Letters to ATF Asst. Director Richard Chase - Special Agent

The following letter was never responded to. This after sworn depositions showed that a RAC and an ASAC had concealed a gross violation of policy by covering up the wilfull damage to issued ATF Badges. The mentioned ma and was never reported as prescribed by policy. Of course there was no comparison to anything, but then we are sure Internal Affairs knew they needed something to compare the tool marks to. At least we believe that IA was familiar with this procedure.nagers reported it months later only after it was disclosed during depositions that not only were they aware of the intentionasl damge but made numerous attempts to conceal this fact and enlisted an unwitting HQ security specialist to purchase new badges and conceal they were ever damage. The attempts to enlist this employee were decitful and this employee eventually exposed that the managers had tried to cover up the unprofessional and juvenile act. The internal affairs investigation and subsequent final report consisted of a telephone call to the RAC to ask if he damaged them.  Out of fairness, Internal affairs did attempt to give the appearance of diligence by sending the destroyed badges to the ATF lab for tool mark examination. The only thing that confirmed was that they were intentionall damaged while in the custody of the RAC, ASAC and SAC . No interviews were conducted under oath. No disciplinary action for concealing a felony, no adverse action for failure to report. Dear Director Chase, I am certain you have received the internal affairs report provided to me at the order of Judge Leach. With your concurrence I am forwarding this report and “investigation” to Inspector General for the Department of Justice. It has been repeatedly alleged that lackluster investigations are conducted when the allegations involve members of management. Since the OIG is looking into this fact, I feel compelled to provide your offices report related to my intentionally damaged badges. Nothing that could be liberally identified as an investigation was conducted. This is clear by the following actions/deficiencies:

1. The first official report to internal affairs by ANY member of ATF management was on June 6, 2006. Over 3 months after the damage to sensitive government property was identified to/by the RAC, ASAC and SAC. This was made only after the attempt to conceal the damaged badges were exposed during depositions related to EEOC discrimination and retaliation against SA Cefalu.
2. SA Milanowski states that in early 2006 I “applied for” a medical disability. I NEVER applied for a medical disability. I was placed on a total TEMPORARY disability until further medical intervention could be explored.
3. The second sentence of the IA report ignores that I was seeking temporary light duty to return to duty. This sentence also ignores that I provided the reports of 4 separate government doctors stating additional surgery could facilitate my return to duty.
4. SA Milanowski states “in October 2006 SA Cefalu reconsidered and accepted the non-agent position”. I did not accept the position until November 2006 after facing termination.
5. Next SA Milanowski states that ASAC Gleysteen sent the damaged badges to HQ and requested new ones. This is a distortion of the FACTS, (see Porciello deposition). The badges were sent to Ms. Porciello w/o explanation or request for action. Only after Ms. Porciello initiated telephone contact did ASAC Gleysteen or the SFFD offer any information. When the questions was asked by Porciello “did the agent damaged his own badges”? Mr. Gleysteen stated it would appear so. This even though both badges were turned over in the presence of an eye witness. Even though the badges were removed from their holders (pocket commission and belt holder) prior to being placed in the sealed pink envelope. It would be virtually impossible to NOT notice the damage. Ms. Porciellos representation that she became suspicious after repeated calls from ASAC Gleysteen and his request that she conceal the intentional damage from SA Cefalu has been omitted from the IA report.
6. Not ONE sworn statement was taken from any witness identified in this case.
7. The failure to report and the concealment of the damage was not questioned at any point in the investigation.
8. SAC Martin, ASAC Gleysteen, SA Jim Bauer, SA OCDETF coordinator Paul Smith or Robyn Cefalu were never interviewed telephonically or otherwise related to these allegations.
9. The only representation relied upon is that provided by the accused themselves. In ASAC Gleysteens email, he attempts to justify his violation of policy and Federal law by inferring that SA Cefalu had ongoing and significant misconduct and disciplinary issues. If SA Milanowski did in fact review the depositions of SAC Martin, ASAC Gleysteen and RAC Downs or reviewed any other documents included in this report, he failed to clarify the following:
   1. The proposed suspension was rescinded.
   2. The unqualified and untrained personal opinions of those named in Cefalus EEOC complaint are the only suggestion on record supporting ANY anger management “issues”.
   3. That the transfer to Sacramento was reversed.
   4. The injury, treatment and SFFD’s knowledge of my job related injury had existed for over 1 ½ year. This includes knowledge of my upcoming surgery.
   5. SA Cefalu did NOT quickly request any leave. SA Cefalu DID report to Sacramento as ordered in the witness of SA Delgadillo. RAC Downs was advised well in advance and any reference suggesting that SA Cefalu made the determination to conduct surgery rather than the doctor is erroneous.
10. The “appropriate division personnel to whom my badges were delivered were never identified.
11. The report contained No discussion or reference to the fact that Mr. Gleysteen attempted to solicit Ms. Porciello to deceive SA Cefalu as to the status of his badges.
12. Mr. Gleysteen infers in the final paragraph in his email report to Internal affairs, that the Bureau was unable to conclusively prove that SA Cefalu damaged the badges, Chief counsel recommended reporting the damage. Mr. Gleysteen stated in his deposition that he had discussed the badges with RAC Downs. There was no explanation requested or offered regarding the failure to report such obvious destruction to sensitive property.
13. No polygraph has been offered to any of the managers or myself which is a fairly common tool utilized by OPRSRO.

---------------------------------------------------- Director Chase, I am reasonably certain you have been made aware by ATF counsels office, of the recent discovery of documentary evidence of untruthfulness, lack of candor and perjury by members of the San Francisco management staff. I am merely ensuring that these violations have not slipped through the cracks as it is now clear, that testimony under oath as well as sworn declaration by SAC Steve Martin, ASAC Michael Gleysteen and RAC/OCDETF coordinator Dennis Downs was intentionally misleading and in fact constitute willful and intentional perjury. Due to the Bureaus Giglio policy and the seriousness of such discoveries, I feel compelled to duplicate any report that may have already been made by Chief Counsel’s office. Since these acts are identified as egregious violations in the ATF orders I now believe that such acts by these managers may have been the basis for untruthful and intentionally misleading responses to congressional inquiries by the office of Public and Governmental affairs, as well as responses to the EEOC and administrative judge who has been assigned various cases. I have been told that these matters and like matters are already under review by Michael Fletcher of the office of the Inspector General. The documents which contradict sworn testimony are in ATF custody and were provided to me by Chief Counsel’s office. My private counsel has identified the discovery of such documentary evidence to ATF counsel’s office. In reading the ATF orders relating to sworn declarations and/or testimony, I believe that the same standard or even a higher standard of truthfulness expected and mandated from ATF managers especially those in the SES program as would expected from field Agents. The repeated modifications and representations of the chronology of events that have been reviewed, constructed or submitted through Chief counsels office to Senator Feinsteins office, my attorney, the EEOC and the Administrative judge as related to my ongoing discrimination/retaliation case, are based on intentional and willful lies to EEOC investigators and/or while under oath in a lawful deposition. As I stated, I am not being more specific because the documents suggesting the above allegations are in ATF custody and as I understand it, Counsels office is obligated to report such violations to Internal Affairs. I would like this information to be forwarded to AD Hoover to be included in my formal grievance currently being reviewed. However, I have been prohibited from communicating with anyone in my chain of command outside of the San Francisco Field Division and wish to avoid further retaliation based on the SFFD’s technical interpretation of my actions. Respectfully submitted, *************** Special Agent