a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Addressees

May 2006 EQUAL 

EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY

DOD’s EEO Pilot 

Program Under Way, 

but Improvements 

Needed to DOD’s 

Evaluation Plan

GAO-06-538
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 2006

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

DOD’S EEO Pilot Program Under Way, 

but Improvements Needed to DOD’S 

Evaluation Plan 

Highlights of GAO-06-538, a report to 

congressional addressees

Delays in processing of equal

employment opportunity (EEO) 

complaints have been a longstanding concern. In 2000, as part

of the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) fiscal year 2001

authorization act, Congress 

authorized DOD to carry out a 3-

year pilot program for improving 

processes to resolve complaints by 

civilian DOD employees by testing

procedures that would reduce EEO 

complaint processing times and 

eliminate redundancy, among other

things. The act requires two 

reports from GAO—90 days after 

the first and last fiscal years of the 

pilot program’s operation. In 

December 2005 and January 2006, 

we provided briefings on our initial 

review of the pilot program. This 

report (1) describes key features 

and status of the three programs 

and (2) assesses DOD’s plan for 

evaluating the effectiveness of the 

pilot program.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD 

develop a sound evaluation plan

that includes key evaluation

features to accurately and reliably 

assess the pilot programs’ results.

DOD generally concurred with the

recommendation and stated that it 

would incorporate our 

recommended key features into the 

evaluation plan as appropriate. 

 

 

In August 2004, the Secretary of Defense authorized 2-year programs in 

(1) Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), (2) the Defense Commissary Agency

(DeCA), and (3) components of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) which became 

operational in fiscal year 2005. While the legislation stated that the pilot 

program is exempt from procedural requirements of current Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations, to a large extent 

two of the three programs were designed and are operating within existing

EEOC requirements, with a specific emphasis on alternative dispute 

resolution (ADR) as encouraged in DOD’s memo soliciting pilot program 

proposals. ADR techniques include, but are not limited to, conciliation, 

facilitation, mediation, or arbitration and usually involve the intervention or 

facilitation by a neutral third party. After the first year, program officials 

reported low case activity and stated that they plan to request approval from 

the Secretary to continue their respective programs for a third year. To 

carry out the programs, officials used similar strategies—outreach to inform 

eligible staff about the pilot programs, staff training, and the use of 

electronic data collection—but implemented them differently. 

Our assessment of DOD’s evaluation plan for the pilot program found both 

strengths and limitations (see figure below). A sound evaluation plan 

contains such features as criteria for determining program performance and 

measures that are directly linked to program objectives. Such key features 

increase the likelihood that the evaluation will yield sound results, thereby 

supporting effective program and policy decisions. Lacking these key 

features, DOD is limited in its ability to conduct an accurate and reliable 

assessment of the program’s results, and Congress is limited in its ability to 

determine whether features of the overall program have governmentwide 

applicability. Officials from DOD’s pilot program oversight entities have 

acknowledged shortcomings and have indicated a willingness to modify the 

plan. 

Strengths and Limitations of DOD’s Evaluation Plan 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-538.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact George H. 

Stalcup at (202) 512-9490 or 

Stalcupg@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 4

The Three Programs Emphasize ADR Techniques, Share Common 

Implementation Strategies, and Report Low Case Activity 7

Although Containing Some Strengths, Limitations in Its Evaluation 

Plan Will Hinder DOD’s Ability to Assess Pilot 

Program Results 15

Conclusions 19

Recommendations for Executive Action 19

Agency Comments 20

Appendixes

Appendix I: EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to Federal 

Employees 23

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense 28

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 31

Figures Figure 1: The EEO Administrative Complaint Process with Related 

Time Frames 26
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

Abbreviations

ADR alternative dispute resolution 

AFB Air Force Base

AJ administrative judge

CORE Compressed Orderly Rapid Equitable

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

DOD Department of Defense

DeCA Defense Commissary Agency

DLA Defense Logistics Agency

EEO equal employment opportunity

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

ERO early resolution opportunity

MCAS Marine Corps Air Station

MD-110 Management Directive-110

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board

PECP Pilot for Expedited Complaint Processing

RESOLVE Reach Equitable Solutions Voluntarily and Easily

USAF United States Air Force

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 5, 2006 Letr

Congressional Addressees

Federal employees or applicants for employment who allege that they have 

been discriminated against by a federal agency may file a complaint with 

that agency.1

 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has 

established procedures for federal agencies to process equal employment 

opportunity (EEO) complaints, including time frames for taking certain 

actions, and use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs.2

 The 

federal EEO complaint process consists of two stages—informal, or 

precomplaint counseling, and formal, when a complaint is filed with the 

agency. Delays in the processing of EEO complaints have been a longstanding concern of EEOC, other federal agencies, and Congress. As an 

example of such delays, from fiscal years 1993 to 2003, the time the federal 

government took to investigate a formal EEO complaint rose from an 

average low of 171 days to an average high of 343 days.

3

In 2000, as part of DOD’s fiscal year 2001 authorization act,4 Congress 

authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to carry out a 3-year pilot 

program for improving processes for the resolution of EEO complaints by 

civilian employees of DOD. The legislation provided that the pilot program 

was to include procedures to reduce EEO complaint processing times, 

eliminate redundancy, reinforce accountability, and provide for early 

resolution. While not prescribing details of how the pilots were to be 

designed or operated, the authorizing legislation provided that complaints 

processed under the pilot program shall be subject to the procedural 

1

Federal employees are protected by various federal laws that prohibit employment 

discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap. In 

addition, federal employees are protected from retaliation for filing a complaint, 

participating in an investigation of a complaint, or opposing any practice made unlawful 

under these antidiscrimination laws. (See app. I.)

2

ADR techniques include but are not limited to, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, or 

arbitration. ADR techniques usually involve intervention or facilitation by a neutral third 

party. 

3

Federal Sector Investigations – Time and Cost (EEOC, Office of Federal Operations). An 

agency has 180 days to investigate a formal complaint and provide the complainant with a 

copy of the investigative file, which can be extended by 90 days when both parties agree. 29 

C.F.R. 1614.108(e).

4

Section 1111 of P.L. 106-398 (Oct. 30, 2000).
Page 2 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

requirements established for the pilot program and exempt from the 

procedural requirements or other regulations, directives, or regulatory 

restrictions prescribed by EEOC. The programs DOD authorized in August 

2004 were in (1) the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), (2) Defense 

Logistics Agency (DLA), and (3) components of the U.S. Air Force (USAF), 

and they became operational in fiscal year 2005. 

The 2001 authorization act requires GAO to submit two reports on the pilot 

program—90 days after the first and last fiscal years of pilot program 

operation. We provided briefings on the results of our initial review of 

common features and preliminary case activity for the three programs to 

interested congressional committees in December 2005 and January 2006. 

