PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE USE OF "ANONYMOUS" INFORMATION, THE HE SAID SHE SAID OF THE SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATION. LlOOK VERY CLOSELY WHO THE AGENT WAS ALLOWED TO RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATIONS TO. THE SUPERVISOR WHO WAS PROPOSING THE ACTION. TALK ABOUT JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER. ALL DIRECTLY IN VIOLATION OF ATF ADVERSE ACTION POLICY AND THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERALS RECOMMENDATIONS OF 2005. February 15, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Special Agent *******, Sacramento Field Office FROM: Resident Agent in Charge, Sacramento Field Office SUBJECT: Notice of Proposal to Suspend for Three (3) Calendar Days This is notice that I propose to suspend you from your position of Criminal Investigator (Special Agent) GS-1811-13, Sacramento Field Office, San Francisco Field Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), for a period of three (3) calendar days, no earlier than fifteen (15) calendar days from the date you receive this notice. This action is proposed in accordance with Chapter 75 of Title 5 of the United States Code (USC) and the implementing regulations at Part 752 of Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, for the following reason: REASON 1: Inappropriate Conduct The specific reason for proposing that you be suspended is discussed below. On October 21,2005, you were issued a Letter of Caution dated October 19,2005, regarding your inappropriate interaction with your fellow Agents. Specifically on October 11, 2005, you sent an e-mail to all Special Agents in the Los Angeles Field Division, including Supervisory Special Agents, Assistant Special Agents-in-Charge and the Special Agent-in-Charge, expressing your displeasure with events that occurred in Laughlin, Nevada at the IOMGIA conference. In that e-mail, among other things, you chastised the person whom you believed "embarrassed the hell out of you and the rest of the division and the entire Bureau." You then, in a taunting manner, told the person to "feel free to try and sell you their weak excuse for pulling this" and then offered the telephone number where you could be reached. After that incident, I provided you with an excerpt from your critical elements, element number one which states how you are to relate to others in the position of a Special Agent. Among many Special Agent requirements, you are to interact effectively with others, be respectful of others and be tactful and diplomatic. You were warned that failure to comply with this critical element in the future may result in disciplinary action. Following the November 30, 2005, meeting with myself, Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Michael Gleysteen, and Special Agent (SA) Arthur Peralta, I cautioned you again regarding your unprofessional conduct and lack of respect for others. Specifically, during the aforementioned meeting, your behavior was inappropriate. For example, you walked past the outstretched hand of the ASAC, refusing to acknowledge him and shake his hand. In addition, your body was partially turned away from the group and you stared towards the ceiling during the majority of the discussion. During the discussion, you were smirking and rolling your eyes, and, at one point during the meeting, you failed to respond to a direct question asked of you by the ASAC. Your actions were clearly disrespectful and inappropriate. On January 12, 2006, I was contacted by ASAC Gleysteen, who indicated that it was brought to the attention of management by other agents, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retribution from you, that you had been making disparaging and malicious remarks about individuals in management in the San Francisco Field Division. On January 17, 2006, you contacted me and asked that I bring you a package that was shipped to the Sacramento Field Office. You then asked if I had heard anything regarding your grievance. I informed you that I had a memo from the Special Agent in Charge Paul Vido and that I would provide it to you when you returned to the office on Monday. You then suggested that I meet you in Modesto that morning because you did not want to be "kept in suspense." After you arrived in Modesto, I informed you that the Division had received complaints regarding derogatory and inflammatory remarks you made regarding Division management. While I did not have the specifics at the time, I cautioned you that you should refrain from making remarks of this kind, and that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. This warning was given to you based on the totality of your prior conduct. Following this discussion you were issued the grievance response. You asked if you needed to sign the memo and I told you to read it before signing it. Upon reading the statement, "you once again violated the chain of command by submitting the grievance to me without going through either your RAC or ASAC," you stated "I went through you; I went through the ASAC, so fuck you." You then signed for receipt of the memo and stated that it was "exactly what you needed." Your actions in these instances clearly demonstrate your inability to conduct yourself in a manner that is acceptable to the office and to the Bureau. You behavior appears to be a deliberate attempt to disregard management's warnings regarding your inappropriate behavior. While you do have the right to disagree with a management decision and express that disagreement, the manner in which you have done so is completely unacceptable. Your most recent outburst, during which you stated, "I went through you, I went through the ASAC, so fuck you" is the basis for this