AF FORM 860A PDF
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 January 2010|
|PDF File Size:||6.31 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.7 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Fallaw sought more specific information from both Longman and Childers regarding their recommended appraisals, but received none. Motivation here is an ultimate fact that will be analyzed later in this decision.
Richardson also answered affirmatively to a question about discussing the lowered “appraisal factor” scores with Fallaw Tr. On March 27,Msgt. Smith lead unit in boom nozzle and ice shield rebuild on ACFT -Always ready to step up to cover short notice and back to back TDY’s -He readily forn others and actively participates in launching, recovering and inspections of aircraft -Mr.
Richardson received an overall rating of “Fully Successful. The transcript of the hearing identifies Harley as a “massive sergeant” Tr. Civilian Appraisals This page started at readers’ request. 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.
There were no material conflicts in testimony.
This was the appraisal immediately preceding the one at issue here. Richardson also asked Fallaw, among other things, whether her “Met” ratings on other performance elements were based on her ad activities. Childers’ recommended appraisal form was not available at the time of the hearing and presumably had been destroyed.
However, her testimony that Fallaw answered by saying that a questioned rating was “Met” indicates that the subject of her inquiry was not the numerical scores on the “appraisal factors” but the letter ratings on the “performance elements. However, if this is an inconsistency it is not one that suggests an improper motive. 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 qf required in other areas.
Richardson questioned Fallaw about why was rated “Met” and not “Exceeded” on a critical performance element called “Communications Discipline” G. 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. 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.
You are here Home U. Similarly, a prima facie case was established aaf 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.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
Longman had also been Richardson’s working-level supervisor during the appraisal year. 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. The scores, and Fallaw’s explanations for them, need not withstand the same degree of scrutiny as would be the case if Respondent were required to mount an affirmative defense to the General Counsel’s prima facie case.
In preparing to rate Richardson for the period, Fallaw sought the input of the working-level supervisors who had observed Richardson most closely. She advises the supervisor what she needs the time for and for how long, and completes the standard official time form to account for the time. In upholding the Wright Line test, the Supreme Court stated: Fallaw had written the following as part of her comment in the space provided for substantiation of the rating:.
Richardson retained the same ratings she had received the previous year on each of the “performance elements” and the overall rating of Fully Successful. In the instant case, there is no direct evidence of antiunion animus on the part of the appraising supervisor. Richardson then asked her what the comment referred to.
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. Her military status is that of Technical Sergeant, and her job title is “aircraft structural maintenance journeyman” G. Smith has developed a streamlined process for completing shift turn over within his shop -He created several post deployment financial reimbursements worksheets -Nuclear certified equipment monitor guaranteed Zero Defects in wing weapons safety inspection -He always ready to step up and help other shops get the job done -Constantly a go to technician for hydraulic system information across the maintenance group -Mr.
Fallaw did not recall that such a conversation occurred Tr. The possibility of personal animosity or insecurity is suggested by: Nor does it pass on the fairness of the ratings.
Smith was recognized as Wage grade employee of the year for March ARB -Always ready to step up to cover short notice and back to back TDY’s -He readily leads others and actively participates in launching, recovering and inspections of aircraft -He is a talented asset to the unit, and a go to technician for less knowledgeable members -Mr.
Moreover, there has been no showing that Richardson’s union activities had intensified, or that Fallaw was mentioned more often in the grievances Richardson filed during the period covered by the appraisal at issue than during the previous appraisal period.
af form –
Richardson’s civilian and military positions require substantially the same skills and functions. 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.
His input xf Fallaw’s appraisal for that year was not explored at the hearing. The General Counsel relies heavily but unpersuasively on the timing of the appraisal. I have no idea about the accuracy of the description, but I correct the transcript to read “Master Sergeant.
It contains a set of ratings and comments by Msgt.