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
holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief 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 holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim