INITIATION OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PRE-COMPLAINT (TARCOM REG 690-10) INSTRUCTIONS: EEO COUNSELOR PREPARE IN QUADRUPLET. 1 COPY TO EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OFFICER; 1 COPY TO CLINT; 1 COPY TO REPRESENTTATIVE (IF ANY); 1 COPY TO DIRECTOR/OFFICE CHIEF/PROJECT/PRODUCT MANAGER INVOLVED; 1 COPY TO COUNSELOR. TO: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICER  |  FROM: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COUNSELOR STATEMENT BY EEO COUNSELOR COMPLAINT CATEGORY (CHECK APPROPRIATE BLOCK(S) |x| INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT | | CLASS COMPLAINT |x| RACE/COLOR   | | RELIGION | x| AGE DATE OF INITIAL |x | SEX | | NATIONAL ORIGIN |x | OTHER (EXPLAIN IN COMPLAINT BLOCK) INTERVIEW COMPLAINT (EXPLAIN HOW-CLIENT BELIEVED HE/SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST; INCLUDE DATE OFFENSE OCCURRED OR DATE OF PERSONNEL ACTION; ALLEGED DISCRIMINATING PERSONS(S); LOCATION OF CLIENT; ORGANIZATION AGAINST WHICH COMPLAINT IS MADE; RELLIEF SOUGHT BY CLIENT; SPEFICI ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED). Client seeks enforcement of rules [Ed. Note: reference to, for example, AR 1-8, 32 CFR § 203; advance notice law 5 USC § 7513.(b); worker/job safety law 5 USC § 7902.(d); Michigan law MCL § 750.27; MSA § 28.216; the USACARA-verified 'pure air' precedents; fixing the broken TACOM ventilation system; the related Donna Shimp precedent cited to USACARA; mandatory retention-in-duty-status rule 5 CFR § 831.1206; the prohibited-personnel-practices ban 5 USC § 2302; mandatory forum notice rule 29 CFR § 1613.403; forced-leave-ban regulation TACOM Reg 600-5.14-28; extortion-ban law MCL § 750.213; MSA § 28.410; Handbook X-118, denying the job requirement TACOM alleges; mandatory grievance-decision-compliance rule CPR 700.771; hazard notification rule AR 385-10; the Michigan unemployment law MCL § 421.28; MSA § 17.530.28(1)(c)], including those for which there is no provision for refusal of enforcement. Mgt refuses to begin the process, but recognizing the duty tho refusing to comply, has engaged in a pattem of reprisal, coercion, interference, restraint, etc. The pattern of prohibited personnel practices is of long duration; and all aspects thereof, known or unknown to client, are hereby incorporated by reference. The mgt pattern is personal to mgt. Mgt thus suspended client repeatedly, tantamount to removal. EEO cases filed were refused processing, as pattern of the pattern of refusing to begin the enforcement process. Had there been enforcement, no complaints would have arisen. Also, complaints are not acceptable as an alternative in lieu of enforcement voluntarily by mgt, since complaints are symptomatic of refusal before the complaints are filed. The pattern includes continued refusal to begin the enforcement process, and the recent sending of forms (SF 2819, 2821, 2810, 50) with inaccurate data including dates on them, to the best of knowledge of client. These were mixed together without regard to lack of a necessary relationship between them. The pattern includes continued refusal to respond to corresondence, including my requests for compliance with rules and guidance. Mgt behavior is self-compounding; refusal to meet & begin enforcement leads to additional errors. Relief sought: Management to begin rule enforcement process; correction of erroneous data, if any, on cited documents; implementation of 25 Jan 80 USACARA Report, Sep 80 EEO recommendations, Jun and Nov 81 MSPB assertions; processing of cases to begin in good faith; identical management timeliness in all channels; halt to evidence concealment; and/or other appropriate relief. NOTE: CLIENT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF COMPLAINT PROCEDURES: THAT THE EEO COUNSELOR (INSOFAR AS IS PRACTICABLE) MUST COMPLETE INQUIRY AND CONDUCT A FINAL INTERVIEW ON AN INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT WITHIN 21 CALENDAR DAYS FROM DATE OF INITIAL INTERVIEW; THAT THE EEO COUNSELOR MUST COMPLETE INQUIRY AND CONDUCT A FINAL INTERVIEW ON A CLASS COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS FROM DATE OF INITIAL INTERVIEW; THAT IF FINAL INTERVIEW IS NOT CONDUCTED WITHIN 21 CALENDAR DAYS FROM DATE OF INITIAL INTERVIEW ON AN 1NDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT CLIENT MAY FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER UP TO 15 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE FINAL INTERVIEW IF NOT SATISFIED; THAT IF FINAL INTERVIEW IS NOT C:ONDUCTED WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS OF INITIAL INTERVIEW ON A CLASS COMPLAINT CLIENT MAY FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT UP TO 15 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE FINAL INTERVIEW IF NOT SATISFIED; THAT CLIENT'S IDENTITY WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED WITHOUT CONSENT OR UNLESS A FORMAL COMPLAINT IS FILED; THAT THE CLIENT IS ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION THROUGHOUT THE PRE-COMPLAINT AND FORMAL COMPLAINT PROCESS. STATEMENT BY CLIENT I DO - DO NOT AUTHORIZE DISCLOSURE OF MY IDENTITY IN THIS INFORMAL COMPLAINT. SIGNATURE OF CLIENT Leroy J. Pletten DATE 22 Jan 82 SIGNATURE OF EEO COUNSELORUnsigned; refusal to counsel me DATE

