With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". she may lodge an EEO complaint with her agency. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103(a). An aggrieved employee (or, as in this case, an aggrieved former employee) has a choice between these two options — but she may not avail herself of both. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(b) (recognizing that once a formal appeal or complaint is filed in either forum, it “shall be considered an election to proceed in that forum”); see also Castro v. United States, 775 F.2d 399, 404 & n. 5 (1st Cir.1985) (per curiam). The lodging of either a formal appeal with the Board or a formal complaint with the agency demarcates the point of no return. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(b). From that point forward, the complainant must exhaust her claim in the chosen forum. See Economou v. Caldera, 286 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The Commission’s regulations highlight the

A: holding that a federal employee who had first filed a formal appeal with the board was required to exhaust his administrative remedies in that forum and could not move at will to the other track
B: holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief
C: holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court
D: holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea
A.