disciplinary action. Therefore, in order to impress upon you the seriousness with which I view this matter and to promote the efficiency of the service, I am proposing that you be suspended for a period of three (3) calendar days. I believe that such an action is fully warranted. While you have the right to express your concerns about management, you must do so in a more appropriate and constructive manner. You have the right to reply to this notice personally and/or in writing. You may furnish any and all reasons you may desire, including affidavits and other documentary evidence, in support of your reply. You will be allowed ten (10) calendar days from your receipt of this notice to submit your reply. Any reply should be submitted to me because I am the deciding official for this case. If you wish to reply personally, you should contact me to arrange an appointment. Consideration will be given to extending the ten (10) day reply period if you submit a written request to me stating your reasons for desiring more time. You may have a representative of your own choosing assist you in your reply. If you designate an individual to represent you, provide his/her name, occupation and address to me in writing, prior to submission of your oral or written reply. If in a duty status, you and your representative, if employed by A TF, will be allowed a reasonable amount of official time to review the material relied upon to support this proposal, to secure affidavits and to prepare an answer to this notice. You should make arrangements with me for use of official time. Your representative, if employed by the Bureau, should make arrangements with his/her supervisor for use of official time. The material relied upon to support this action is attached for your review. No decision will be made on this proposed action until the expiration of the time allowed for a reply. If you do not wish to submit a reply, a decision will be made based on all of the information available at the end of the reply period. If you do submit a reply, it will be given full and careful consideration. In either case, you will be notified in writing at the earliest practicable date of the decision in this matter. During the course of the notice period, you will remain in an active duty status assigned to your current position. If you do not understand the reasons why your suspension is proposed or if you need additional information concerning any of your rights as stated in this notice, you or your designated representative may contact Lisa Boykin of the Management, Employee and Labor Relations Branch, Human Resources Division, at (202) 927-8640 for further information. Dennis S. Downs Acknowledgement of Receipt: Original signed by ***********, Special Agent Your signature above indicates that you have received this document. It does not mean that you agree or disagree with the contents of this memorandum. By signing the acknowledgement, you will not forfeit any of the rights mentioned above. On the other hand, your failure to sign will not void the contents of this memorandum.
Recently in Supporting Documents Category
MEMORANDUM TO: Carson Carroll, Deputy Assistant Director, Washington, D.C. FROM: ******, Special Agent, Senior Operations Officer, San Francisco Field Division SUBJECT: Grievance 1. This is a presentation under the Bureau's administrative grievance procedure. 2. The matter that aggrieves me occurred on February 20, 2008, and is described in detail as follows: The specific matter I am grieving is the assignment/reassignment to the duties of the property custodian for the entire San Francisco Field Division. The basis of my grievance is based on a multiple and cumulative set of circumstances and I request that the entirety of my complaint be weighed in making a decision. First and foremost I believe this assignment is evidence of ongoing and unrelenting retaliation based on prior complaints, grievances and whistleblower allegations and participation in EEOC and whistleblower complaints of other employees. This specific set of duties is not and has not generally been relegated to a senior agent filling an operations officer position. The previous property custodian was placed in that position in a full time capacity. His assignment was based on or related to a determination that Giglio and/or Henthorn issues. Not such issues exist with relation to my standing within the government or Bureau. I have no prior training, experience or exposure to property related issues of this magnitude. The bulk of my knowledge and skill set related to property has been related to individually issued items. I do not possess sufficient skills related to computers or automation and am not properly equipped to perform this function. Between approximately September 2007 and January 2008 the SFFD was preparing for the scheduled HQ review. As part of my responsibilities, I was tasked with assisting in coordinating field office property reconciliations. My immediate supervisor repeatedly represented that the management and in many cases mismanagement by the SFFD supervisors related to maintaining accurate property records was and is abysmal. DOO Lyster made demands and issued deadlines that were ignored by the RACs and resulted in many different representations and modifications as related to issued property. I was not allowed or requested to attend any meeting with regards to property accountability issues, although there were several held by the SAC ASAC and DOO. At one point within weeks of the division review I had received shortage reports that included but were not limited to, Vehicles, Firearms, ES Transmitters and Receivers. Again I questioned this to the point of requesting whether I should report this to the FBI and/or enter