Efforts To Halt The
Obstruction of Review
May 1981 to Present

Petition for Enforcement by EEOC
Ask OCI To Resume the Investigation
Complaint Seeking Review Process
Ask EEOC-Detroit To Forward for Review

Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036

        17 April 2000
Leroy J. Pletten,


John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the Army,



This is a petition for enforcement. I am an employee of the Agency. It agreed to have my case heard "by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in an upcoming hearing . . . ." (Enclosure 1, Part II.A, page 2, top). Notwithstanding much follow-up action on my part, in every conceivable forum to get review to occur as 29 CFR § 1613 (now 1614) and Agency rules provide and as others receive, the Agency refuses this. Hearings are routinely scheduled before Administrative Judges for others. The agency has a pattern of violating subject matter laws and rules, and knows it will lose on review. That is why it is refusing to do as agreed. As the agency's promise of review is in writing, and I rely on it to my detriment, it is estopped from arguing to the contrary.

WHEREFORE, please enforce. Direct that the "hearing" be "upcoming" forthwith. Alternatively, order resumption of the Investigation. Alternatively, as the time limit for the agency to be allowed to file input long ago expired, please enter a default decision in my favor, stating that all my allegations are sustained, and all relief sought is hereby granted.

       Leroy J. Pletten       
Leroy J. Pletten

Enclosure: Agency Action for EEOC Hearing

          (Enforcement of Which Is Sought)

8401 18 Mile Road #29
Sterling Heights MI 48313-3042

17 April 2000

Rick Lux, Director
Office of Complaint Investigation-Dayton
2656 San Antonio Avenue
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5650

Dear Director:

I am an employee of the Department of Army, Tank-Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan. Your investigative predecessor, USACARA, was in process of investigating my EEO Complaints (merits irrelevant for purposes of this letter, but suffice to say, the underlying violations involved TACOM actively and repetitively violating state and federal criminal and civil laws and federal and agency regulations, including drug smuggling, violations still continuing, and re which my supervisor Jeremiah Kator supported my actions concerning, actions specified by agency regulation).

Your predecessor USACARA had already ruled in my favor (January 1980) and was about to do so again. The Agency had defied the January 1980 USACARA Report, notwithstanding agency regulation and a precedent mandating compliance, Spann v Army and McKenna, 615 F2d 137 (1980). (EEOC verified this February 1982 in an undisputed decision). As USACARA would observe the disregard of its own prior Report, the Agency feared the next Investigator Report would find retaliation against me for having won the first Report. So it obstructed justice via consiglière Emily Bacon by fraudulently claiming to have my case about to be heard "by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in an upcoming hearing . . . ." (Enclosure 1, Part II.A, page 2, top).

Of course, as Bacon's claim was a fraud at the time, known by her to be such, no such thing occurred or was ever in process. Local EEOC-Detroit staff verify. Notwithstanding much follow-up action on my part, in every conceivable forum to get review to occur as 29 CFR 1613 (now 1614) and Agency rules provide and as others receive, the Agency refuses this. Investigations routinely occurred by USACARA, and likewise by your office, as you and your staff witness. The Agency has a pattern of violating subject matter laws and rules, and knows it will lose on review, as soon as any Investigator finalizes review.

Wherefore please resume the Investigation so wrongfully and unlawfully interrupted and obstructed for now these many years.

       Leroy J. Pletten       
Leroy J. Pletten


      Please answer ALL of the questions and then SIGN and DATE the form on the last page.


NAME Leroy J. Pletten DATE 3-31-00

HAVE YOU FILED A CHARGE WITH THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS? YES   NO  [*] OTHER *The employer has not informed me of my rights to seek redress, but has instead denied that I have a right to obtain review.


I believe that I was discriminated against by:

_X_ Employer ___ Union ___ Employment Agency ___ Other


NAME TAACOM_______________
ADDRESS 28251 Van Dyke Avenue
CITY Warren Michigan___________
ZIP 48397-5000 PHONE__________
TYPE OF BUSINESS officially-management
de facto: aiding & abetting cigarette companies in smuggling violating MCL 750.27____________

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES please check ( ) one
___ Less than 15 ___ 15-100 (A)
___ 101-200 (B) ___ 201-500 (C)
___ More than 500 (D)
UNION (if applicable)

NAME ____________________________
ADDRESS _________________________
CITY _____________________________
ZIP __________ PHONE _____________
TYPE OF BUSINESS ________________
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES please check ( ) one
___ Less than 15 ___ 15-100 (A)
___ 101-200 (B) ___ 201-500 (C)
___ More than 500 (D)