This report provides additional information by (1) describing key features 

and status of the programs and (2) assessing DOD’s plan for evaluating the 

effectiveness of the pilot program. 

To describe the three programs and their key features, we reviewed 

documents provided by DOD officials and interviewed those officials. In 

addition, we reviewed information about the federal regulations governing 

the federal EEO complaint process5

 and our reports.6 To assess DOD’s plan 

for evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot program, we reviewed the plan 

and DOD’s 6- and 9-month evaluation reports. We also interviewed DOD 

officials about the evaluation reports. We consulted social science and 

evaluation literature, along with our publicized guidance, to identify key 

features of an evaluation plan. On the basis of criteria gathered from these 

sources, we identified strengths and limitations of DOD’s plan. As the pilot 

program and the evaluation efforts were already under way when we began 

our review, we focused on the plan’s strengths and those specific 

limitations where it would still be possible for DOD to implement 

improvements. 

5

29 C.F.R. Part 1614.

6

GAO, Federal Employee Redress: An Opportunity for Reform, GAO/T-GGD-96-42

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 29, 1995); Equal Employment Opportunity: Rising Trends in EEO 

Complaint Caseloads in the Federal Sector, GAO/GGD-98-157BR (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 24, 

1998); Equal Employment Opportunity: Complaint Caseloads Rising, With Effects of New 

Regulations on Future Trends Unclear, GAO/GGD-99-128, (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16, 

1999); and Equal Employment Opportunity: Discrimination Complaint Caseloads and 

Underlying Causes Require EEOC’s Sustained Attention, GAO/T-GGD-00-104 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000).
Page 3 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

Program officials provided data on case activity for the three programs. 

The data are preliminary and because we do not use them to develop 

findings, we did not conduct a data reliability assessment. Because we did 

not assess the reliability of the data, the data are of undetermined 

reliability. 

We conducted our review in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area from 

August 2005 through March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief All three programs are under way and emphasize the use of ADR 

techniques to resolve allegations before they reach the formal complaint 

stage—an option already available under the current EEO regulations and 

encouraged in DOD’s memo soliciting pilot program proposals. While the 

legislation provided DOD considerable latitude in designing its program, to 

a large extent, two of the three pilot programs DOD authorized were 

designed to operate within the parameters existing under law and EEOC 

regulations. In the case of DLA, program officials indicated that the 

program’s ADR features are the same as those in the current EEO process. 

DeCA’s program emphasizes early resolution before the start of the 

informal precomplaint stage of the current process through the use of a 

trained EEO facilitator who attempts to negotiate resolution. In addition, 

according to a DeCA official, DeCA’s program seeks to reduce processing 

time frames in the formal stage of the complaint process and replaces 

paper documents with electronic files. Unlike the other two programs, 

USAF’s focuses on the formal stage, combining the two-step investigative 

and hearing phases of the current EEO process into a single fact-finding 

process aimed at reducing processing time and including voluntary 

participation in ADR. The three programs also featured common 

implementation strategies—DeCA’s and USAF’s programs conducted 

outreach to inform eligible staff about the programs, and all three programs 

conducted staff training and used electronic data collection. According to 

DOD and the pilot program officials, as a result of the low case activity, 

program officials will seek to extend their respective programs for an 

additional (third) year. 

Our initial assessment of DOD’s evaluation plan for the pilot program found 

both strengths and limitations. One strength of the plan was the inclusion 

of forms for collecting baseline data (before the programs began) and 

program data, which provides a tool for the programs to measure some 

aspects of their progress. Although DOD developed an evaluation plan for 
Page 4 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

the overall pilot program, the plan lacked some key features of a sound 

evaluation plan, including measures that are directly linked to the program 

objectives, criteria for determining individual pilot program performance, 

and an appropriate data analysis plan for the evaluation design. The lack of 

established key evaluation features in DOD’s plan increases the likelihood 

of insufficient data, further limiting confidence in pilot program results. 

Without confidence in pilot program results, DOD will be limited in its 

decision making regarding this pilot program, and Congress will be limited 

in its decision making about the pilot program’s potential broader 

application. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Defense for his review 

and comment. DOD generally concurrred with our recommendations. 

Concerning our recommendation that DOD establish regular intra-agency 

exchange of information, DOD stated that it would begin convening 

quarterly meetings with DOD pilot program managers to discuss and 

exchange relevant information regarding pilot implementation processes. 

As for the recommendation to develop a sound evaluation plan, DOD 

partially concurred and stated that it will consider and incorporate our 

recommended key features into its pilot program evaluation plan as 

appropriate. DOD’s written comments are reprinted in appendix II.

Background As of January 1, 2000, all federal agencies covered by EEOC regulations 

were required to establish or make available an ADR program for both the 

informal and formal complaint stages of the EEO process.

On March 9, 2000, at a joint hearing held by the Subcommittee on Civil 

Service of the House Committee on Government Reform and the 

Subcommittee on Military Readiness of the House Armed Services 

Committee, the Navy discussed the results of its experiences under its 18-

month pilot program for resolving EEO complaints through the use of ADR, 

which resulted in resolution on an average of 31 days. 

The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act, for fiscal year 

2001, authorized the Secretary of Defense to carry out at least three pilot 

programs—one at a military department and two at DOD agencies. The
Page 5 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

programs were authorized to operate for 3 years. The act exempts the 

programs from EEOC’s procedural requirements or restrictions.7

In 2004, DOD authorized the following as pilot programs: (1) DLA, which 

provides worldwide logistics support—munitions and supplies—for the 

missions of military departments; (2) DeCA, which operates a worldwide 

chain of commissaries providing groceries to military personnel, retirees, 

and their families at a discount; and (3) 31 bases of the USAF, accounting 

for about one-third of USAF bases with federal EEO programs. The pilot 

programs were authorized by the Secretary for 2 years with an option for 

an additional (third) year.

The legislative objectives for the programs are to:

• reduce processing time,

• eliminate redundancy, 

• reinforce local management and chain of command accountability, and

• provide the parties involved with early opportunity for resolution. 

The legislation also provides that pilot program participants voluntarily 

participate in the pilot program, and that participants maintain their right 

to appeal final agency decisions to EEOC and file suit in federal district 

court as is the case in the federal EEO complaint process. 

The Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel 

Policy, the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary for Equal Opportunity, and 

the Office of Complaint Investigations within the Civilian Personnel 

Management Service have ongoing responsibility for oversight, monitoring, 

and evaluation of the overall pilot program. 