these items into NCIC. Again I was told to disregard that this was someone else's responsibility. I heard repeated demands from SAC Martin directed at RACs either directly or indirectly through DOO Lyster that he would not report the initially reported number of items. DOO Lyster repeatedly advised me that the SAC was extremely unhappy and became increasing demanding and insisted not that the property be located but that the "number" of missing items is reduced. I received 3 separate inventories/certifications from one RAC dated the same date, days prior to the inspection. Ultimately when it was clear that inaccurate inventories were being conducted and I began to question the procedure, to include not being comfortable signing the final assessment, DOO Lyster advised that I was only certifying that the certifications included were in fact those submitted by the Supervisors. Upon being assigned on February 21, 2008 as the property custodian I became extremely uncomfortable when the final certification transmitted to HQ contained only 94 items when only 3 days earlier it contained 154 unaccounted for items. When I confronted the DOO Lyster, he then explained that I had some how been deficient in my attempting to understand and make sense of representations that the entire SFFD Executive staff was highly critical of. During the period that the SFFD was preparing for review, a separate OIG random audit occurred. I received no information OR had any input into this process. I was present when SAC Martin direct DOO Lyster under NO circumstances was he to respond to the OIG that we in fact could not account for any computers, but rather reply that we are continuing to attempt to locate them. Since I was not involved in this process, this direction by the SAC didn't concern me. However upon my being assigned as the property custodian I asked for this and all documentation related to any property that has been disposed of, destroyed, removed from our inventory or reported stolen or missing. Upon reviewing the final inventory, it was discovered that numerous additional computer were reported as a shortage. To my knowledge, no report has been made to the FBI or were these items entered into NCIC. In fact the DOO after having been advised of my intention to file this grievance entered my office and attempted to provide an explanation regarding my concerns. As the supervisor of the field division, he has taken the position that the reported items are not missing, they just can't be located or accounted for. While attempting to familiarize myself with the protocols and understand this process, I have begun to review the previous representation by SAC Martin and SAC Vido. I was not involved in either of the inventories or subsequent certifications that the SFFD property was finally and definitively reconciled. The cumulative number of items which are accountable by Bureau policies and procedures and are identified by PIIN that could not be located is over 400 (four hundred items). There is no documentation which indicates that any of the items were reported lost or stolen in accordance with Bureau policies and procedures. 3. The personal relief I seek is: That a complete thorough and transparent investigation be conducted into the entire circumstances relating to the willful destruction of my assigned badges. That the record be corrected to reflect the facts of these allegations. That those deemed to have acted unethically and illegally be disciplined in accordance with Bureau standards and consistent with the application of the rules to all ATF employees regardless of their management position. That any suggestion or representation that I in any way had any complicity in the destruction of my own badges be removed from all documents in ATF possession. That Upon completion of the investigation I be given a letter of clearance clearly stating that I followed all procedures and was found to be clear of any allegations related to the willful destruction of my badges. 4. A complaint will be submitted to the Office of the Inspector General once the reviewing official identified above has received this grievance. It will be directed to the Department of Justice Inspector General office. 5. I will be acting as my own representative in this matter. Original signed by *******, Special Agent Attachments: Copy of Internal affairs file
The following is a brief description of the protected activities I have participated in and have resulted in the following acts of retaliation, discrimination, violation of the rehab act, denial of a reasonable accom. And the creation of a hostile work environment based as well on my age. It is and was common knowledge that I have assisted by testimony, declaration or deposition in the ongoing complaints of Jim Tokos, Robbie Mcgowan Butler, Jay Dobyns and others. Additionally I have formally and openly made allegation against SAC Martin, ASAC Gleysteen, DOO Lyster related to ethical, integrity and criminal acts. I have made these allegations openly and formally through the Internal affairs division. Required to document daily activities contrary to ANY other employees w/o justification other than I couldn't correct property in Lysters prescribed timelines when 12 supervisors couldn't correct it in over 6 months. Hostile emails disregarding the deficincies of the supervisors inventory. Approved my wearing jeans and sport coat then criticized this action after I made allegations against him for unethical contact. Issued me a reprimand when DAD Carroll didn't respond to my grievance regarding a hostile work environment within the required 30 days. No response after 60 days prompted my asking Lysters assistance. He repeatedly lied to me that a response was forthcoming. When