I was advised that I was the subject of the investigation related to my using the government credit in furtherance of my PCS move and the relocation of my family. I explained that I had elected the fixed rate option to allow me to use the funds as I see fit as expressed on the Bureau’s website. I explained that the statement that I may keep and use the government funds however I like was absolute justification for using the funds in furtherance of my special circumstances temporary quarters. I explained that if I was authorized to utilize the government funds I had received, that it necessarily also authorized disbursement of the funds through utilization of the government credit card if only for record keeping purposes. I explained that I had formally requested through the chain of command in the SFFD field division in 2006 (government counsel Rachel Bouman) is in possession of all emails and formal memos regarding the SFFDs residency policy’s and my formal requests. These matters are related to my PCS which was subsequently reversed from Stockton, to Sacramento. I was told there are no such guidelines in SFFD after requesting guidance in writing.
I additionally relied upon multiple transfers and reassignments within the San Francisco field division that has established the “reasonable distance to in the area of 100 plus or minus miles”. I referenced numerous situations that I relied upon to base my decisions to include my former RAC who established permanent residency and I believe temporary residency in Turlock, California while assigned to Sacramento, Ca. There are numerous scenarios within the San Francisco where Agents are allowed to live great distances from their assignments in much lower COLA areas while still drawing the San Francisco COLA.
My situation has specific circumstances that justified heroic efforts to situate my family permanently while facilitating my assignment, which was allegedly temporary (see SAC Martin’s depositions, declarations and sworn statements to the EEOC). While my assignment is in Dublin, Ca. the agency knows I am within approximately one year of retirement. Both of my sons are living at home and are graduating high school in June 2008. They have decided to attend college and have applied to Lake Tahoe community college. This decision was coupled with the decision to prevent any further disruption to the family as I have incurred 5 transfers in the last 24 months as a result of having filed discrimination and retaliation claims against SFFD management staff. My daughter will be a junior in high school in Fall of 2008. To even consider relocating her for one year to Dublin, CA. only to uproot her for her senior year once I retired was unconscionable and therefore my wife and family collectively agreed to move to Lake Tahoe where I own property and made the decision to retire to. We agreed I would endure the commuting hardship until I retire. I have already established dual residency in the commuting area to Dublin, CA. I used this trip to tour the college with my college age sons and met with the local high school counselors with my high school age daughter. She was also provided a tour of the campus and provided an orientation.
My house is listed on the market and my intent is to vacate immediately or as soon is as practical. This move and transfer has placed such conflicting hardship on my family that a decision had to be made as to how many more transfers I should subject my wife and children to. I discussed this matter at length with Charles Brown my relocation counselor who stated that if I elect the fixed rate option I may use the funds as I see fit in furtherance of my transfer without the need to provide receipts. The Bureaus relocation website states “The fixed rate allows you to manage your expenses and any funds left are yours to keep. The ATF Travel and relocation website also states employees are required to use their government charge card in connection with lodging and meals related to relocation. I complied with both of the above postings only after discussing this with my relocation counselor when deciding which option to elect.
Although SA Golden stated that my explanations seemed reasonable under the prescribed set of circumstances, SA Milanowski repeatedly argued his interpretation of the policy and disregarded any explanation regarding the matter under investigation. SA Milanowski would not advise me who made the allegations and only that they originated in the SFFD. He went on to state that the allegations did however pass through several offices in headquarters prior to being assigned for investigation.
SA Milanowski stated he was not aware that I had made formal allegations in the form of a grievance to Deputy Director Ronnie Carter regarding his unethical conduct and dereliction of duty on a previous allegation I made regarding the willful destruction of government property. This even though Mr. Carter has assured me he was looking into the matter. It is not reasonable to believe that Mr. Carter has not at least discussed the matter with AD Richard Chase who also was the subject of my complaint to the Office of the Inspector General and Mr. Carter.
It is also bewildering how and why an obviously documented set of facts that resulted in two questions being asked couldn’t have been asked telephonically since the matter at hand is clearly and administrative issue and not one of integrity. Mr. Chase reviewed and approved the investigation related to the destruction of my badges and the ensuing allegation of cover-up and subornation of false statements by SAC Martin and ASAC Gleysteen and RAC Downs, yet he knowingly assigned the same investigator to look into this matter at the request of the very same managers I have made multiple allegations and complaints against to include gross misconduct.