Under EEOC regulations, during the informal, or precomplaint counseling 

stage, ADR techniques can be used. Counselors are to advise individuals 

that, when the agency agrees to offer ADR in the particular case, they may 

choose to participate in either counseling or in ADR. If the matter is not 

resolved by counseling or if ADR is unsuccessful, the counselor is required 

to inform the employee in writing of his or her right to file a formal 

7

See, for example, 29 C.F.R. Part 1614.
Page 6 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

discrimination complaint with the agency. ADR can also be used after an 

agency receives a formal complaint. 

After a complainant files a formal discrimination complaint, the agency 

must decide whether to accept or dismiss the complaint and notify the 

complainant. If the agency dismisses the complaint, the complainant can 

appeal the dismissal to EEOC.8

 If the agency accepts the complaint, it has 

180 days to investigate the accepted complaint and provide the 

complainant with a copy of the investigative file.9

 Within 30 days of receipt 

of the copy of the investigative file, the complainant must choose between 

requesting (1) a hearing and decision from an EEOC administrative judge 

(AJ)10 or (2) a final decision from the agency. When a hearing is not 

requested, the agency issues a final decision. A complainant may appeal an 

agency’s final decision to EEOC. 

In cases where a hearing is requested, the AJ has 180 days to issue a 

decision and send the decision to the complainant and the agency. If the AJ 

issues a finding of discrimination, he or she is to order appropriate relief. 

After the AJ decision is issued, the agency can issue a final order notifying 

the complainant whether or not the agency will fully implement the 

decision of the AJ, and the employee can file an appeal with EEOC.11 If the 

agency issues an order notifying the complainant that the agency will not 

fully implement the decision of the AJ, the agency also must file an appeal 

with EEOC at the same time. See appendix I for more details and 

associated time frames related to the EEO complaint process.

8

An agency may dismiss an individual’s complaint for a number of reasons, including failure 

to contact an EEO counselor in a timely manner, failure to file a complaint in a timely 

manner, or failure to state a claim based on covered discrimination. 

9

This period can be extended an additional 90 days when both parties agree. 

10A complainant may request a hearing at any time after 180 days have elapsed from the 

filing of the complaint, regardless of whether the agency has completed its investigation. 

11If the agency does not issue a final order within 40 days, the decision of the AJ becomes 

the final action of the agency.
Page 7 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

The Three Programs 

Emphasize ADR 

Techniques, Share 

Common 

Implementation 

Strategies, and Report 

Low Case Activity 

Although features of the three programs vary by agency and focus on 

different stages of the complaint process, they all emphasize the use of 

ADR techniques available under the current federal EEO process. They 

also share common implementation strategies, including outreach to 

eligible staff to inform them about the programs, staff training, and 

electronic data collection. In its 9-month evaluation, DOD observed that 

pilot program activity had been lower than anticipated; DOD did not 

provide a baseline for its comparison or elaborate on the reason for this 

occurrence. After 12 months, program officials continue to report low case 

activity.

DOD’s Pilot Program 

Emphasizes ADR 

Techniques

In developing the overall EEO pilot program, DOD allowed DLA, DeCA, 

and USAF to determine their individual program design. However, in its 

memo soliciting pilot program proposals, DOD encouraged potential 

participants to work with the Office of Complaint Investigations to develop 

the format and content of their proposals, offering the assistance of the 

Office’s experienced staff of certified complaint investigators and 

mediators with success in using ADR techniques. Two of the programs—

DLA and DeCA—emphasize the use of ADR in the informal stage, 

consistent with federal EEO regulations. Program officials said that their 

programs are attempting to address the legislative objective of providing 

early opportunity for resolution by focusing on ADR. The third program, in 

selected bases of the USAF, changes the formal stage of the federal EEO 

process by combining the investigative and hearing phases after a 

complainant has filed a formal complaint. This program also emphasizes 

the use of ADR techniques both during the informal stage as well as at the 

time a complainant files a formal complaint. 

DLA’s Pilot Program DLA’s program, Pilot for Expedited Complaint Processing (PECP), began in 

October 2004 at DLA headquarters in Fort Belvoir, Va.12 DLA considers

12According to DLA, 1,545 employees are eligible to participate in PECP.
Page 8 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

several types of cases, such as those that challenge government policy, 

inappropriate for PECP and screens them out.13

The PECP process is similar to the informal stage of the current EEO 

process. DLA officials said the PECP process has three steps. The first step 

occurs when an employee who believes he or she has been discriminated 

against makes initial contact with DLA’s EEO office. An EEO Intake 

Specialist collects specific information about the employee’s concerns and 

drafts an intake report, which includes a description and basis of the claim. 

The EEO Intake Specialist advises the employee orally and in writing about 

(1) PECP and how it compares to the federal counseling process and (2) 

the employee’s right to opt out of the pilot program at any time before the 

filing of a formal complaint. The second step begins when the employee 

chooses to participate in PECP. At this time, the EEO Intake Specialist 

discusses and offers the employee ADR. The EEO Intake Specialist also 

informs the employee that participating in ADR is optional and can be used 

at any stage of the complaint process. The EEO Intake Specialist considers 

two methods of ADR— mediation or facilitation. Mediation is the primary 

method used by PECP. 14 According to DLA, the method of ADR used is 

based on the employee’s claim and the EEO Intake Specialist’s assessment 

of the method that would more likely encourage communication between 

the employee and management and resulting resolution. 

Under the third step, ADR takes place. DLA pilot program officials 

acknowledged that the pilot program’s ADR features do not differ from 

those offered under the current EEO process. DLA has an ADR program 

called Reach Equitable Solutions Voluntarily and Easily (RESOLVE), which 

is used when mediation is offered. RESOLVE is managed by DLA’s General 

Counsel. According to DLA officials, RESOLVE mediators cannot mediate 

13Other types of cases that would be inappropriate for PECP include those that (1) involve 

potentially precedent setting issues; (2) significantly affect other employees who are not 

part of the ADR proceedings; (3) involve prohibited personnel practices or sensitive issues 

regarding the health, safety, and security of DLA employees; (4) concern disputed law, not 

fact; and (5) involve unsuccessful prior ADR attempts or breaches of the confidentiality of a 

previous ADR session. 

