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):||21 February 2008|
|PDF File Size:||11.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.9 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
As the presiding judge in Case No. Therefore, that possibility cannot support an affirmative inference. As Fallaw cannot be expected to have admitted that she was fprm 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.
Air Force Civilian Annual Appraisals
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.
Rather than an overall performance rating, the Enlisted Performance Report contains a “Promotion Recommendation. On the reverse side of Form A, space is provided for ratings of “N” Did Not Meet”M” Metor “E” Exceeded for each of the critical and noncritical elements in the appraised employee’s “performance plan. 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.
Fallaw said just that there was 806a for improvement. 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.
However, there is insufficient basis for inferring that the ratings were motivated by Richardson’s protected activities. If the scores were colored by any bias, it appears to me at least as likely that such bias arose from personal considerations as that it arose from antiunion motivation.
The fact that the appraisal followed Richardson’s protected activity is insignificant where, as here, the timing of frm appraisal was not selected by the supervisor but was built into the system.
On April 26,Fallaw gave Richardson her annual appraisal for the year ending March 31, I neither credit nor discredit, as such, witnesses’ opinion testimony regarding the motivation behind certain actions. Fallaw cited reports she received from working-level supervisors that they were afraid to put Richardson on jobs that had deadlines.
Richardson’s civilian and military positions require substantially the same skills and functions. Had Fallaw’s explanations for such changes been patently baseless, or frm 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 establish a prima facie case. Counsel for the General Counsel and for Respondent filed post-hearing briefs.
Richardson retained the same ratings she had received the previous year on each of the “performance elements” and the overall rating of Fully Successful.
Air Force Form A Example Bullets
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.
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. 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. Since OctoberGeorgia Fallaw has been Richardson’s first-line supervisor on the civilian side, for performance appraisal purposes.
However, if this is an inconsistency it is not one that suggests an improper motive. 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.
Robins55 FLRA at “[H]ad a prima facie showing of discrimination been established, a more thorough evaluation and analysis of Respondent’s affirmative defenses would have been necessary.
This was the appraisal immediately preceding the one at issue here. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint. Thanks for your contributions. Richardson then asked how she could exceed in that performance element. This report covered the period of January 1, to September 30, Richardson provided Fallaw with a copy of her appointment to the negotiating team. Whatever we receive will be posted on this page until we get enough material to start organizing it.
Richardson questioned Fallaw about why was rated “Met” and not “Exceeded” on a critical performance element called “Communications Discipline” G.
Although the probability that these filings were other than protected activity seems remote, the General Counsel has not urged any reliance on this activity and the record provides insufficient basis to find that this actually was protected activity.
The Authority, however, treated the case in effect as one in which the General Counsel had not established a prima facie case. Her military status is that of Technical Sergeant, and her job title xf “aircraft structural maintenance journeyman” G. Find a listing of all of the FLRA’s current job openings.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
The record does ad reveal what input she received from Richardson’s working level supervisors for that year’s appraisal. Fallaw had no further response. 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.
Such influence a reflect legitimate managerial considerations, personal bias, or both. In upholding the Wright Line test, the Supreme Court stated: A score of is in what [ v56 p ] is designated as the “Low Range,” is “Central Range,” and is “High Range.
Whether or not one believes that she justified the scores satisfactorily in her testimony, it rorm part of the General Counsel’s burden to show that those scores were, at least in part, a response to Richardson’s protected activities.
In her appraisal for the April March period, Fallaw gave Richardson exactly the same ratings as in the previous year with respect to each of the critical and noncritical performance elements.
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. In my view, the possibility that they were a contributing factor is, at best, no greater than that they were not. Richardson’s “Self-Sufficiency,” where she again dropped from “8” to “7,” was limited by a perceived failure to match the enthusiasm and initiative she demonstrated while working in the “composite area” with a similar approach to work required in other areas.
It contains a set of ratings and comments by Msgt. It covered from April 1,to March 31, Richardson and Fallaw met in April to discuss this appraisal.
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. Richardson also answered affirmatively to a question about discussing the lowered “appraisal factor” scores with Fallaw Tr.