Ed. Note: Appeal Filed Same Day As Effective Date

-#4-

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UNITED STATES ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE COMMAND WARREN MICHIGAN 48090 AMSTA-CQ (690-700h) 16 November 1990 MEMORANDUM FOR C, Sys & Spt Br (AMSTA-PSM) SUBJECT: EEO Complaint — Leroy J. Pletten — SSN — 576-67-6699 Last employed February, 1980 Formerly a Personnel Specialist 1. The complainant requests permission to examine his complete personnel history. He was employed from 26 August 1969 to February 1980 at TACOM. 2. The complainant has alleged discrimination in the processing of his past complaints. 3. Thank you for your efforts in assisting us. The POC for this action is the undersigned at, X48483. K. R. Adler for Annie G. Johnson Case Manager

Record of Awards [at a linked site; then return here]

-#9-

CHRONOLOGY 1300's - 1730's right to pure air developed 1880's federal law 5 USC 7513.(d) adopted, requiring that to legally fire an employee, a 30 day notice of accusations (charges), must be provided, prior to actually firing/terminating/removing the employee. 1898 Spanish-American War, Army refuses to enlist smokers due to their ill-effects from tobacco 1905, Federal safety law 5 USC 7902(d) passed, mandating safety in all federal job sites 1909, Michigan law MCL 750.27, MSA 28.216, banning TSC products 1969, Hired by TACOM as per good qualifications 1971-1977, Served as elected employee representative on Civilian Welfare Fund, promoting good working conditions, employee morale, and TACOM newspaper 1977-1978, TACOM Regulation 600-14.14-28 was adopted, forbidding imposing a forced leave on any employee. (Reason: to prevent discrimination against any employee, for example, against women, forced onto maternity leaves). No leave is allowed, except by employee request, and then if and only if management agrees. Aug - Nov 1977, under President Carter, new DOD regulation 6015.18, 32 CFR 203, Army regulation AR 1-8 was issued (air quality / hazardous working conditions/TSC related), but never implemented at TACOM Summer 1978, TACOM employees complained in the Public Affairs Office newsletter of poor air quality/working conditions/TSC-related Nov 1978, Filed a whistleblower report to the Inspector General, of violations of regulations related to this non-compliance, and ramifications May - June 1979, Began to file safety reports, then a grievance with respect to the non-compliance. (AR 385-10 tells employees to report hazards). Grievances are forwarded to the Army USACARA to investigate. (My supervisor Jeremiah Kator, agreed with my position). Sep 1979, Began to file 'class-action' in the EEO forum, with intent to assist all employees on the installation Co-workers wanting TACOM to come into compliance, but fearful of reprisal, expressed support for my efforts on their behalf. Sep 1979, Agency published a denunciation of my efforts on behalf of the workforce Oct 1979, I requested a meeting pursuant to the Commanding General 'Open Door' policy, to meet with any employee on matters of concern. Thus far, no such meeting has occurred, and my request remains in effect. Dec 1979 - Jan 1980, supervisor Jeremiah Kator was continuing to seek to transfer out of TACOM. Jan 1980, the Army USACARA filed a report, supporting my claim of local noncompliance with AR 1-8, etc. Feb 1980, TACOM decided to terminate me, with Col. John Benacquista demanding I cease whistleblowing, but of course I wouldn't do that, so the termination decision was made without notice, in violation of the 5 USC 7513.