14Mediation is a process in which a trained neutral third party helps disputants negotiate a 

mutually agreeable settlement. A mediator has no authority, does not render a decision, but 

may suggest some substantive options to encourage the parties to expand the range of 

possible resolutions under consideration. Any decision must be reached by the parties 

themselves.
Page 9 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

precomplaints or complaints involving organizations they may service in 

another capacity, thus ensuring the neutrality of the mediator.15

DeCA’s Pilot Program DeCA’s program, Early Resolution Opportunity (ERO), began in February 

2005 and covers 23 stores16 in three zones (DeCA West Zone 16-San Diego, 

Calif.; DeCA East Zone 28-Virginia Beach, Va; and DeCA East Zone 6-San 

Antonio, Tex.). Using ADR techniques, ERO seeks to provide early 

resolution opportunities, because according to DeCA, ineffective 

communication between employees and supervisors or managers often 

results in perceptions of discrimination. Moreover, DeCA believes that 

disputes can be resolved before they enter the informal counseling stage if 

a trained EEO facilitator17 can intervene to negotiate resolution. Cases that 

involve alleged violent acts, theft, sexual harassment, termination, or may 

be precedent setting, are ineligible for ERO.18

ERO is divided into two steps. In the first step, a trained DeCA facilitator 

attempts to resolve a claim before the start of the informal stage of the 

current process. Employees at stores participating in ERO can call a tollfree number to discuss their concerns with a trained facilitator. For 

example, an employee could call about perceived discrimination over 

schedule changes, and the facilitator may discuss what had occurred and 

rationale for schedule changes (e.g., to cover absences). According to 

DeCA officials, some employees “self screen” during the facilitation 

15According to DLA, if an internal mediator is used, DLA works to ensure his/her neutrality 

by never having that person serve as a mediator in the same case in which he/she was an 

Intake Specialist.

16According to DeCA, it has 2,083 employees who are eligible to participate in ERO in three 

zones: DeCA West, Zone 16: Camp Pendleton, El Centro, Imperial Beach, North Island, 

San Diego, San Onofre, Miramar Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), and 29 Palms (stores in 

Southern California) and Yuma MCAS and Yuma Proving Ground (both located in Western 

Arizona); DeCA East, Virginia Beach, Zone 28: Fort Eustis, Langley Air Force Base 

(AFB), Little Creek Naval Air Base, Oceana Naval Air Station, Portsmouth Naval Station, 

Norfolk Naval Base, and Fort Lee (stores located in Central Virginia); and DeCA East, San 

Antonio, Zone 6: Fort Hood I and II, Fort Sam Houston, Lackland AFB, Randolph AFB, and 

Dyess AFB (stores located in Central Texas).

17Facilitation, a form of ADR, involves the use of techniques to improve the sharing of 

information in a meeting between parties to a dispute, focusing on the process involved in 

resolving a matter.

18According to DeCA, a definitive or authoritative resolution of the matter is required for 

precedential value. An ADR proceeding is not likely to be accepted, generally, as an 

authoritative precedent. 
Page 10 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

process, deciding not to pursue an EEO complaint or to pursue another 

avenue, such as the negotiated grievance process.19

The second step of ERO, which follows if facilitation is unsuccessful in 

resolving the employee’s concerns, involves calling in a third-party 

mediator. According to a DeCA official, DeCA uses mediators from DOD’s 

Office of Complaint Investigations, because they are trained, experienced 

ADR professionals, and have a greater perception of neutrality as they do 

not work for DeCA. 

If mediation fails, an individual may choose to file a formal complaint. 

According to a DeCA official, ERO seeks to reduce the processing time of 

the formal stage. To help achieve this goal, DeCA reduces processing times 

for two phases of the formal stage of the complaint process: (1) after a 

complainant files a formal complaint, DeCA has set a goal in ERO of 

14 days to accept, partially accept, or dismiss it; and (2) after the report of 

investigation is completed, DeCA sends a notice informing the complainant 

that he or she has 7 days to either request a hearing or a final agency 

decision, reducing the time from 30 days under EEOC regulations. In 

addition, to further reduce processing time for ERO cases, paper 

documents are replaced with electronic files.20 Finally, according to a DeCA 

official, officials from DeCA and the Office of Complaint Investigations can 

download relevant case documents from a secure shared drive for 

complaints filed under both ERO and under the current EEO process.

USAF’s Pilot Program USAF’s program, called Compressed Orderly Rapid Equitable (CORE), 

focuses on the formal phase of the EEO complaint process. The program 

began January 1, 2005, at 29 continental U.S. sites and 2 overseas offices 

that we refer to as test bases.21 Although the 31 test bases account for less 

than one-third of all USAF bases with EEO programs, they produce over 80 

19When a person is employed by an agency subject to 5 U.S.C. 7121 and is covered by a 

collective bargaining agreement that permits claims of discrimination to be raised in a 

negotiated grievance procedure, a person wishing to file a complaint or a grievance on a 

claim of alleged employment discrimination may raise the claim under either Part 1614 or 

the negotiated grievance procedure, but not both.

20Formal complaints under the current EEO process are not expedited in this way.

21These test bases are as follows: Altus, Bolling, Brooks, Charleston, Columbus, Dobbins, 

Dover, Edwards, Eglin, Elmendorf, Hanscom, Hill, Holloman, Homestead, Keesler, Kirtland, 

Lackland, Langley, Laughlin, Los Angeles, March, McGuire, Nellis, Peterson, Ramstein, 

Scott, Seymour Johnson, Tinker, Travis, Robins, and Wright-Patterson. 
Page 11 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

percent of all USAF EEO complaints. Cases that involve class and mixedcase complaints22 or cases related to claims already accepted under the 

current federal EEO complaint process are not eligible to participate in 

CORE.23

CORE has a two-step process that begins at the time the complainant files a 

formal complaint. Until a complaint is filed, USAF officials attempt early 

resolution of allegations of discrimination in the informal stage using the 

current federal EEO process.24 If resolution is not achieved during this 

stage, the complainant must choose between CORE and the current federal 

EEO process. The first step of CORE involves mediation. If the 

complainant declines mediation or mediation is unsuccessful, step two 

begins, and a CORE Fact-Finding Conference is conducted. USAF defines 

this conference as a “non-adversarial, impartial fact-gathering procedure.” 

The conference is conducted by a CORE fact-finder, provided by the Office 

of Complaint Investigations. During the conference, the fact-finder hears 

testimony from witnesses and receives documentary evidence; also at this 

time, a verbatim transcript is taken by a certified court reporter. Following 

the conference, the fact-finder completes the record of the complaint and 

recommends a decision25 in the case to the director of the USAF Civilian 

Appellate Review Office. The director of the USAF Civilian Appellate 

Review Office may accept, reject, or modify the fact-finder’s recommended 

decision. The director then prepares a final agency decision for signature 

by the director of USAF Review Boards Agency.26 The director of USAF 

Review Boards Agency issues the final agency decision. Any further action 

22A complaint is a mixed-case complaint if it is a matter that can be appealed to the Merit 

Systems Protection Board such as removal, reduction in grade or pay, or suspension for 

more than 14 days.

23According to USAF officials, 128,074 employees are eligible to participate in CORE.

