This Special Agent's difficulties with the ATF began in the final years of his career. It is his experience that his supervisors are treating him differently than younger agents and are ignoring his accomplishments. Agent has had an outstanding record in terms of fire investigation and arson convictions in the San Francisco Field Division that is unmatched. It is clear that the disparity is because he is the most senior Certified Fire Investigator and rapidly approaching retirement age. The Agent was not treated in this manner by ATF management until he neared retirement age and believes managements discriminatory actions toward him were motivated by his age and his unwillingness to follow blindly and acquiesce to apathetic managers.
As a result of the Agents solving a previously investigated large theft of explosives, he obtained permission from his RAC and ASAC to teach at the International Association of Arson Investigators annual conference in British Columbia. The Agent also sought and received permission to take three weeks of annual leave in April 2007. In mid to late March however, he was told by his RAC that he needed to spend days sitting on the wiretap in April and May. The Agent explained that he had already received permission from the RAC to be gone during that time and reminded him that in May when the Agent returned, he would be in a trial of a serial arsonist in Redding, CA. The Agent suggested that the RAC find agents that did not have a lot of cases or activities already scheduled. As it turned out, the serial arsonist that the Agent had investigated and was helping to prosecute for setting numerous fires in Redding, California causing several million dollars of damage, pled guilty in the first few days of his scheduled trial and was sentenced to 13 years in prison.
In March of 2007, the largest fire in Sacramento history occurred with losses estimated at $400 million. The agent opened a preliminary investigation into the origin and cause of the fire and within about a month of the fire, the Sacramento Fire Department investigators contacted the agent requesting assistance in following up certain leads related to a possible suspect. The Agent advised the RAC and expanded the federal investigation. In May 2007, based on the agents work and the work of the Sacramento Fire Department, a suspect was identified and arrested. Charges were filed against him and he was indicted in federal court on several counts. ATF management, including the ASAC and the SAC, showed virtually no interest in the case although they were kept fully appraised of its progress. The SFFD management staff were only concerned at the time with a overzealous high profile and media opportunity involving a marginal investigation related to cloak and dagger charges. The US Attorney's office was far more enthused about pursuing the major arson case.
In June and July 2007, the Agent helped prepare for and assisted in Sacramento at the trial of a man on federal arson and fraud charges. This took the Agent away from home for approximately four weeks. In mid-July, the man was convicted in trial of all counts against him. As per protocol, I notified my managers of the successful prosecution and once again, the interest shown in the success of the case was almost non-existent.
Two days after the conclusion of the arson trial, the agent received an e-mail message from the RAC of the Stockton ATF office advising him that the agent had been assigned to a wiretap in Stockton, California to commence three days later and lasting five weeks. At the time, the agent was still in the Sacramento area and had not had a chance to return to his home. The agent called the RAC and asked him why he was being advised of this assignment by e-mail rather than through the courtesy of a phone call and why, as it turned out, he was being assigned for more shifts than any other agent in the Division, including every agent from the Stockton office. The agent was understandably upset. He told the RAC that he had not been home for four weeks, that his son was home from college and that the agent had not been able to visit with him. With this new assignment, he would not be able to see him for the remainder of the summer except for possibly one or two weekends. The RAC advised the Agent he had no choice and that the ASAC had told him to assign me to all the shifts.
The Agent contacted his RAC and told him he was upset about the assignment and the way it was handled. The agent asked why he was being assigned to this case longer than any other agent when he was in the middle of investigating the largest fire in Sacramento history. The RAC offered no explanation other than the direction came from "the Division" meaning either the SAC or ASAC. The agent later spoke with both RACs in person and stated that he wanted to speak with either the ASAC or SAC about it since the ASAC was being blamed for the assignment. The agent was told by his RAC that if the Agent pushed the issue and tried to talk to them, "There would be consequences." The agent asked why agents with less seniority were assigned less than shifts than he was. The agent told the RAC that junior agents with lesser cases could be assigned instead of pulling him completely away from the biggest fire loss in Sacramento history. No one ever explained why the senior CFI had to pull more shifts than any other agent. The agent advised the RAC that ATF headquarters had already scheduled him for a week of mandatory CFI training during his scheduled shifts. That same week the ASAC advised Headquarters that the Agent could not attend the mandatory training because of "operational necessities". Meanwhile, the other two junior CFIs were allowed to attend the training.
On April 16, 2008, after another act of discrimination by my supervisors within hours of my notifying them of my retirement plans, I was told they were refusing to allow me to take earned annual leave in July, even though I had requested the leave in February or early March 2008, and stated it was due to operational demands. I soon learned that not only had the operation for which I had been denied leave been approved, but that permission had not even been sought from the top two levels of review. As a result of this continuing pattern of discrimination and of unequal treatment against me, I filed for EEO protections from further age discrimination by the supervisory staff in my chain of command in the San Francisco Field Division.
