Hi *********,
I’ll go over a few items below for clarification as well as trying to add to what I told you last week. If you don’t mind, I’m just going to put info in ‘bullet’ format because I’m short on time and at least this could get you started. Feel free to call if you need any clarification. I know it’s long in places but there are several incidents in the past 12 months especially that have been. There also may be some typos or grammatical problems, but I wanted to get a draft to you early since I’m flying out first thing Monday for work.
- I started with ATF on Aug 1, 1988. I am retiring on July 31, 2008. In addition I served 10 years as a US Coast Guard officer and graduate of the US Coast Guard Academy.
- I began working in the ATF Certified Fire Investigator program in 1991 and have specialized in that area since.
- In 1998 I was awarded the ATF Special Agent of the Year award for the entire country based upon work I’d done on a couple of arson homicide cases.
- I have also earned numerous other awards including the Treasury Secretary award around 1990 or 1991.
My difficulties with ATF began in the past 1-2 years. The first major problem occurred in 2007. The following relates to the background of that issue. In around Feb 2007, I obtained permission from my first and second line supervisors, R. Graham Barlow and Michael Gleysteen respectively, to teach at the Int’l Association of Arson Investigators annual conference in British Columbia. I also sought and received permission to take three weeks of annual leave in April 2007. During April, the Sacramento office conducted a wiretap investigation. I was told by Barlowe in mid-late March that I needed to spend days sitting on the wiretap. I explained, with much frustration, that I had already received permission from him to be gone during that time and reminded him that in May when I returned, I would be in a trial of a serial arsonist in Redding, CA. I suggested he find some new agents that did not have a lot of cases or activities already scheduled. Barlowe seemed upset with me for not “pulling my weight” and helping out in Sacramento. As it turned out, the serial arsonist I was helping to prosecute pled guilty in the first few days of his scheduled trial and was sentenced to 13 years in prison.
Also, in late 2006, I opened an investigation into the April 2002 theft of about 750 lbs of high explosives in Northern California. The case had previously been investigated by two agents and closed on two occasions when they could not solve it. In the first three months of 2007, I spent many hours investigating this same crime and eventually identified the thief and the people that ultimately received the explosives. Two weeks before the statute of limitations ran on the theft, I was able to assist the US Attorney to indict the defendant. The response I received from my supervisors for this work was lukewarm at best. They acted as if this was mediocre work.
In June and early July 2007, I worked full time helping prepare for and try a man in federal court for arson and fraud charges in an arson-for-profit scheme in Sacramento. Doing so, I spent approximately four weeks away from my home in far northern California. The man was convicted by a jury and received the longest sentence ever handed down in the Eastern District of California for a single arson-for-profit incident. Again, the response from my supervisors for having completed a successful investigation and prosecution was almost non existent.
On around March 15, 2007, the largest fire loss in Sacramento history occurred when a Union Pacific railroad trestle was burned in an arson fire. The eventual financial loss was estimated at $400 million. Within about a month of the fire, the Sacramento Fire Department received information that implicated an unidentified illegal alien in the arson fire. The man reportedly confessed to associates that he had set the fire. The Sacramento FD investigators contacted me and I expanded the federal investigation. I began efforts to identify the individual thought to be responsible. During May 2007, the man was finally identified and arrested. He provided a false name and other information when I interviewed him about the arson. I filed charges against him and he was indicted in federal court on several counts. ATF management showed virtually no interest in the case although I kept Barlowe fully appraised of its progress. The US Attorney’s office was enthused about pursuing it.
We received information that there was at least one other person who could corroborate the suspect’s reported confession. I advised Barlowe that as soon as the arson for profit trial was over, that I would be following up on locating the witness so that the railroad trestle arson investigation might be perfected. I expected to spend several weeks trying to locate and persuade the supposed witness to cooperate with the government.
Two days after the conclusion of the arson trial, I received an e-mail message from Dennis Downs, the supervisor of the Stockton ATF office advising me that I had been assigned to a wiretap in Stockton, California to commence three days later and lasting five weeks. At the time I was in the Sacramento area. I called Downs and asked him why I was being advised of this assignment by e-mail rather than a phone call and why, as it turned out, I was being assigned for more shifts than any other agent in the Division, including every agent from the Stockton office. I was quite upset. I told Downs that I had not been home for four weeks, my son was home for college and I had not been able to visit with him. With this new assignment, I would not be able to see him for the remainder of the summer except for possibly one or two weekends. Downs advised me he had no choice and that ASAC Gleysteen told him to assign me to all the shifts.
I called Barlowe and told him I was mad about the assignment and the way it was handled. I asked why I was being assigned to this case longer than any other agent when I was in the middle of investigating the largest fire in Sacramento history. He had no explanation other than the direction came from “the Division” meaning either Gleysteen or Martin. I later spoke with Barlowe and Downs in person and said I wanted to speak with either Gleysteen or Martin about it since Gleysteen was being blamed for assigning me. I was told by Barlowe that if I pushed the issue and tried to talk to them, “There would be consequences”. I asked why I as a senior agent was being assigned to more shifts than any other agent and was told that I had not “pulled my weight” on the Sacramento wiretap and was thus assigned. I also pointed out that the other two Certified Fire Investigators (CFIs) in the Division, both of whom were junior to me, had been assigned to far fewer shifts (one of the CFIs was given no wiretap shifts) and why junior agents were assigned less than I was. Barlowe said that I was no different than any other agent and would receive no special consideration. No one ever explained why I had to pull more than any other agent. I advised that ATF headquarters had already scheduled me for a week of mandatory CFI training during my scheduled shifts. That same week Gleysteen advised Headquarters that I could not attend the mandatory training because of “operational necessities”. Meanwhile, the other two CFIs were allowed to attend the training.
