointment to the negotiating team.
Richardson asked again whether the “Met” ratings on some of the “performance elements” were for, to her union activities, and Fallaw said again that they were not. Since OctoberGeorgia Fallaw has been Richardson’s first-line supervisor on the civilian side, for performance appraisal purposes. In preparing to rate Richardson for the period, Fallaw sought the input of the working-level supervisors who had observed Richardson most closely. However, her testimony that Fallaw answered by saying that a questioned rating was “Met” indicates that the subject of her inquiry was fomr the numerical scores on the “appraisal factors” but the letter ratings on the “performance elements.
Fallaw as the alleged discriminating official or responsible management –” Tr. Childers’ recommended appraisal form was not available av the time of the hearing and presumably had been destroyed. This was the appraisal immediately preceding the one at issue here. The scores that dropped were:.
What I am saying is that any contributory bias might have included one, the other, both, or neither, and that the evidence that an antiunion-based bias played any role does not preponderate.
These findings are based on the entire record.
She advises the supervisor what she needs the time for and for how long, and completes the standard official time form to account for for time. Smith lead unit in boom nozzle and ice shield rebuild on ACFT -Always ready to step up to cover short notice and fotm to back TDY’s -He readily leads others and actively participates in launching, recovering and inspections of aircraft -Mr. However, if this is an inconsistency it is not one that suggests an improper motive.
Department of Agriculture, U. In the General Counsel’s view, one must consider Fallaw’s appraisal of Richardson for the most recent previous period, April Marchas evidence of her unlawful motivation because it was then that Richardson’s overall rating dropped from “Excellent” to “Fully Successful” and dropped below “8,” for 86a first time in two years, on any individual appraisal factors. Richardson then asked her what the comment referred to.
Fallaw answered that it did not.
Thanks for your contributions. 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. Civilian Appraisals This page started at readers’ request. Fallaw cited as an example an occasion when For, “tossed” a sheet of paper on Fallaw’s desk, and, when Fallaw asked her what it was about, Richardson “directed” Fallaw to send her for some advanced training and to see Major Daley about it.
Between October and November 19, the date of the hearing in this case Fallaw was mentioned in several grievances filed by Richardson and in several unfair labor practice charges filed by the Union.
On March 27,Msgt. The appraisal form used for employees such as Richardson, AF Form A, aff spaces for two sets of ratings. In the two years preceding her first appraisal from Fallaw, Richardson had received overall performance ratings of Excellent and no numerical scores on the appraisal factors below 8.