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.

Author: Tule Yogrel
Country: Malaysia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Sex
Published (Last): 5 February 2018
Pages: 245
PDF File Size: 5.57 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.12 Mb
ISBN: 517-1-26866-836-8
Downloads: 86326
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kaziktilar

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. However, there is insufficient basis for inferring that the ratings were motivated by Richardson’s protected activities. 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.

Civilian Appraisals

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. 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.

Instead of fixed categories of ratings, however, this worksheet calls for the rater 8860a place a mark in the appropriate position on a horizontal line representing the individual’s need for improvement in each of the designated performance areas. Richardson questioned a rating of “Met” rather than “Exceeded” on a noncritical element called “Extra Duties. Smith is a true asset to the unit, providing top notch knowledge, talent, and expertise!

Civilian Appraisals This page started at readers’ request. Richardson performs her Union duties on official from approved by her immediate work supervisor. Richardson and Fallaw met in April to discuss this appraisal.

In these cases, the evidence fodm expressions fomr hostility toward protected activities, other strongly suggestive circumstances, or both. 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 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 is also Richardson’s second-level supervisor with respect to her military position. 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 fform considered a Letterkenny affirmative defense.

His input to Fallaw’s appraisal for that year was not explored at the hearing. Smith has developed a streamlined process for completing shift turn over within his shop firm 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 rorm -Mr.

This was the appraisal immediately preceding the one at issue here.

Air Force Civilian Annual Appraisals

Longman had also been Richardson’s working-level supervisor wf the appraisal year. 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 frm “performance plan.

However, if this is an inconsistency it is not one that suggests an improper motive. Fallaw said just that there was room for improvement.

af form –

I neither credit nor discredit, as such, witnesses’ opinion testimony regarding the motivation behind certain actions. Harley Wagner, Richardson’s first-line military supervisor and “rater,” and a concurrence, plus additional comments, by Fallaw as the “indorser.

At, 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. On April 16,Richardson received her first performance appraisal from Fallaw.


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 Authority, however, treated the case in effect as one in which the General Counsel had not established a prima facie case. A score of is in what corm v56 p ] is designated as the “Low Range,” is “Central Range,” and is “High Range.

The possibility of personal animosity or insecurity is suggested by: Fallaw cited reports she received from working-level supervisors that they were afraid to put Richardson on jobs that had deadlines. Such conduct, as alleged in the complaint, violated sections a 12 and 4 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute the Statute.

Her occupational status within that job title is aaf structural repair technician. However, “[t]he mere fact that. She then proceeded to assign her own numerical scores to the “appraisal factors. 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.

The subcategories in which the marks indicate some, although slight, room for rorm were “Timeliness of Work,” “Support for Organizational Activities,” “Initiative,” and “Communication Skills-Written.

You are here Home U. 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.