U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.) Office of Federal Operations * * * ALVARO M., COMPLAINANT, v. SEAN J. STACKLEY, ACTING SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, AGENCY. Request No. 0520170216 Appeal No. 0120162658 Agency No. 16-00681-02620 June 6, 2017 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120162658 (January 18, 2017). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision where the requesting party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c). In his underlying complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination on the basis of his race when on May 25, 2016, he was discharged from the Agency without due process, was "talked down to," "not guided" by the Staff Sergeant, and treated differently than a White Navy Corpsman. In its final decision, the Agency dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim, as Complainant was an active duty United States Marine, stationed at Camp Pendleton, California, at the time of the events in question. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency's dismissal, finding that the Commission's "jurisdiction over complaints by federal employees does not extend to uniformed military personnel." In his request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates the arguments he raised on appeal but ignores entirely the question of the Commission's jurisdiction over his complaint which formed the basis of the previous decision. We find that Complainant's arguments do not demonstrate that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law or will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. Accordingly, we find that Complainant failed to demonstrate that the Commission should reconsider its appellate decision. After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120162658 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610) This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: Carlton M. Hadden Director Office of Federal Operations Footnotes Note 1. This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.