EEOC Appeal 2025000790

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Tasia C.,1
Complainant,
v.
Troy E. Meink,
Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2025000790
Agency No. 9X1M2303478
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency
dated October 7, 2024, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the
settlement agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.402; 29
C.F.R. § 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant had worked as a
Security 	Specialist, 	NH-0080-III 	at 	the 	Agency’s 	Air 	Force 	Life 	Cycle
Management Center Security Directorate in Arlington, Virginia. Believing that the
Agency 	subjected 	her 	to 	unlawful 	discrimination, 	Complainant 	contacted 	an
Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process.
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.

2025000790	2
On 	April 	3, 	2024, 	Complainant 	and 	the 	Agency 	entered 	into 	a 	settlement
agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent
part, that:
(b) As soon as is practicable, but not later than forty-five (45) calendar days
following 	the 	final 	signature 	on 	this 	Agreement, 	the 	Agency 	shall 	change
Complainant’s SF-50 dated July 10, 2023, from a probationary termination to a
resignation dated the effective date of settlement. Specifically, the Agency agrees
to cancel the SF-50 dated July 10, 2023, and submit a new Request for Personnel
Action, SF-52 and SF-50 to reflect Complainant’s reinstatement effective July 10,
2023. The Agency shall immediately place Complainant into a leave without pay
(LWOP) status. The Agency shall also submit a new Request for Personnel Action,
SF-52 and SF-50 to reflect Complainant’s resignation effective the same date as
the effective date of this Agreement. The reason for the resignation, in the
comments section of the SF-50, shall state, “to pursue other job opportunities.”
The Agency shall remove the termination during probationary period SF-50 from
Complainant’s electronic official personnel folder (eOPF). The Agency shall
provide a copy of the reinstatement SF-50 and resignation SF-50 to Complainant
and her representative via email within ten (10) calendar days after the SF-50
change.
(c) As soon as is practicable, but not later than forty-five (45) calendar days
following the final signature on this Agreement, the Agency shall submit a
Customer Service Request (CSR) to the Consolidated Adjudication Services (CAS)
providing supplemental information to the incident report that was submitted by
the Agency against Complainant’s clearance. The CSR will reference the incident
report 	submitted 	and 	that 	Complainant’s 	termination 	was 	converted 	to 	a
resignation. The Agency will provide Complainant with a copy or screenshot of
what was submitted to CAS within ten (10) calendar days after the Agency submits
the CSR to CAS.
(d) As soon as is practicable, but not later than forty-five (45) calendar days
following the final signature on this Agreement, the Agency shall remove the letter
about Complainant entered into JADE on or about July 11, 2023. The Agency will
provide a copy of the audit log showing that the letter was deleted from JADE
within ten (10) calendar days after the Agency deletes the letter from JADE.

2025000790	3
On September 11, 2024, Complainant learned that the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) 	decided 	to 	withdraw 	Complainant’s 	tentative 	job 	offer, 	informing
Complainant that it was discovered that Complainant had been terminated from her
last position with the Agency during her probationary period and that in light of the
information presented in her termination letter, leadership was rescinding the offer.
Complaint File at 39-40.
By letter to the Agency dated September 12, 2024, Complainant, through counsel,
alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested
that 	the 	Agency 	specifically 	implement 	its 	terms. 	Specifically, 	Complainant
alleged that the Agency failed to remove Complainant’s termination letter from her
personnel file and replace it with a SF-50 showing Complainant’s voluntary
resignation. Complainant alleged that while the Agency had previously informed
Complainant that it had complied with the terms described above, recent events
established that the Agency did not effectuate the conditions properly, violating the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.
In its decision dated October 7, 2024, the Agency determined that it was in full
compliance with all the terms in the settlement agreement. The decision found that
regarding the actions in paragraph 2(b), the Agency provided documentation to
support 	that 	the 	SF-50 	was 	changed 	from 	a 	probationary 	termination 	to 	a
resignation within the required timeline. The updated SF-50s were provided on
May 15, 2024. Subsequently, Complainant, through counsel, requested changes
two times, leading to the final version of the SF-50 resignation currently contained
in Complainant’s eOPF. Regarding the actions in paragraph 2(d), the decision
found that the Agency provided documentation to support that the termination was
removed from the JADE system within the required timeline.
The Agency’s decision stated that Complainant failed to provide documentation or
a source showing that the conditions of the settlement agreement were violated.
Complainant had provided an email from the Missile Defense Agency (MDA),
informing Complainant that leadership had rescinded her employment offer due to
her OF 306 showing the Agency had terminated Complainant’s employment. The
Agency noted that the email from the MDA did not indicate how the MDA
discovered Complainant had been terminated during her probationary period or
how the MDA obtained a copy of Complainant’s termination letter. Therefore,
there was insufficient evidence proving Complainant failed to meet its obligations
in paragraph 2(b) and 2(d) of the settlement agreement.

2025000790	4
Complainant filed the instant appeal.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant argues, through counsel, that the Agency breached the
settlement agreement because the Agency failed to ensure destruction of the
Complainant’s Notice of Termination in all relevant personnel files and in JADE,
while replacing it with an SF-50 showing a voluntary resignation. Additionally,
Complainant argues the Agency failed to ensure that it notified the Defense
Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA) Adjudication and Vetting Services
(AVS), previously known as CAS, of the full context of these changes through a
Customer Service Request (CSR). Complainant argues that the Agency had an
obligation to ensure that, to the fullest extent of its control, rescind the termination
letter and remove it from all relevant systems of record.
In response to the instant appeal, the Agency argues that it complied with the
material terms of the agreement. The Agency provided affidavits from several
MDA 	employees 	describing 	how 	the 	MDA 	learned 	of 	the 	probationary
termination, which was not due to the Agency’s violation or failure to fulfill its
obligations under the settlement agreement. Additionally, the Agency submitted
various emails and documentation showing that it complied with the settlement
agreement.
ANALYSIS
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a) provides that any settlement agreement
knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at any stage of the
complaint process, shall be binding on both parties. The Commission has held that
a settlement agreement constitutes a contract between the employee and the
Agency, to which ordinary rules of contract construction apply. See Herrington v.
Dep’t 	of 	Def., 	EEOC 	Request 	No. 	05960032 	(December 	9, 	1996). 	The
Commission has further held that it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the
contract, not some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract’s construction.
Eggleston v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (August 23,
1990).