I was asked about a cash advance taken while on a near non stop traveling detail requiring that I visit every field office in two states in 12 days. I have not done any significant travel in over 3 years due to my multiple transfers and ever changing assignments. SA Milanowski asked if I had filed a travel voucher and I stated that I had. SA Milanowski then stated that my supervisor DOO Tom Lyster had stated that I hadn’t and asked me to explain the disparity. I advised that either DOO Lyster had lied or could not remember signing my voucher less than one week ago. That the voucher had been entered into FRED the automated tracking system and that I in fact had made an error on the dates and had even amended it. Confirmation of this fact is included as attachments to my statement as well as a copy of the travel voucher signed by DOO Lyster on the same day he allegedly stated to SA Milanowski that he had not received it. The Fresno, Ca. voucher had been submitted to DOO 3 days prior to his signing it and was signed by DOO Lyster on 4/18/08.
The San Francisco management staff is intimately aware of the complaints and allegations pending against them. It has been revealed that the divisions’ property and the misrepresentations on signed government documents related to SFFD managers which have been submitted to the OIG and Office of Inspection by SFFD management were false. This has become known to me while conducting two inventories within the last 60 days showing false statements had been made repeatedly to cover the status of the field division’s gross mismanagement of accountable property. I made my concerns known recently through a series of emails while trying to identify the explanation for the misrepresentations. I was not able to find any explanation for the sweeping misrepresentations.
I attempted to rectify the discrepancies through my immediate Supervisor DOO Tom Lyster who stated “stop looking for skeletons in the closest”. DOO Lyster then stated that all policies, notification and NCIC entries were made in accordance with policies. I know this not to be true and such items as Radio Coding devices are listed as lost or missing. Multiple computers presumably containing law enforcement sensitive information are unaccounted for and not entered in crime data bases. Body wires containing ATF frequencies are missing without explanation. When I made my concerns known, it was immediately suggested/reported that I had perpetrated some impropriety based on a relocation interpretation and decision on my part, which is supported in writing and verbally through the travel and relocation section of ATF. This investigation can only be perceived as an ongoing attempt to discredit my reputation to impact ongoing litigation and punish me for participating in whistle blowing activities and the EEOC complaint process.
I have attached to my statement copies of emails supporting the representation of retaliation for initiating this investigation: . Copies of my complaint to Assistant Director Richard Chase, and Deputy Director Ronnie Carter. Copies of the web page entries relied upon in furtherance of my PCS and my family’s relocation. Copies of emails criticizing my attempting to clear up division property discrepancies.
On January 9, 2008 I filed a formal grievance related to the deficient investigation conducted by SA Milanowski as well and the lack of review and oversight provided by the AD of internal affairs. I specifically referenced the lack of any impartial investigation into the matter of the willful and intentional destruction of my issued badges and the subsequent aggressive attempts to conceal their destruction by members of the SFFD management staff.
I additionally pointed out the lack of diligence or any meaningful investigation on the part of SA Milanowski related to not following usual and customary protocols regarding the conduct of investigations. I also reported that AD Chase had signed off on the substandard investigation and that this pattern was very consistent with the previous findings of the Office of the Inspector Generals findings that allegations against ATF managers are not investigated as vigorously as those against field agents. In the aforementioned grievance, I also advised that I would be forwarding the allegations to the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice. Allegations related to the above allegations merited only one telephonic interview, yet an administrative question related to my open and proper use of my government credit while in PCS status requires the expenditure of travel funds, per diem and lodging and an in person interview by TWO Internal Affairs agents to ask TWO questions. Both questions had been asked and answered to my supervisor previously in email format.
It is not reasonable that after approx 3 months, that SA Chase and Milanowski are not aware of the allegations I have made. It is/was incumbent upon each of them to recuse themselves from the matter being investigated at this time to protect not only the integrity of Internal Affairs but the appearance of the manner in which they conduct their investigations. DD Ronnie Carter had advised that he has received the grievance and at some point was looking into the matter. Based on that fact alone, it is not reasonable to believe that the allegations were made were not made known to Director Carters subordinates.