I received no reponse and could not trust Lysters representations I asked for assistance in writing via email and CCd the recipient of my grievance Carson Carroll. I was then issued a reprimand for somehow jumping the chain of command, even though no policy was violated. Since my reassignment to the SOO position, SAC Martin, ASAC Gleysteen and DOO Lyster have consistently and without regard for policy or practice used my current position to punish, demean, retaliate and discriminate against me through disparity of treatment and treatment assigned insure my failure and create a hostile work environment. I was supposed to be the SOO temporarily but was ultimately PCSd. The following is in bullet format due to requested time constraints identified by EEO counselor Sovinsky. One of the first tasks I was assigned was the security review. By ALL accounts I was the main architect of our outstanding evaluation. I was never acknowledged for having even participated. Approx 6 months before the full division review, I was assigned numerous responsibilities but primarily the assigned accountable property issues. Although virtually every supervisor disregarded multiple demands from DOO Lyster to provide the required inventory, when it ultimately was completed it was totally unacceptable. The blame game began. W/O training experience or a working knowledge of the property system I was tasked with reconciliation. I was assigned to some data base I had never heard of and told to fix it. A second inventory was required. Short version I was told to fix the incompetence of 11+ supervisors and downgraded on my midterm when I couldn't comply. I requested a reas accom from the hostile work environment thru the SAC and DAD Carroll. I was not responded to in the required 30 days and the only response I received well past 30 days was I read it denied. After I hadn't received an answer as required by the orders I emailed my immediate supervisor and cc'd Mr. Carroll. I got a reprimand for a chain of command violation which is now held in abeyance. I have been made aware of numerous similarly situated employees in the SFFD who are experiencing the same treatment for the same essential reasons. We are contemplating a class EEO complaint and feel that most are age related, resulting in part for cooperating and participating in ongoing EEO complaints in the field div and it is a concerted effort to drive all of us off as perceived as trouble makers or because we are near retirement. I apologize for the condensed version but Ill need some work hour time to be more specific but as you are well aware ATF is not very cooperative in resolving these matters. I will be out until next Wed. I will try to send you more but I am relocating my family and it will be difficult.
Special Agent ********** Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice, Investigations Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Room 4706, Washington, DC 20530 Dear Mr. Fine, I write because I can no longer stay silent with wide spread and unprecedented mismanagement, waste fraud and abuse and unethical conduct within the management system inside the San Francisco Field Division of ATF. The following circumstances relate specifically to the San Francisco Field Division management team. Hostile work environment. Mismanagement. Waste fraud and abuse, and abuse of authority. I have attempted to address the issues outlined in this letter internally but to no avail. I am now reporting the violations officially. I have attempted to mitigate and mediate the issues prior to making official allegations. The current violations I am reporting are regarding primarily the lack of accountability of law enforcement sensitive property and potential gross mismanagement and misrepresentation of the status of the property to the OIG during a recent audit and also to the ATF OPRSO inspection team. Admittedly the property has been mismanaged in the San Francisco Field Division for years. Within the last 6 months, I have been designated as the property custodian of the entire ATF SFFD. This assignment and more than 20 adverse actions are currently in litigation and are the subject of formal grievances to Deputy Director Ronnie Carter and Assistant Director William Hoover. I have no choice but to identify the manner in which the division's inventories have been conducted as I am now formally identified as the official point of contact and ultimately responsible for the reporting of same. Between October 2007 and January 2008 a wall to wall inventory was conducted by all offices within the SFFD as part of our field division review by Headquarters. Overages, shortages and corrections were to be indentified. It was my assignment to compile not verify the inventory's submitted. Almost immediately problems arose when receiving and reviewing the inventories. Several groups were reporting 20-30 missing sensitive items to include several firearms, computers and police radios. As I had repeated conversations with DOO Lyster my immediate supervisor and the deadline approached, I was advised by him that the division's property was an "abortion", and these supervisors are not complying with policy and are grossly mismanaging the inventory. This precipitated a conference call between the SAC and the supervisors to primarily address this issue. I was not included in this conference. I heard repeated conversations between the SAC Martin and several different supervisors stating "this number" is unacceptable. It became clear that the volume of the shortages that the SAC would be forced to report was paramount to an accurate accounting and reconciliation. Simultaneously, the OIG conducted an audit of field division property to include firearms and ammunition, computers