24USAF asks all aggrieved parties to choose between ADR and informal counseling in the 

informal stage. In addition, during the initial counseling session of the informal stage, the 

individual is briefed on the CORE process and told that if he or she decides to file a formal 

complaint, a decision must be made whether to use CORE or follow the current federal EEO 

process.

25Under the current EEO complaint process, fact-finding conferences may be used by 

agencies in developing an appropriate factual record. The fact-finders, under this process, 

are not responsible for providing a recommended decision.

26The Director of Air Force Review Boards Agency is a position with delegated authority 

from the Secretary of the Air Force to make decisions under 29 C.F.R. 1614.110 on individual 

EEO complaints. 
Page 12 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

on the complaint, including rights to appeal to EEOC and file a lawsuit, are 

governed by current federal EEO complaint procedures. 

According to USAF, by combining the investigative and hearing phases of 

the current federal EEO complaint process, USAF aims to issue a final 

agency decision within 127 days or less of filing the formal complaint; the 

current process can take up to 360 days plus another 70 days to provide the 

complainant and the agency their allotted time for decision making. USAF 

officials also indicated that through the CORE Fact-Finding Conference, 

each complainant gets their “day in court,” whereas under the current EEO 

process, complainants often wait months to request a hearing and can have 

their complaint dismissed by an EEOC AJ without a hearing. 

DOD’s EEO Pilot Programs 

Share Common 

Implementation Strategies

The three programs share common implementation strategies but 

implement them differently. In our review of the programs and subsequent 

discussions with DOD and program officials, DeCA and USAF conducted 

some level of outreach to program-eligible employees to inform them about 

the programs. For example, DeCA officials went to participating stores and 

handed out brochures describing ERO. According to USAF program 

officials, outreach on CORE included sending a letter to all participating 

bases from the Chief of Staff for Personnel as well as a notice to the unions. 

Additionally, CORE was publicized in USAF news service and 

governmentwide media.

We also found that agencies varied in how they trained their EEO 

employees about the programs. USAF officials used contractors to train 

some employees in CORE over a 1-week period; in turn, those employees 

trained others. DLA officials had informal in-house employee training. 

DeCA sent EEO officials and an attorney from its headquarters trained in 

ERO to each of its three zones to train EEO managers as well as managers 

and supervisors at its 23 stores.

Finally, all three programs used electronic data collection for tracking and 

monitoring, with each program developing its own electronic data 

collection method. For example, USAF uses EEO-Net system and software 

to collect program data.27 USAF also uses USAF-specific software, the Case 

Management and Tracking System, to manage the EEO process, including 

27EEO-Net is designed to automate data entry, case tracking, and reporting requirements. 
Page 13 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

CORE, and an electronic case identifier to mark CORE cases to help in 

monitoring those program cases that reach EEOC on appeal. DeCA 

currently uses an Access database to track ERO activity, and DLA uses an 

Excel spreadsheet to track PECP activity. 

Officials from both the programs and DOD’s EEO pilot program oversight 

entities have indicated their willingness to share information. As we have 

previously reported, by assessing their relative strengths and limitations 

through collaboration,28 agencies can look for opportunities to address 

resource needs by leveraging each others’ resources and obtaining 

additional benefits that would not be available if they were working 

separately. While the focus of our earlier work was on coordination 

between agencies from different departments, the findings would also be 

applicable to agencies within a department that are engaged in similar 

activities. 

DOD’s EEO Pilot Programs 

Report Low Case Activity 

In its 9-month evaluation report, DOD stated that program activity for all 

three programs had been lower than anticipated. At the end of the first 

year, program officials reported continued low program activity. However, 

in its report, DOD did not provide a baseline for its comparison or 

elaborate on the reason for this occurrence. Instead, DOD’s evaluation plan 

states that data collected during the pilot program are to be measured 

against fiscal year 2004 baseline data. Therefore, we are including fiscal 

year 2004 data as reported to EEOC for each program for comparison 

purposes. Since many cases are still going through the program process, for 

comparison, we report only the number of initial contacts or formal 

complaints.

According to DeCA officials, from January 1, 2005, through January 31, 

2006, 42 employees contacted DeCA’s EEO office; of those, 41 were offered 

participation in ERO, and all opted for ERO. Of those who completed ERO, 

16 did so with resolution; 9 did so without resolution, and 14 are still in

28Collaboration among federal agencies can take many forms, including establishing 

mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve an outcome; identifying and addressing 

needs by leveraging resources; and developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report 

the results of collaborative efforts. See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That 

Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
Page 14 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

process. Data are not available for DeCA test stores for fiscal year 2004, the 

year before ERO was implemented.29

According to DLA officials, from January 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006,

15 employees contacted DLA’s EEO office; of those, 13 were offered 

participation in PECP, and 12 opted for it. Of those who completed PECP, 

10 did so with resolution; 1 declined participation, and 1 withdrew the 

precomplaint; 1 opted out of PECP. For fiscal year 2004, the year before 

DLA implemented PECP, 26 employees contacted DLA’s headquarters EEO 

office.

According to USAF officials, from January 1, 2005, through January 31, 

2006, a total of 634 formal complaints were filed USAF-wide. The CORE 

process was available to 534 of the complainants. Of those complainants 

offered CORE, 104 opted to process their complaint using CORE. Of these 

104, 63 have been closed with resolution, and 28 CORE cases are still in 

progress. Thirteen complainants opted out of CORE and chose to return to 

the current EEO process. For fiscal year 2004, the year before USAF 

implemented CORE, 667 formal complaints were filed USAF-wide; of these, 

488 were filed at what are now CORE test sites.

DOD’s 9-month report stated that case activity was lower than expected. As 

a result of the low case activity, program officials have said they will seek 

to extend their respective programs for an additional (third) year. 

According to the authorizing memo from DOD implementing the pilot 

program, in April 2006 program officials can request to extend the pilot 

program for a third year. At the time of this report, DeCA and USAF had 

made requests of DOD to extend the operation of their pilot programs for a 

third year. 

29For fiscal year 2004, 222 employees contacted their particular EEO offices DeCA-wide.
Page 15 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

Although Containing 

Some Strengths, 

Limitations in Its 

Evaluation Plan Will 

Hinder DOD’s Ability to 

Assess Pilot Program 

Results 

Our initial assessment of DOD’s evaluation plan for the pilot program found 

both strengths and limitations. One strength of the plan was the inclusion 

of forms for collecting baseline data (before the programs began) and pilot 

program data, which provides a tool for the pilot programs to measure 

some aspects of their progress. Although DOD developed an evaluation 

plan for the overall pilot program, the plan lacked some key features of a 

sound evaluation plan, including measures that are directly linked to the 

program objectives, criteria for determining pilot program performance, 

and an appropriate data analysis plan for the evaluation design. Without 

such features, DOD will be limited in its ability to conduct an accurate and 

reliable assessment of the programs’ results. In addition, the lack of 

established key evaluation features in DOD’s plan increases the likelihood 

of insufficient or unreliable data, further limiting confidence in pilot 

program results. Without confidence in pilot program results, DOD will be 

limited in its decision making regarding this pilot program, and Congress 

will be limited in its decision making about the pilot program’s potential 

broader application. 