I also had been scheduled to travel to London to teach a specialty class that I designed for a group of UK fire investigators. Such training has always been one of the “perks” for senior CFIs who have advanced training and knowledge in particular areas. In August, Gleysteen advised Headquarters he had cancelled my travel and instead allowed another junior CFI in my division to go in my place. Gleysteen also attempted to prevent me from giving two other classes, one in Oregon and one in Colorado. Because I had designed the classes and since no one in the country was eligible to teach them, he finally relented when supervisors from Oregon and Colorado made specific requests to him to ask me to make the presentations.
In November 2007, I underwent shoulder surgery and was on leave until late January 2008. As soon as I returned from leave, I advised Barlowe and Gleysteen in writing of several training sessions inside the U.S. for which I was specifically requested as an instructor to give this one-of-a-kind fire science training. I had also been once again asked by another section of arson investigators in the UK to teach a class there in July 2008. In January 2008, I wrote an e-mail to ATF Headquarters and included Barlowe as a “cc” asking for funding for the UK training and included a flyer for the program clearly showing I was on the agenda. Barlowe never responded one way or the other although he did read the message. I also advised him verbally about this request at the Sacramento Field Office on January 18, 2008.
In February 2008, after learning ATF had no funding to send me to London, I was advised by the UK that they would pay for my trip. I submitted an electronic leave request to Barlowe for two weeks off in July 2008 to cover the timeframe so that I would physically not be exhausted by flying to the UK one day, teaching the next, and returning the following day. He failed to respond for several weeks to my request. I specifically stated in the request that if possible, I would like to take the time spent travelling and teaching at the conference as work hours. Having received no response to my leave request by April 1st, I reminded Barlowe of the request by e-mail and asked him to either approve or deny it. He replied that he first had to talk to Special Agent Hauser because she might need my help on an operation that might occur at that time. About ten days later, I still had no response from Barlowe. I saw SA Hauser and asked her if Barlowe had spoken about my leave with her. She said he had not and told me that none of the official requests for the operation had even been submitted to the Department of Justice for approval. She also said that since she knew I’d be retiring in the summer, she was not even planning on my being available for staffing.
On April 14, 2008, I advised RAC Barlowe in writing that I had initiated a retirement action for myself effective 8/31/2008. He read my message. On April 15th I completed my online ethics training for ATF. During the training, I learned that if any employee was to receive payment for travel in relation to job activities, such payments had to first be approved by the ATF Ethics division. Accordingly, I immediately wrote to an ATF attorney advising him that since ATF had no money to pay for my travel to the UK in July to teach, that the UK Chapter of the Int’l Association of Arson Investigators offered to cover my travel cost including a hotel room and airfare. I cc:d RAC Barlowe on that message. The attorney responded promptly and said that my request would likely be approved but that I should submit a letter officially requesting approval. Barlowe then sent me a message asking what the background was on the training and stated I needed SAC approval before anything was set up. This was despite my having advised him at least twice in January 2008 about the same training request to teach in the UK. Later on April 15th, Barlowe called me and said that the Division (Martin and Gleysteen) would not approve me being out of the country for training because of the operational demands of SA Hauser’s case. I asked if he had even asked the Division if they’d approve the travel and he said “No, but I know what they’ll say”. I also advised him that SA Hauser indicated just a few days before that nothing firm had been authorized as related to the proposed operational action Barlowe claimed he needed me in Sacramento for. He responded that Hauser did not make personnel decisions. This was despite telling me a few weeks before that he could only respond to my leave request after consulting with her. Further, immediately after Barlowe told me this, I checked one more time with the agents involved in the operation and was advised there have still been no affirmative steps made that would authorize or enable any such operation can even take place at any time, let alone in July.
Another instance in which I feel I was being discriminated against because of my age involved my request for funding from the SF Division to attend the Int’l Association of Arson Investigators conference in Denver at the end of April. The other two CFIs in the division also requested funding. We were all denied based on the Division not having money available. Around mid-March, I heard that the two other CFIs had subsequently been approved by the Division and notified by them that funding for their travel was available. No onefrom the Division ever contacted me about my availability or interest in attending despite my being the senior CFI in the Division. At that point I had not yet filed for retirement later this year.
As I mentioned earlier, I am the senior CFI in the Division. I have never had less than fully satisfactory reviews (including a mid-year review in March 2008 which was “Fully Satisfactory” and most have been Exceeds Fully Satisfactory or Outstanding. In 1998 I was the ATF Special Agent of the Year for the entire country. I have had a record in terms of fire investigation and arson convictions in the SF Division that has been unmatched. I find it extremely difficult to believe that my being treated unequally to this division’s other CFIs has anything to do with anything related to my performance. Instead, it seems clear to me that it is because I am the most senior CFI and rapidly approaching retirement age.
I find it quite transparent that the day after I advise Barlowe that I would be retiring, that the latest restrictive step was taken against me. As a result, supervisory decisions by senior staff in this Division have prevented me, twice in one year, from travelling to the UK despite the officials there specifically asking for me to present this one-of-a-kind presentation. This slap in the face was exacerbated when, on one of those occasions, another CFI in this Division was allowed to travel to the very same training program.
Because of this treatment, on April 16, 2008, because of this continued pattern of unequal treatment, I filed for EEO protections from further age discrimination by the supervisory staff in my chain of command in the San Francisco Field Division.