and vehicles. That is what I was told. I was not included in this process either, although I was formally assigned to account for ALL property. I asked repeatedly for any information related to missing computers and whether or not the missing computers had been entered in NCIC and reported to the FBI or OPSRO as required by policy. I was told repeatedly this was none of my concern. I was told that I should not look for skeletons in the closet. I asked Whether or not the sensitive property previous reported had ever been reported, investigated and/or entered into NCIC. I asked about shortages relating to sensitive law enforcement equipment and was advised "its been handled". Only to find out on the first day that the inspection team arrived that they had immediately identified multiple items that needed to be entered into NCIC as I had advised when I became aware of these mandates. Ultimately my requests were answered with the explanation that this was not relevant to conducting "my portion" of the inventory. I told DOO Lyster IN WRTING via email that I suspected the property was far worse than certified in the SACs memo in January 2008. I was also present in the DOO Tom Lysters office when SAC Martin advised DOO Lyster that our response to the OIG audit should not suggest that the computers in question are missing or stolen but under investigation. Upon review of the previous years inventory in an attempt to reconcile the current one, I observed that 19 additional computers had been listed as missing or stolen. Sensitive items such as encrypted radio encoders were listed as missing or stolen yet a cursory check of NCIC indicates they were never entered. As the newly assigned property custodian, the task being assigned to me, not only placed me in a position of liability but also responsibility for the abysmal state of the property from that point forward. Coincidentally we were required to complete a second wall to wall inventory to be completed within 45 days of the aforementioned inventory. I was then given approximately 35 days to travel to and conduct and reconcile the property of the entire field division. I immediately advised DOO Lyster that this was not physically possible nor would I be able to achieve an accurate accounting of the field divisions property. I requested to speak with our second line supervisor ASAC Jeff Vind. This inventory was in compliance with prescribed Bureau mandate each year. During this period of time, Administrative employee Phyllis Goins was assigned to assist me in the Just SSFD 5601 Arnold Rd. portion of the inventory. She approached me to state that she had transferred a call from one of the supervisors to DOO Lyster who can openly be heard from his office. She reported to me that she didn't want to be responsible for the inventory because she believed management was lying. I asked why she felt that way and she stated she heard DOO Lyster say sorry; you are going to have to do it right this time, no lies on this inventory. She was concerned that she would be held liable for any misrepresentations. I advised her that this would not occur because I was the only one who would certify her and my finding and I wouldn't let them change it. I advised DOO Lyster it was apparent that some of the supervisors had falsified their original inventories. After conducting the first couple inventories of the groups, we as a field division were amassing extensive inconsistencies that should not be present in approx. 30 days of an inventory. I continued this endeavor advising DOO Lyster throughout the process of my findings and that we should discontinue any attempt at a 100% wall to wall inventory in the time allowed. DOO Lyster them challenged my revelations as inaccurate and stated he could not understand how 2 inventories could be so skewed. I have reported the minor discrepancies as well as the major policy violations and have been ignored and ultimately retaliated against and suffered an extremely hostile work environment for making the mismanagement known to SFFD management. I have requested removal from the hostile work environment with supporting doctors documentation, suffered the most derogatory evaluations in my career and been ridiculed and demeaned for attempting to comply with Bureau policies. I cannot fathom how this field division has reported over 300 items as missing and/or stolen with minimal or no explanation, failed to make the appropriate notifications and NCIC entries, and no one has notice or demanded real accountability. I have reported these and other shortcoming as they have arisen with virtually no response. However, a question arose as to a technical issue related to my permanent change of station expenditures and not one but two Internal Affairs agents flew 3000 miles to "investigate" this administrative matter. Additionally, the lead internal affairs Investigator was Fred Milanowski who I had previously alleged misconduct and unethical practices against to Deputy Director Carter in a formal grievance currently under review well past any Bureau authorized response time and advised that I was going to forward the allegations to your office. These actions illustrate a clear cut case of gross mismanagement, waste fraud and abuse, deviation from Bureaus policies and procedures. I did not and have not defaulted to immediate allegations. These allegations are not to be confused with my ongoing EEOC or retaliation complaints that are pending. The retaliation in this case would seem to be directly related to exposing the fictitious inventory reports that show the loss of tens of thousands of dollars if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in sensitive government equipment. Undercover body wires, televisions, countless digital recording equipment, police radios, and radio encoders are just some of the items missing w/o explanation. I will also be filing a whistleblower report with the Office of Special Counsel. The problem has become so pervasive in the San Francisco field division and it is readily apparent that I will ultimately be made the fall guy for years of lack of accountability. Documents, emails and inventory representation can be provided upon request. Respectfully Submitted ********** Special Agent
