AF FORM 860A PDF
June 2, 2020 | by admin
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.
|Country:||Saint Kitts and Nevis|
|Published (Last):||1 July 2007|
|PDF File Size:||14.61 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This was the appraisal immediately preceding the one at issue here. Much the same can be said about the appraisal ratings actually in issue here, although there are other circumstances to be considered. 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.
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. Such impressions could also account for Fallaw’s unwillingness to [ v56 p ] give Richardson anything but conclusory explanations for some of the ratings at their appraisal interviews.
In the instant case, there is no direct evidence of antiunion animus on the part of the appraising supervisor. Nor does an antiunion explanation cry out for acceptance in these circumstances. 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.
AT-CA, involving the same parties as the instant case. 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. Richardson acts as a primary member on the Union’s Memorandum of Agreement negotiating team and participates in other negotiations around the Charleston Air Force Base.
Air Force Civilian Annual Appraisals
On dorm, over the General Counsel’s objection, counsel elicited from Richardson that she filed 12 “EEO cases. However, there is insufficient basis for inferring that the ratings were motivated by Richardson’s protected activities.
Fallaw denied that zf were. The reason is close at hand. Fallaw had written the following as part of her comment in the space provided for substantiation of the rating:. Richardson asked again whether the “Met” ratings on some of the “performance elements” were due to her union activities, and Fallaw 86a0 again ac they were not. However, where there was evidence neither of antiunion animus on the part of the supervisor nor of any relationship between the employee’s protected activity and his allegedly lowered performance appraisal, the Authority found that the evidence failed to establish that the employee was discriminated against because he engaged in protected activity.
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.
Such influence might reflect legitimate managerial considerations, personal bias, or both. 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.
Whatever the reason for these actions, the circumstances do not permit anything more than a suspicion that antiunion considerations were a contributing factor. In ac view, the possibility that they were a contributing factor is, at best, no greater than that they were not. The appraisal form used for employees such as Richardson, AF Form A, contains spaces for two sets of ratings.
Those ratings might have been based entirely on Fallaw’s opinion as her new supervisor of Richardson’s performance, or have been colored, consciously torm unconsciously, by personal animosity towards Richardson, or by some degree of insecurity with respect to Richardson.
How such ratings comport with an overall rating of only “Fully Successful” as measured by the scores on the performance elements remains a mystery to me. Richardson also answered affirmatively to a question about discussing the lowered “appraisal factor” scores with Fallaw Tr. Richardson’s accounts of appraisal interviews with her supervisor, Georgia Fallaw, did not elicit fodm challenge or, with minor exceptions, contradictory testimony, and is credited in substance.
The General Counsel relies heavily but unpersuasively on the timing of the appraisal. This “lowering” of her score is the basis of the complaint in this case. At some point a regulatory change required that the person in Fallaw’s position serve as the rating official although she did not work as closely with Richardson as the immediate working-level supervisors did Tr.
As the General Counsel notes, Richardson torm, with Fallaw’s concurrence, higher ratings for her performance on the military side of her job than zf Fallaw gave her on the civilian side in overlapping periods.
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 to Richardson’s protected activities. Longman’s appraisal, which covered the nine months up to Januarygave Richardson an overall performance rating of “Excellent” based on ratings of “Exceeded” on four of the six critical performance elements, compared to three out of six given by Fallaw.
The Authority is not to substitute its judgment for that of the rater. The subcategories ar which the marks indicate some, although slight, room for improvement were “Timeliness of Work,” “Support for Organizational Activities,” “Initiative,” and “Communication Skills-Written.
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 aff with a similar approach to work required in other areas. This page started at readers’ request.
Neither animus nor a propensity to retaliate can be presumed merely because one does not expect Fa to have welcomed this honor. In preparing to rate Richardson for the period, Fallaw sought the input of the working-level supervisors who had observed Richardson most closely.
Fallaw sought more specific information from both Longman and Childers regarding their recommended appraisals, but received none.
On the front side of the sheet are listed nine “Appraisal Factors. The transcript of the hearing identifies Harley as a “massive sergeant” Tr. Richardson performs her Union duties on official time approved by her immediate work supervisor.
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. The scores that dropped were:. The possibility of personal animosity or insecurity is suggested by: It contains a set of ratings and comments by 860z. 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.
Richardson retained the same ratings she had received the previous year on each of the “performance elements” and the overall rating forj Fully Successful. Between October and November 19, the date of the hearing in this case Fallaw was mentioned in several grievances filed by Richardson and 8660a several unfair labor practice charges filed by the Union.
The fact that the appraisal followed Richardson’s protected activity is insignificant where, as here, the timing of the appraisal was not selected by the supervisor but was built into the system.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
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 leads others and actively participates in launching, recovering and inspections of aircraft -Mr. The report has a different format than the civilian side AF Form A.
This resulted again in an overall rating of “Fully Successful. The record does not reveal what input she received from Richardson’s working level supervisors for that year’s appraisal.
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.