Officials from DOD’s pilot program oversight entities have acknowledged 

shortcomings and have indicated a willingness to modify the plan.

Strengths of DOD’s 

Evaluation Plan 

Considering the evaluation plan itself and interviews with DOD officials, 

we found that DOD’s plans for assessing the pilot programs had some 

strengths, including: 

• Forms in the evaluation plan for collecting baseline data (before 

the pilot programs began) and pilot program data. According to 

the evaluation plan, baseline data from fiscal year 2004 are recorded on 

a template (i.e., a modified version of EEOC Form 462) appropriate to 

the part of the complaint process the pilot program focuses on. Data 

collected during the programs will be measured against the baseline 

data collected in the prior year’s EEOC Form 462.30 Pilot program and 

nonpilot program data are to be collected by an Individual Data Report 

form, which is to collect processing-time data, comparative information 

30Agencies are to use EEOC Form 462 to report the discrimination complaint processing 

statistics for individual complaints of discrimination, including such information as total 

number of individuals counseled during a reporting period, number counseled where 

counseling was completed within 30 days, and the number of formal complaints filed.
Page 16 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

on early ADR, and early management involvement in cases at each pilot 

program site. Comparing data from the modified EEOC Form 462 to 

data from the program as well as to nonprogram cases is expected to 

help DOD determine whether processing times and redundancy were 

reduced concerning early resolution and streamlining as a result of the 

pilot program. 

• Detailed time frames, roles and responsibilities, and report 

planning in the evaluation plan. The evaluation plan includes a 

schedule that details tasks, roles and responsibilities, and milestones for 

completing set tasks in evaluating the pilot program. This schedule 

provides a framework that is organized and easy to follow. 

• Inclusion of reasonable research design. The evaluation plan 

includes a reasonable method for assessing pilot program results. 

Because the pilot program legislation mandates voluntary participation 

in the program, DOD was restricted from one form of design (i.e., 

randomly assigning employees alleging or filing complaints of 

discrimination to participate in the pilot program). As a result, DOD 

chose to compare prepilot and postpilot program data as well as pilot 

and nonpilot program cases.

In addition, DOD officials said that the plan can be adjusted to the extent 

feasible to ensure that the data collected are sufficient for evaluating the 

pilot program.

Without Key Evaluation 

Plan Features, DOD Will Be 

Limited in Its Ability to 

Assess Pilot Programs’ 

Results 

DOD’s plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot program lacks some 

key features that are essential to assessing performance. Well-developed 

evaluation plans, which include key evaluation features, have a number of 

benefits, perhaps most importantly, increasing the likelihood that 

evaluations will yield methodologically sound results, thereby supporting 

effective program and policy decisions. The lack of established key 

evaluation features in DOD’s plan increases the likelihood of insufficient or 

unreliable data, limiting confidence in pilot program results. Without 

confidence in pilot program results, DOD will be limited in its decision 

making regarding this pilot program, and Congress will be limited in its 

decision making about the pilot program’s potential broader application. 
Page 17 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

Some key features of a sound evaluation plan include:31

• well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives;

• measures that are directly linked to the program objectives;

• criteria for determining pilot program performance;

• a way to isolate the effects of the pilot programs;

• a data analysis plan for the evaluation design; and

• a detailed plan to ensure that data collection, entry, and storage are 

reliable and error-free. 

DOD’s evaluation plan contains the following limitations:

• The objectives in DOD’s evaluation plan are not well defined or clear, 

which makes measurement problematic. For example, the evaluation 

plan identifies management accountability as an objective without 

defining it, who it applies to, and how it will be measured. Without welldefined, clear, and measurable objectives, the appropriate data may not 

be collected, thus hindering the assessment of pilot program progress. 

• DOD’s data collection efforts are not linked to objectives in the 

evaluation plan. For example, the evaluation plan contains a variety of 

surveys that the individual pilot programs can use to measure customer 

satisfaction, but customer satisfaction is not included in the evaluation 

plan as an objective of the plan. Directly linking objectives and 

measures is a key feature of an evaluation plan. Without such linkage, 

data collection efforts may not directly inform stated objectives, and in 

turn, may not inform the evaluation effort.

31P.H. Rossi, M.W. Lipsey, and H.E. Freeman, Evaluation: A Systematic Approach

(Thousand Oaks, Calif.: 2004); GAO, Designing Evaluations, GAO/PEMD-10.1.4

(Washington, D.C.: May 1991); GAO, Assessing Social Program Impact Evaluations: A 

Checklist Approach, (Washington, D.C.: October 1978); B.R. Worthen, J.R. Sanders, & J.L. 

Fitzpatrick, Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (New 

York: 1997); L. Scharf, “Evaluating ADR Programs”, in Federal ADR Program Manager’s 

Resource Manual.
Page 18 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

• DOD’s evaluation plan does not establish standards for evaluating pilot 

program performance. For example, DOD’s plan does not state the 

amount or type of change required to indicate that a pilot program has 

succeeded in reducing processing time. Without targets or standards for 

determining success, it will be difficult to determine if the pilot program 

was effective.

• DOD’s evaluation plan does not mention controlling for possible 

outcomes that are attributable to factors other than the effects of the 

programs. A preferred research method is to use random assignment of 

program participants to provide greater confidence that results are 

attributable to a program. As we mentioned, DOD was restricted from 

randomly assigning employees alleging or filing complaints of 

discrimination to participate in the pilot program. As a result, other 

factors, such as the type of complaint, complainant, or the mediator may 

affect pilot program outcomes. Establishing controls for such factors 

could help isolate the effects attributable to the pilot programs. When an 

evaluation design involves, for example, a comparison between prepilot 

and postpilot program conditions, the research design should include 

controls to ensure that results will be attributable to the pilot program 

and not to other factors. 

• DOD’s evaluation plan does not explain how the data will be analyzed. 

Although the evaluation plan has templates for collecting data, including 

pilot program baseline data, individual data reports, and various 

surveys, it does not state how the data collected will be analyzed. A data 

analysis plan is a key feature of an evaluation plan as it sets out how 

data will be analyzed to determine if program objectives have been met. 

Without a data analysis plan, it is not clear how the data will be analyzed 

to inform the objectives of the evaluation and assess the performance of 

the programs. 