January 9, 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Ronnie A. Carter, Deputy Director Washington, D.C. FROM: *********, Special Agent Senior Operations Officer San Francisco Field Division SUBJECT: Grievance 1. This is a presentation under the Bureau's administrative grievance procedure. 2. The matter that aggrieves me occurred on January 7, 2008, and is described in detail as follows: The specific matter I am grieving is the failure of Internal Affairs to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the willful and intentional destruction of my issued badges and the subsequent attempt to cover this up by the management staff within the San Francisco field division. I am additionally grieving the unprofessional and insufficient investigation of the internal affairs investigator involved in this matter and the fact that the official findings were approved by the managers responsible for the oversight of the Internal Affairs division. This matter is not part of my ongoing EEOC complaint. In January of 2006 as a result of a series of actions initiated by the San Francisco field management staff, I filed an EEOC complaint based on age, disability, violation of the rehabilitation act and retaliation. Throughout the course of these actions my complaint has been amended multiple times and these matters are currently being litigated. As a result of the EEOC process and judicial review process, a significant willful act of destruction of government property was uncovered and willful disregard and violation of ATF policies was identified. On October 30, 2006 ATF attempted to terminate my employment as a Special Agent. As a result of this action, I properly turned over all required accountable ATF property to my RAC in the presence of witnesses and completed the proper transfer of custody documents. This included my pocket credentials, and two badges. Sometime between October 30, 2006 and April 29, 2007, (the official date of my reinstatement), my badges were intentionally defaced to a point that they could no longer be displayed as a professional law enforcement identification. In the process of attempting to regain my ATF identification to resume my duties over the subsequent weeks, it was revealed that my SAC, ASAC and RAC had been aware of this fact for quite some time, and admitted to this in sworn testimony. It was later revealed that attempts to conceal this fact from me were taken by my ASAC after conferring with my RAC and SAC. In fact, this flagrant and blatant act of disrespect to the symbol of our chosen profession and disregard for tax payer property never would have been reported had it not been for the integrity of protective programs and due diligence by me. When I was not contacted to be interviewed by IA and it was reported to me that the RAC involved was overheard stating to the ASAC that IA was going to make this go away I became concerned. I reported all of this to Director Chase and SAC Sanchez with a basic representation of the facts. I believe it is obvious that protocols, investigative mandates and or precedents when conducting ethics investigations were completely ignored and/or disregarded. The only explanation for the less than professional investigation is that all of the allegations were directed at management. I am including what I believe to be evidence of a marginalized investigation consistent with existing allegations already being reviewed by the Office of the Inspector General and Office of Special Counsel related to IA investigations involving management.
- 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 was exposed during depositions related to EEOC discrimination and retaliation against SA Cefalu.
- SA Milanowski states that in early 2006 SA Cefalu "applied for" a medical disability. I
- The second sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the IA report ignores that I was seeking temporary light duty to return to duty. This sentence also omits the fact that I provided the reports of 4 separate government doctors stating additional surgery could facilitate my return to duty.
- 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.
- SA Milanowski neglects to illustrate that the badges were not just placed on ASAC Gleysteens desk. They were removed from the RACs safe, transported with other property I turned in at the same time and personally delivered to the field division 50 miles away. The badges had been physically removed from their protective cases/carriers making it virtually impossible to not notice this extensive damage. No probative questions were asked or at least reported as to how the badges were removed and by whom. No discussion of how the RAC was able to recall specifically delivering such items as my computer, vest etc but draws a blank regarding the damaged badges. This was the RACs position only after having a conference ATF counsel the day prior to being confronted under oath. Historically sworn affidavits are requested from witnesses and those exposed to interview as the subject of IA investigations. I have not and will not invoke attorney client privilege related to any internal affairs investigation. All of the managers involved did so during the questioning regarding the destruction of my badges.