(b) law. The purpose was to intimidate coworkers, and send a message that whistleblowing and filing a grievance that wins against TACOM, is not tolerated. Feb 1980, Co-worker Carma Averhart was offered promotion to replace Jeremiah Kator if she'd support getting rid of me. She demanded I quit coming to work. I kept reporting for work. Feb 1980, the TACOM office that processes EEO complaints specified that it would never process my request for review of the decision to terminate me, a threat that has been carried out, so review has never occurred. This refusal has continued through the terms of all TACOM EEO staffers, Kenneth Adler - present. March 1980, Dr. Francis Holt ordered me to stop reporting for duty. I kept returning, but was thereafter turned away. No notice of charges of filed, no right to reply was allowed, no notice of right to appeal, was provided. TACOM insisted I had no right of review. March - April 1980, I began seeking review, though not having been notified of review rights and options. Example: April 1980, the local EEOC by letter said that during the course of my class action cases, it could not process review of the TACOM "decision to terminate" me. (I'd have to file an individual request, which I began doing). 1980 - 2001, Multiple efforts to get review to begin, via the EEOC process, all of which TACOM has obstructed, as it fears that EEOC will agree that the April 1980 'decision to terminate' me, was done without notice of charges. (Notice would have had to have occurred over 30 days prior to the April 1980 EEOC letter, by Henry Perez, Jr.) Of course, no such notice exists. 1988-1989, Comment was made that I'd filed about 2,000 requests for EEOC review. Problem: TACOM refuses to allow assignment of a Counselor, Investigator, EEOC Hearing Officer/Administrative Judge, thus obstructs review, hence it hasn't occurred yet. March 1980 - January 1982, TACOM claimed it had not really 'terminated' me, just ordered me off post. January 1981, I asked the Michigan Unemployment Office for unemployment compensation, as I meet the criteria, ability to work, plus not being paid by employer TACOM. TACOM fought my claim, but after a formal Michigan hearing, July 1981, I won unemployment, verifying my ability to work. August 1981, TACOM backdated a notice to December 1980, admitting having put me on forced leave, but citing no reasons whatever. As forced leave violates the TACOM Regulation, I sought EEO review, but TACOM again refused to arrange for an EEOC investigation, hearing, i.e., no review process such as others receive. November 1981, TACOM via Carma Averhart decided to fake a removal notice, but identified no names of witnesses, incidents, dates, rule violations by me, performance deficiencies, qualification deficiencies, etc. Averhart could not do this, as her predecessor Jeremiah Kator had regularly documented my file with awards for my good performance and attendance. TACOM's goal, via Averhart, was to deny me specifics, hence, prevent me replying to any charges, as I don't know them. This refusal to say the charges (with names, dates, incidents, etc.) has continued ever since. Jan 1982, again I requested review in the EEO forum, but this has been refused by TACOM. No counseling, investigation, hearing, has been allowed to occur. The rules say it is to be done within 180 days of the request. March 1980 - present, in the absence of notice of appeal rights, much less, the charges, I have been filing requests for review to begin, review such as other employees receive, to every conceivable source.

For example of subsequent events, click here.