2025000790	5
In ascertaining the intent of the parties with regard to the terms of a settlement
agreement, the Commission has generally relied on the plain meaning rule. See
Hyon O v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December 2, 1991).
This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain and unambiguous on its face,
its meaning must be determined from the four corners of the instrument without
resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. See Montgomery Elevator Co. v.
Building Eng’g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, regarding Provision 2(b), the Agency emailed Complainant’s
counsel on May 15, 2024, attaching Complainant’s updated SF-50s, showing
cancelation of the Termination During Probationary Period and Complainant’s
resignation effective April 3, 2024, to pursue other job opportunities. Agency Brief
in Opp. Of Appeal (corrected), Exh. C. Complainant’s counsel requested two
changes to the SF-50 on June 27, 2024. That same day, the Agency emailed
Complainant’s counsel with the updated the SF-50 addressing the requested
changes. Agency Brief in Opp. Of Appeal (corrected), Exh. E. On July 8, 2024,
Complainant’s counsel emailed the Agency, stating the SF-50 was not sufficient
and requested several additional changes. On July 9, 2024, the Agency emailed
Complainant’s counsel with an updated SF-50 reflecting the additional revisions.
Agency Brief in Opp. Of Appeal (corrected), Exh. F. The Agency also submitted
on appeal emails confirming that on July 9, 2024, the documents pertaining to the
Probationary Termination were purged from Complainant’s eOPF. Agency Brief in
Opp. Of Appeal (corrected), Exh. G.
The Agency acknowledges there was a delay in purging documents related to the
probationary termination from Complainant’s eOPF until around July 9, 2024, due
to a misunderstanding of how removal of the SF-50 works between Agency
counsel and Human Resources. Specifically, HR had to request to purge the
documents from Complainant’s eOPF, which did not happen until July 8, 2024.
However, it is clear from the record that the Agency was actively taking steps to
remove the documents and issue a satisfactory SF-50. Additionally, Complainant
alleged breach of settlement two months after the documents were removed.
Previous Commission decisions have indicated that failure to satisfy a time frame
specified in an agreement does not prevent a finding of substantial compliance,
especially when all required actions were subsequently completed. See Ela O. V.
U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2024003974 (Dec. 9, 2024); Lazarte v. Dep't
of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01954274 (Apr. 25, 1996); Owens v. Dep't of
the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01955828 (July 1, 1996).

2025000790	6
Regarding Provision 2(c), the Agency sent Complainant’s counsel an email on
May 16, 2024, stating that the CSR was submitted to the DCSA AVS (previously
known as the CAS), on May 16, 2024. The email stated the relevant case ID
number and 	attached 	documentation 	showing the CSR-Provide Supplemental
Information was submitted on May 16, 2024. The attachment shows the CSR
details stating that Complainant’s termination of employment effective July 10,
2023, had been canceled and that Complainant resigned from the Agency effective
April 3, 2024. The CSR also showed the supporting documentation that was
attached for the change of personnel action in response to Complainant’s July 10,
2023, incident report. Agency Brief in Opp. Of Appeal (corrected), Exh. D. We
find that the Agency complied with Provision 2(c) of the settlement agreement.
Regarding Provision 2(d), the Agency’s appeal submission shows that on April 17,
2024, the Agency sent Complainant’s counsel an email attaching an audit log,
stating that the termination letter had been deleted from JADE on August 17, 2024,
satisfying Provision 2(d) of the Settlement Agreement. Agency Brief in Opp. Of
Appeal (corrected), Exh. B. While the termination letter was deleted from JADE,
the file history page of Complainant’s JADE showed a notice of termination had
been deleted. However, the settlement agreement did not request for any reference
of the letter to be scrubbed, just for the letter to be deleted. We find that the
Agency complied with Provision 2(d) of the settlement agreement.
Complainant alleges the MDA withdrew her temporary job offer due to the
Agency’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the settlement agreement. However,
a review of the record and submissions on appeal, show that it was not through the
Agency’s failure to satisfy its obligations under the settlement agreement that
caused the MDA to withdraw its job offer.
CONCLUSION
In this case, we find the Agency in substantial compliance with the agreement.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's decision.

2025000790	7
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1125)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if
Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or
evidence that tend to establish 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.
Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Sector
(OFS) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. 	If the party
requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the
request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for
reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of
another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or
statement 	in 	opposition. 	See 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.405; 	Equal 	Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at
Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015).
Complainant should submit their request for reconsideration, and any statement or
brief in support of their request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at
https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. 	Alternatively, 	Complainant 	can
submit their request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Sector, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box
77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street,
NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFS receives it by mail within
five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.604.
An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the
EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g).
Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files their request via the
EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required.

2025000790	8
Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s
request 	for 	reconsideration 	as 	untimely, 	unless 	extenuating 	circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must
be submitted together with the request for reconsideration. 	The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very
limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(f).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0124)
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 their 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. If
you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will
terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
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.

2025000790	9
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:
T. Gimbrere _________ 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 23, 2026
Date