DATE OF BIRTH _____________ SEX M __x__ F_____

1. What is the reason for your claim of employment discrimination?
___Sex ___Race ___ Age ___Disability ___ National Origin ___Color ___Religion
_X_Retaliation ______________ Other (Specify)

Provide the name of a person at a different address who we can contact if we are unable tor each you:
NAME Richard A. Arnold RELATIONSHIP Fellow Employee
ADDRESS Bldg 41202 CITY Fort Gordon
STATE Georgia ZIP 30905 PHONE (706) 791-7780 arnoldr@emh.gordon.army.mil

2. Exactly how were you discriminated against? Include the date(s) or harm or action(s) and include the name(s) and title(s) of any and all persons who caused them. (Example: 10/4/99 - Disciplined, by Supervisor and/or Dept. Manager)
A) Date 12-15-99 to present Action Refusal to allow EEO Counseling & EEO complaint process & form; refusal to schedule EEOC hearing continuing. Treat me differently than others who are provided review on request.
Person(s) Responsible Jean W. Cozart and Elizabeth Bruton-Pollard

B) Date 9 Nov 1999 Action False claim of seeking MSPB, not EEOC, review though others are not subjected to such claims
Person(s) Responsible Roslyn G. Trojan

C) Date Feb 1980 to present Action Decision to terminate without notice; ex parte contacts with MSPB et al suborning preventing me notice, forum choice, review, obstructing review that did begin
Person(s) Responsible Emily Bacon, Edw Hoover, J Benacquista, K Starr, R Hayes, S Markman, G Maveal, RM Nesi, F Ortisi, O Decker, S Kelley, G Gilmore, Wm O'Connor, F Holt, M Baumgaertner, R Wertheim, et al.

3. DATE HIRED 26 Aug 1969 JOB TITLE Personnel Management Spec PAY RATE $7639
NAME AND TITLE OF IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR Jeremiah H. Kator, Supervisory Pos Class Specialist

4. What reason(s) did the employer give for the acts you consider discriminatory?
Employer fear of the integrity of EEO investigators & EEOC administrative judges, who cite aspects in my favor, adhere to evidence & rule of law, contrasting with employer-favored adjudicators, MSPB, et al., who rule corruptly, advise on how to obstruct EEOC review; fabricate outside evidence of record, and disregard Constitutional due process rights & precedents, and rule of law.

5. Can you identify any one who was accused of the same or similar conduct that was known to management, but who was not treated in the same manner or someone who received more favorable treatment than you (for example: they received a promotion)?
Yes. This is a FOIA request for all names 1979-present of TAACOM employees re whom EEO investigation and EEOC adjudication and hearing was requested and allowed to occur without obstruction. Your answer is hereby incorportated here by reference as showing others get EEO forum and review on request.

6. List the names, and telephone number of any and all individuals who saw, heard, or have knowledge of the actions you are complaining about.
Henry Perez, Jr., (313) 226-7636; Major Edward Thompson (810) 574-5615; Kenneth Adler, Joseph Klein, Jonelle Calloway; Dorothy James, Harry Ofner, Helen Cochran, Lawrence Gavin, Michael Baldwin, Steven Cohen, Emily Bacon, Roy C. Hayes Jr., Gary Maveal, Stephen Markman, Kathleen Nesi, Kenneth Starr, etc. The employer's main phone number is (810) 574-5000

7. Do you have any additional information to rpesent which will support your allegation(s)? YES _X_ NO ___
The USACARA and EEOC correspondence, and the vast body of laws & case law on duty to obey USACARA Reports, on notice pre-firing decision, on non-retal'n, on BFOQ's & qualifications validation, duty of aid, right to fresh pure air, etc.

8. What do you want the employer to do to settle this matter (reinstatement, back pay, or other relief)?
Acknowledge condition precedent for termination does not exist thus I remain an employee entitled to pay, Alt. Provide notice of reasons for term'n so I can begin my reply; provide review/forum options so review choices can be made; do EEOC hearing promised; provide EEO form/process; correct 9 Nov 99 letter to admit I sought EEOC review - not MSPB; admit obstruction of EEOC, etc.