• DOD’s plan does not explain how the integrity of the data collected will 

be ensured. A detailed plan to ensure that data collection, entry, and 

storage are reliable and error-free is a key feature of an evaluation plan 

that gives greater confidence to data quality and reliability and to any 

findings made from these data. Without a detailed plan to ensure that 

data collection, entry, and storage are reliable and error-free, confidence 

in pilot program results will be limited. 
Page 19 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

Conclusions All three programs share a common feature of emphasizing the use of ADR 

to meet the legislative mandate to improve the efficiency of the EEO 

complaint process. In addition, although authorized to operate outside of 

current EEOC regulations, to a large extent, two of the three programs 

have been designed by DOD to operate within the requirements of current 

regulations. While sharing common strategies in such areas as electronic 

data collection, the pilot programs implemented them differently. As the 

challenges of the 21st century grow, it will become increasingly important 

for DOD to consider how it can maximize performance and results through 

the improved collaboration of its organizations. Officials from the 

programs and DOD’s EEO pilot program oversight entities have indicated 

their willingness to share information and strategies. 

To better ensure that it will provide useful results, DOD needs to make 

changes to its evaluation plan. Although DOD’s evaluation plan had some 

strengths, the plan’s shortcomings may impede DOD’s ability to produce 

sound results that can inform both program and policy decisions regarding 

the overall pilot program. The lack of key evaluation features, such as clear 

and measurable objectives, measures linked to these objectives, and 

established criteria for determining pilot program performance may limit 

confidence in pilot program results. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To improve the performance and results of the pilot program, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy 

Undersecretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, the Deputy 

Undersecretary for Equal Opportunity, and the Civilian Personnel 

Management Service to take the following actions:

Establish regular intra-agency exchanges of information on outreach 

strategies, training, and electronic data collection from which the pilot 

programs could achieve potential benefits that would not be available if 

working separately.

Develop a sound evaluation plan to accurately and reliably assess the pilot 

programs’ results, including such key features as

• well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives;

• measures that are directly linked to the program objectives;
Page 20 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

• criteria for determining pilot program performance;

• a way to isolate the effects of the pilot programs;

• a data analysis plan for the evaluation design; and

• a detailed plan to ensure that data collection, entry, and storage are 

reliable and error-free.

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Defense for his review 

and comment. The Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense provided 

written comments, which are included in appendix II. 

DOD generally agreed with our recommendations. Regarding the 

establishment of regular intra-agency exchanges of information among the 

pilot programs to leverage potential benefits, DOD stated that it will hold 

quarterly meetings with pilot program managers. Concerning the 

development of an evaluation plan that accurately and reliably assesses the 

pilot programs’ results, DOD partially concurred with the recommendation 

and stated that it would consider and incorporate the recommended key 

features into the evaluation plan as appropriate. However, DOD also stated 

that the purpose of the plan was to assist pilot program evaluators in their 

work by specifying those procedures, tools, and objectives that would be 

unique to the pilot programs. In its comments, DOD reasons that because 

all pilot program officials agreed on a particular objective, which was 

common to both the pilot and traditional EEO complaint procedures, that it 

was not necessary to link data collection efforts to that objective or 

incorporate either the objective or the data collection effort in the 

evaluation plan. Because the plan is the long-term guide for the pilot 

program evaluation process and because staff changes occur, it is 

important that DOD include all objectives and methods they intend to use 

in the plan, allowing the evaluation process to be more transparent and 

provide clearer guidance to the pilot program officials on evaluation 

procedures.

In its response, DOD also commented on our observation that to a large 

extent two of the three pilot programs were designed and are operating 

within existing EEOC requirements. DOD noted that this was due in large 

part to a presidential memorandum issued when the legislation was signed. 

The memorandum, which addressed the implementation of the pilot 

program, required that a complaining party be allowed to opt out of the 
Page 21 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

pilot program at any time. According to DOD, adhering to this requirement 

necessitated using a similar design to the current EEO process so that 

complaining parties who decided to opt out would not be penalized by 

having to start at the very beginning of the current EEO complaint process. 

It is not clear to us that ensuring the ability to opt out at any point 

necessitates returning the complaining party to the very beginning of the 

current EEO process in all cases. Rather, the complaining party would be 

returned to the current EEO process at an appropriate point based on what 

was achieved through the pilot program process. Overall, we see nothing in 

the presidential memorandum that would limit DOD’s legitimate use of the 

procedural flexibility granted by Congress through the pilot program 

authority.

We will send copies of this report to other interested congressional parties, 

the Secretary of Defense, and the Chair of EEOC. We also will make copies 

available to others upon request. In addition, the report is available on 

GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov. 

If your staff have questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 

512-9490. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours,

George H. Stalcup

Director, Strategic Issues
Page 22 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

List of Congressional Addressees

The Honorable John Warner

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Duncan Hunter

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable George V. Voinovich

Chairman

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,

the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Jon C. Porter

Chairman

The Honorable Danny K. Davis

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives
Page 23 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

Appendix I

EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to Apendxies

Federal Employees ApendxiI

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, makes it illegal for 

employers, including federal agencies, to discriminate against their 

employees or job applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin.1

 The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women who 

perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sexbased wage discrimination.2

 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 

1967, as amended, prohibits employment discrimination against individuals 

who are 40 years of age or older.3

 Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended, prohibit discrimination against qualified 

individuals with disabilities who work or apply to work in the federal 

government.4

 Federal agencies are required to provide reasonable 

accommodation to qualified employees or applicants for employment with 

disabilities, except when such accommodation would cause an undue 

hardship. In addition, a person who files a complaint or participates in an 

investigation of an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint or who 

opposes an employment practice made illegal under any of the 

antidiscrimination statutes is protected from retaliation. The Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing 

all of these laws.

Federal employees or applicants for employment who believe that they 

have been discriminated against by a federal agency may file a complaint 

with that agency.5

 The EEOC has established regulations providing for the 

processing of federal sector employment discrimination complaints.6 This 

complaint process consists of two stages, informal, or precomplaint 

counseling, and formal. Before filing a complaint, the employee must 

consult an EEO counselor at the agency in order to try to informally resolve 

the matter. The employee must contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of 

the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, 

1

42 U.S.C. secs. 2000e et seq. 

2

29 U.S.C. sec. 206(d).

3

29 U.S.C. secs. 621 et seq. 

4

29 U.S.C. secs. 791 and 794a.

5

For allegations of discrimination under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act, filing an 

administrative complaint is a prerequisite to filing a civil action in court. See 42 U.S.C. sec. 

2000e-16(c) and 29 U.S.C. sec. 794a(a)(1).

