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: Nikole Akijar
Country: Mexico
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 10 June 2005
Pages: 335
PDF File Size: 18.45 Mb
ePub File Size: 15.41 Mb
ISBN: 392-6-49435-766-3
Downloads: 8106
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Akinokazahn

Motivation here is an ultimate fact that will be analyzed later in this decision. Richardson then asked her what the comment referred to.

The scores that dropped were:. In my view, the possibility that they were a contributing factor is, at best, no greater than that they were not. 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.

Air Force Form A Example Bullets

Richardson asked again whether the “Met” ratings on some of the “performance elements” were due to her union activities, and Fallaw said again that they were not. Although the scores recommended by Sergeant Longman were generally higher than Fallaw’s, Longman’s recommended score of “7” on Richardson’s “Working Relationships” was lower than any of the others he recommended for her, thus suggesting his concurrence with Fallaw that Richardson had not performed as well in this area as she had in others.

It covered from April 1,to March 31, However, there is insufficient basis for inferring that the ratings were motivated by Richardson’s protected activities. Fallaw is also Richardson’s second-level supervisor with respect to her military position. 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.

This resulted again in an overall rating of “Fully Successful. I neither credit nor discredit, as such, witnesses’ opinion testimony regarding the motivation behind certain actions. For example, an overall rating of Excellent may be achieved if the employee has “Exceeded” in more than half of the critical elements and has at least “Met” the requirements of all the performance elements. Protecting rights and facilitating stable relationships among federal agencies, labor organizations, and employees while advancing an effective and efficient government through the administration of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.


Counsel for the General Counsel and for Respondent filed post-hearing briefs. Fallaw had no further response.

Richardson fprm the same ratings she had received the previous year on each of the “performance elements” and the overall rating of Fully Successful. 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.

Find a listing of all of the FLRA’s current job openings.

Since OctoberGeorgia Fallaw has been Richardson’s 860w supervisor on the civilian side, for performance appraisal purposes. Click here for more information. 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.

Nor does it pass on the fairness of the ratings. 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.

Air Force Civilian Annual Appraisals

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.

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


Whatever we receive will be posted on this page until we get enough material to start organizing it. Department of Agriculture, U. As shop fform for Fabrication Flight, Richardson has the authority to file grievances and to represent employees in those grievances.

Civilian Appraisals

The score of “7” for “Adaptability to Work” was no higher because of some reports to Fallaw of occasions when Richardson had failed to wear the proper clothing or safety equipment in certain areas where they were required. 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 Formm -He readily leads others and actively participates in launching, recovering 860x inspections of aircraft -Mr.

AT-CA as mentioned above. Civilian Appraisals This page started at readers’ request. Fallaw said just that there was room for improvement.

There were no material conflicts in testimony. The record does not reveal whether Richardson had a role with respect to any of the unfair labor practice cases involving Fallaw, but she had zf role in Case No.

The subcategories in which the marks indicate some, foem slight, room for improvement were “Timeliness of Work,” “Support for Organizational Activities,” “Initiative,” and “Communication Skills-Written. As the General Counsel notes, Richardson received, with Fallaw’s concurrence, higher ratings for her performance on the military side of her job than those Fallaw gave her on the civilian side in overlapping periods.

In upholding the Wright Line test, the Supreme Court stated: