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):||14 May 2016|
|PDF File Size:||16.14 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.28 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
These findings are based on the entire record. 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. Longman had also been Richardson’s working-level supervisor during the appraisal year.
Much the same 860s be said about the appraisal ratings actually in issue here, although there are other circumstances to be considered. 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.
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 8600a performance categories and placed marks near the end of the line for 4 other subcategories.
Air Force Civilian Annual Appraisals
A score of is in what [ v56 p ] is designated as the “Low Range,” is “Central Range,” and is “High Range. Accordingly, I recommend that the Authority issue the following Order. 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.
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.
Similarly, it is not to be presumed that Fallaw consciously “lowered” Richardson’s numerical scores, or that, absent antiunion motivation, her assessment of Richardson’s performance must have remained the same from year to year.
Harley Wagner, Richardson’s first-line military supervisor and “rater,” and a concurrence, plus additional comments, by Fallaw as the “indorser. 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.
Whatever we receive will be posted on this page until we get enough material to start organizing it. Upon consideration of the Judge’s decision, the GC’s exceptions, and the entire record, we adopt the Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommended Order. Richardson’s “Work Productivity” suffered to some extent, according to Fallaw, from her lack of a sense of urgency with respect to some deadlines.
Fallaw testified that Major Daley had no jurisdiction in that matter. Fallaw denied that they were.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
Therefore, that possibility cannot support an affirmative inference. Wagner presented Richardson with a “Performance Feedback Worksheet” containing updated notations, in a different format, on performance categories similar to those covered in the Enlisted Performance Report. However, “[t]he mere fact that.
The final “appraisal factor” on which Richardson’s score dropped in was “Work Management. 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. Respondent’s answer denies that the individual ratings were lowered because of Richardson’s protected activities and that it committed the alleged unfair labor practices.
Richardson has signed several unfair labor practice charges filed by the Union. Fallaw did not recall that such a conversation occurred Tr. This “lowering” of her score is the basis of the complaint in this case. 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.
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.
Civilian Appraisals This page started at readers’ request. 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.
Such influence might reflect legitimate managerial considerations, personal bias, or both.
However, the changes were relatively slight and there were several possible explanations for the scores. A similar relatively low rating in “Communication” was, according to Fallaw, a result of Richardson’s frequent use of 860aa routes or channels” to communicate. The Authority has found a prima facie showing of discrimination where the appraising supervisor, in comments to the appraised employee, connected the employee’s protected activities with the performance that was being evaluated, U.
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 the difficult task of showing that an employee’s performance appraisal ratings were lowered because of her protected activities.