6

29 C.F.R. Part 1614. EEOC has supplemented these regulations with additional guidance 

relating to the processing of complaints with Management Directive-110 (MD-110).
Appendix I

EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to 

Federal Employees

Page 24 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

within 45 days of the effective date of the action. Counselors are to advise 

individuals that, when the agency agrees to offer alternative dispute 

resolution (ADR) in the particular case,7

 they may choose to participate in 

either counseling or in ADR. 

Counseling is to be completed within 30 days from the date the employee 

contacted the EEO office for counseling unless the employee and agency 

agree to an extension of up to an additional 60 days. If ADR is chosen, the 

parties have 90 days in which to attempt resolution. If the matter is not 

resolved within these time frames, the counselor is required to inform the 

employee in writing of his or her right to file a formal discrimination 

complaint with the agency. The written notice must inform the employee of 

the (1) right to file a discrimination complaint within 15 days of receipt of 

the notice, (2) appropriate agency official with whom to file a complaint, 

and (3) duty to ensure that the agency is informed immediately if the 

complainant retains counsel or a representative.

After a complainant files a formal discrimination complaint, the agency 

must decide whether to accept or dismiss the complaint and notify the 

complainant. If the agency dismisses the complaint, the complainant has 30 

days to appeal the dismissal to EEOC.8

 If the agency accepts the complaint, 

it has 180 days to investigate the accepted complaint and provide the 

complainant with a copy of the investigative file.9

 Within 30 days of receipt 

of the copy of the investigative file, the complainant must choose between 

requesting (1) a hearing and decision from an EEOC administrative judge 

(AJ)10 or (2) a final decision from the agency. When a hearing is not 

requested, the agency must issue a final decision within 60 days. A 

complainant may appeal an agency’s final decision to EEOC within 30 days 

of receiving the final decision. 

7

ADR generally refers to any procedure agreed to by the parties in a dispute that is used to 

resolve issues in controversy including, but not limited to, conciliation, facilitation, or 

mediation. As of January 1, 2000, all federal agencies covered by 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 were 

required to establish or make available an ADR program during the informal (precomplaint 

counseling) and formal complaint stages of the EEO process. 

8

An agency may dismiss an individual’s complaint for a number of reasons, including failure 

to contact an EEO counselor in a timely manner, failure to file a complaint in a timely 

manner, or failure to state a claim based on covered discrimination. 

9

This period can be extended an additional 90 days when both parties agree. 

10A complainant may request a hearing at any time after 180 days have elapsed from the 

filing of the complaint, regardless of whether the agency has completed its investigation. 
Appendix I

EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to 

Federal Employees

Page 25 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

In cases where a hearing is requested, the AJ has 180 days to issue a 

decision and send the decision to the complainant and the agency.11 If the 

AJ issues a finding of discrimination, he or she is to order appropriate 

relief. After the AJ decision is issued, the agency has 40 days to issue a final 

order notifying the complainant whether or not the agency will fully 

implement the decision of the AJ, and the employee has 30 days to file an 

appeal with EEOC of the agency’s final order.12 If the agency issues an 

order notifying the complainant that the agency will not fully implement 

the decision of the AJ, the agency also must file an appeal with EEOC at the 

same time. Parties have 30 days in which to request reconsideration of an 

EEOC decision. Figure I illustrates the EEO complaint process.

11The AJ can extend this time for issuing a decision by making a written determination that 

good cause exists to do so.

12If the agency does not issue a final order within 40 days, the decision of the AJ becomes 

the final action of the agency.
Appendix I

EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to 

Federal Employees

Page 26 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

Figure 1: The EEO Administrative Complaint Process with Related Time Frames

a

Where the agency agrees to offer ADR in the particular case, employees may choose between 

participation in ADR and counseling activities. ADR generally refers to any procedure agreed to by the 

parties in a dispute that is used to resolve issues in controversy including, but not limited to, mediation. 

b

Where ADR is chosen, the parties have up to 90 days in which to attempt resolution. 

If a complaint is one that can be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB) such as a removal, reduction in grade or pay, or suspension 

for more than 14 days,13 the complaint is a “mixed-case complaint.” EEOC 

Alleged

Discrimination

EEO 

counseling/ADRa

Notice of right 

to file a formal

complaint

Formal complaint

filed with agency

Hearing not

requested

Dismissed

complaint

Final agency

decision

Administrative

judge's decision

Hearing requested

by complainant

before EEOC

administrative

judge

Appeal to

EEOC

Accepted complaint

investigated and

report of investigation 

issued to complainant

Complainant and 

agency agreement 

to extend counseling

Informal

stage

Formal

stage

Additional

60 days

45 days

30 daysb

30 days

90 days

15 days

180 days

30 days

Additional

90 days

30 days

40 days

Agency appeal

to EEOC of 

administrative

judge’s decision

Complainant

30 days

60 days

180 days

Source: GAO, based on EEOC regulations.

Complainant and 

agency agreement 

to extend investigation

Agency

final order

13MPSB is an independent quasijudicial agency in the executive branch that adjudicates 

employee appeals of personnel actions and conducts studies of the federal merit system.
Appendix I

EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to 

Federal Employees

Page 27 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

regulations provide that an individual may raise claims of discrimination in 

a mixed case, either as a mixed-case EEO complaint with the agency or a 

direct appeal to MSPB, but not both.14

A complainant may file a civil action in federal district court at various 

points during and after the administrative process.15 The filing of a civil 

action will terminate the administrative processing of the complaint. A 

complainant may file a civil action within 90 days of receiving the agency’s 

final decision or order, or EEOC’s final decision. A complainant may also 

file a civil action after 180 days from filing a complaint with his or her 

agency, or filing an appeal with EEOC, if no final action or decision has 

been made. 

14For employees of agencies subject to 5 U.S.C. sec. 7121(d) and covered by a collective 

bargaining agreement that permits claims of discrimination to be raised in a negotiated 

grievance procedure, the employees similarly must elect to file an EEO complaint or 

grievance.

15There are different time requirements for filing a civil action in district court alleging 

discrimination under the Equal Pay Act and for filing civil actions relating to mixed-case 

complaints. See 29 C.F.R. sec. 1614.408 and sec. 1614.310. 
Page 28 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Defense ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 29 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 30 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity
Page 31 GAO-06-538 Equal Employment Opportunity

Appendix III

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contact George H. Stalcup, (202) 512-9490 or stalcupg@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgements

In addition to the individual named above, Belva M. Martin, Assistant 

Director; Karin K. Fangman; Cindy Gilbert; Emily Hampton-Manley; 

Anthony Patterson; Rebecca Shea; Linda Sidwell (detailee); and Kiki 

Theodoropoulos made key contributions to this report. 

(450467) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548