9. If you are now working at another job, state your rate of pay and the date you started in this job.
DATE STARTED, CURRENT SALARY N/A I remain a TACOM employee absent notice per 5 USC 7513.(b)



I have read and had an opportunity to correct this Intake Questionnaire and swear under penalty of perjury that these facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Leroy J. Pletten31 March 2000
Charging Party's SignatureToday's Date

4/8/80 ltr
"April 9, 1980 . . . Further be advised that I am not now in a position to interfere with or disrupt the agency's decision to terminate you. Should I find at a subsequent hearing, if and when it is held, that members of your proposed class have been discriminated against, then and only then will I be authorized to recommend corrective action." Sincerely yours, HENRY PEREZ, JR. Complaints Examiner"

6/8/81 cancel
"05-81-029-E BASIS FOR CANCELLATION A. On 29 May 1981, Ms. Emily Bacon, TACOM Legal Office Representative contacted Mr. Lyle H. McFarlin, Director, USACARO, St. Louis Office, by telephone [ex parte]. According to Ms. Bacon, the Command requested that all outstanding complaints filed by Mr. Pletten be returned for consolidation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in an upcoming hearing on similar matters as alleged. B. Mr. Pletten's formal complaints and all related documents are being returned to the Command Equal Employment Office in accordance with paragraph A. above. Further investigation is herewith cancelled. JONELLE Y. CALLOWAY Investigator USACARO - St. Louis APPROVED: LYLE H. MCFARLIN, Director USACARO - St. Louis"
"An agency shall retain an employee in an active duty status until it receives the initial decision of the Associate Director for Compensation on an agency application for disability retirement."
1-16-91 ltr
"This is in response to your letter, postmarked December 28, 1980, under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. You requested a copy of any letter or correspondence sent to you by any Associate Director for Compensation or Associate Director for Retirement and Insurance, from 1980 to the present. We have searched our records and can find no letters or other correspondence to you from the Associate Directors during the above time period or any other time period." Sincerely, Sidney M. Conley, Assistant Director for Retirement Programs"
9-18-77 SF 50
"Qualification requirements waived, surplus employee."
1-30-84 ltr
"This office is not aware of any qualifications standards issued or in use by OPM that require the ability to smoke. . . . Sincerely, Joseph W. Howe, Assistant Director for Standards Development"
7-30-98 ltr
"Mr. Leroy J. Pletten is ready, willing, able, and eager to perform all his duties that he should have been allowed to do so as was previously recommended. I am unaware of any basis for saying that he was ever unable to do so, March 1980 to the present. He should be returned to duty immediately. Please help him to do so. Sincerely, Jack Salomon, M.D., Department of Internal Medicine"
11-9-99 ltr
Trojan's letter disregarding and refusing to acknowledge the EEOC review in process, that Emily Baon unlawfully had cancelled

8401 18 Mile Road #29
Sterling Heights, MI 48313-3042
17 April 2000

James Neeley, Director
Detroit Area Office
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
477 Michigan Avenue
Detroit MI 48226

Thank you for the advisory from A. Coburn of your staff. I am a federal employee. This concerns my complaint that my federal agency, TACOM, is refusing to counsel me and provide me an EEO complaint form

(Subject of Complaint: the agency's false claims, denying that investigation under 29 CFR 1613 was in process and canceled by it, even though its own Investigator's documentation shows to the contrary; and the agency claiming that MSPB and courts handled my situation; and agency fraud on same to that effect, further obstructing review for the protracted period now evident, 20 years. The agency fraud on court will be established on review, showing their lack of jurisdiction; MSPB and Courts do not do EEO investigations nor schedule or conduct EEO hearings of the type specified by 29 CFR 1613. Others whose 29 CFR 1613 review is in process do not have it interrupted, canceled, unscheduled, and even denied that it was occurring. The agency EEO office, local Warren Office, and its chain of command, are all refusing to let me have review of the agency EEO office and chain of command refusal of processing. Clearly, the Agency EEO system refuses to allow review of its own misconduct; the fox doesn't allow review of its raids on the chicken coop!).

In response to my request to your office to provide me a complaint form, A. Coburn of your staff provided me same, and an envelope pre-addressed to your office. As EEOC Headquarters has noted in a decision dated 23 February 1982 (Docket 01.80.0273), the agency has refused me normal access such as others receive, to EEO counseling and review. So I relied on the information provided by A. Coburn, completed the form, and sent it in the envelope Coburn provided, to the address thereon pre-printed. I followed Coburn's instructions exactly.

A. Coburn has now advised of evidently having made a mistake re the envelope provided, with its pre-printed address to your office instead of to the correct recipient.

The solution seems straight forward. Please simply forward the complaint to the correct office with jurisdiction. Thank you.

Leroy J. Pletten
Leroy J. Pletten