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):||19 February 2012|
|PDF File Size:||5.69 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.77 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I have no idea about the accuracy of the description, but I correct the transcript to read “Master Sergeant. 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 firm Richardson’s protected activities.
Air Force Form A Example Bullets
As the General Counsel notes, Richardson received, with Fallaw’s concurrence, higher ratings for her performance on the military side of her job than those Fallaw gave her on the civilian side in overlapping periods. Fallaw answered that it did not.
The appraisal raters had been the immediate supervisors who assigned and evaluated Richardson’s work.
Department of Agriculture, U. Smith is highly involved proactive member of the units retirement program make certain a detail is covered -Mr. Fallaw cited reports she received from working-level supervisors that they were afraid to put Richardson on jobs that had deadlines.
Longman had also been Richardson’s working-level supervisor during the appraisal year. Harley Wagner, Richardson’s first-line military supervisor and “rater,” and a concurrence, plus additional comments, by Fallaw as the “indorser. On March 27,Msgt.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
Rather than an overall performance rating, the Enlisted Performance Report contains a “Promotion Recommendation. In these cases, the evidence included expressions of hostility toward protected activities, other strongly suggestive circumstances, or both.
She advises the supervisor what she needs 8860a time for and for how long, and completes the standard official time form to account for the time. Fallaw had no further response. 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.
These findings are based on the entire record. Such influence might reflect legitimate managerial considerations, personal bias, or both. Motivation here vorm an ultimate fact that will be 860x later in this decision.
The report has a different format than the civilian side AF Form A.
Richardson asked again whether the “Met” ratings for, some of the “performance elements” were due to her union activities, and Fallaw said again that they were not. Fallaw had been in a supervisory position with respect to Richardson’s civilian position for only the last six months of the appraisal year. The General Counsel has undertaken 860 difficult task of showing that an employee’s performance appraisal ratings were lowered because of her protected activities.
The General Counsel relies heavily but unpersuasively on the timing of the appraisal. Is there, then, circumstantial evidence that would warrant the inference that Fallaw was motivated by Richarson’s protected activity? However, there is insufficient basis for inferring that the ratings were motivated by Richardson’s protected activities. AT-CA, involving the same parties as the instant case. 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.
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 foem insecurity with respect to Richardson.
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.
Richardson asked Fallaw whether this related to her Union position. 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.
Her occupational status within that job title is “aircraft structural repair technician. On November 13,Fallaw, in her capacity as Richardson’s second-level supervisor on the military side, signed off as the “indorser” on an “Enlisted Performance Report” on Richardson’s performance of her duties as a “TSGT” and aircraft stuctural maintenance journeyman G.
AT-CA as mentioned above. Fallaw is also Richardson’s second-level supervisor with respect to her military position. This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions to the attached decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed by the General Counsel.