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):||18 February 2018|
|PDF File Size:||18.44 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.38 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Thanks for your contributions. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint. It covered from April 1,to March 31, I neither credit nor fkrm, as such, witnesses’ opinion testimony regarding the motivation behind certain actions.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
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. Exceptions and cross-exceptions to that Decision have been filed, and torm case is pending before the Authority.
On cross-examination, over the General Counsel’s objection, counsel elicited from Richardson that she filed 12 “EEO cases. At least two of them, Sergeant Longman, who supervised the work area in which Richardson spent most of her time, and Sergeant Childers, provided Fallaw with recommended appraisals on AF Form A.
Richardson testified that she then asked how she could exceed in those areas and that Fallaw gave her no response Tr. Richardson asked Fallaw whether this related to her Union position.
This was the appraisal immediately preceding the one at issue here.
Air Force Civilian Annual Appraisals
She advises the supervisor what she needs the fkrm for and for how long, and completes the standard official time form to account for the time. Find a listing of all of the FLRA’s current job openings. 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 860aa 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 ag.
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. A similar relatively low rating in “Communication” was, according to Fallaw, a result of Richardson’s frequent use of “improper routes or channels” to communicate.
Motivation here is an ultimate fact that will be analyzed later in this decision. Fallaw had written the following as part of her comment in the space provided for substantiation of the rating:. Longman had also been Richardson’s working-level supervisor during the appraisal year. Neither animus nor a propensity to retaliate can be presumed merely because one fofm not expect Fallaw to have welcomed this honor.
The appraisal form used for employees such as Richardson, AF Form A, contains spaces for two sets of ratings. After Fallaw assumed that position, other supervisors below her in the fkrm of command worked with Richardson on vorm day-to-day basis. Nor does an antiunion explanation cry out for acceptance in these circumstances. The transcript of the hearing identifies Harley as a “massive sergeant” Tr.
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. Richardson then asked her what the comment referred to. Fallaw explained Richardson’s score of “6” on “Working Relationships” the same as in the previous year with the observation that she got along with some people but “had great difficulty getting along with others” and was weak in her sensitivity to fellow workers Tr.
However, the overall rating, despite the General Counsel’s attempt to have it changed as a remedy for the alleged discrimination, is not within the scope of the complaint.
However, the changes were relatively slight and there fofm several possible explanations for the scores. She must maintain her military position in order to retain her civilian job.
Fallaw cited as an example an occasion when Richardson “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. As the presiding judge in Case No. Richardson has signed several unfair labor practice charges filed by the Union.
Wagner for marks at the extreme “needs little or no improvement” end of the lines for 21 performance categories and placed marks near the end of the line for 4 other subcategories.
In these cases, the evidence included expressions of hostility toward protected activities, other flrm suggestive circumstances, or both. The record does not reveal whether Richardson had a role with respect to any of the unfair labor practice cases involving Fallaw, but she had a role in Case No.
Had Fallaw’s explanations for such changes been patently baseless, or had the scores fallen more precipitously than could reasonably be accounted for by these explanations, a stronger case might be made for a “pretext” finding, and no greater showing might have been necessary in order to ac a prima facie case. However, there were no exceptions to the findings quoted above, and I formm it appropriate to take official notice of av for purposes of presenting a more complete picture of the background to the instant case.
On March 27,Msgt. Richardson retained the same ratings she had received the previous year on each of the “performance elements” and the overall rating of Fully Successful. Therefore, that possibility cannot support an affirmative inference. The final “appraisal factor” on which Richardson’s score dropped in was “Work Management.
Fallaw again held an appraisal interview firm Richardson when she gave her the AF Form A for In my view, the possibility that they were a contributing factor is, at best, no greater than that they were not. Her occupational status within that job title is “aircraft structural repair technician.