- SA Milanowski states that ASAC Gleysteen sent the damaged badges to HQ and requested new ones. This is a total distortion of the FACTS, (see Porciello deposition, not included in the internal affairs report). The badges were sent to Ms. Porciello w/o explanation or request for action or ANY official documentation. Only after Ms. Porciello initiated telephone contact did ASAC Gleysteen or the SFFD offer any information. When the question 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 several eye witnesses and the property documents had been witnessed by a disinterested Special agent. This agent has yet to be interviewed.
- 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 Ms. Porciello conceal the intentional damage from SA Cefalu has been completely omitted from the IA report. Counsels office has reviewed this report and is intimately aware of the omissions in this report
- Not ONE sworn statement was taken from any witness identified in this case.
- The failure to report and the concealment of the damage was not questioned at any point in the investigation.
- 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. SA Cefalu was never interviewed even though ASAC Gleysteens representations in his report to IA are not consistent with his testimony under sworn deposition. ASAC Gleysteen states numerous times he never even asked the RAC or anyone else what happened to the badges. He began representing immediately that SA Cefalu had damaged them. Ultimately under direct examination he states repeatedly he has no idea what happened to the badges but then a month later reports the incident to IA ending his representation with a statement to the effect "since we can't prove the employee did it". This is deceiving and misleading and SA Milanowski could not have reviewed ASAC Gleysteen, SAC Martin or RAC Downs deposition without observing these discrepancies. SA Milanowski only addresses HOW the badges were damaged and never addresses who and why it wasn't reported. The violation of Federal law, DOJ or ATF policy does not rest upon the determination of how the badges were damaged. It is irrelevant. Yet the badges were sent to our national laboratory for examination w/o any comparative information. It was generally agreed upon that the badges were badly damaged intentionally. No significant purpose was served by the expense and man hours wasted by sending the badges for examination other than to give the appearance of thoroughness.
- The only representation relied upon in the IA investigations final conclusion is the one 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:
Original signed by *************, Special AgentAttachments: Copy of Internal Affairs file
I would like to amend my ongoing complaint and allege that in a continuing pattern of discrimination based on my age and disability and in further retaliation for prior EEO activity. The following is a brief description of the protected activities I have participated in and have resulted in the following acts of retaliation, discrimination, violation of the rehab act, denial of a reasonable accommodation. And the ongoing practice of a hostile work environment based as well on my age. It is and was common knowledge that I have assisted by testimony, declaration or deposition in the ongoing complaints of Jim Tokos, Robbie Mcgowan Butler, Jay Dobyns, Phyllis Goins, John Taylor, Paul Jessen and others. Additionally I have formally and openly made allegations against SAC Martin, ASAC Gleysteen, DOO Lyster related to ethical, integrity and criminal acts. I have made these allegations openly and formally through the Internal affairs division the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of the Special Counsel. I was recently advised by the ATF third party relocation specialist that the delivery of my household goods had a delivery limit placed upon them which are not consistent with the government contract with the third party contractor and are not consistent with GSA regulations or ATF historical practices. This treatment has continued throughout the entire relocation process. I was advised that Richard Trent specifically made the alleged representations to the third party relocation company verbally and in writing. I have repeatedly been ignored in any attempt to mitigate or mediate these issues through the Ombudsman's office, who has consistently misrepresented their efforts to this end. Additionally, ATF disclosure branch has refused to provide responsive documents related to my own personal PCS move as well as other open records data lawfully requested. This retaliation and retribution has continued to maintain a hostile work environment as previous alleged through your office. The failures to provide responsive documents is in violation of the amended open records act signed by President George Bush, the Directive signed by DD Ronnie Carter and the most recent executive order signed by President Obama. These failures to follow the law by the Bureau not only destroy the credibility of the process, but have caused me great financial expense as well as increased emotional duress as reported to ATF by my attending medical professionals. The other members of the class have repeatedly reported that they are experiencing the same negative impact on their personal and professional live due to the Bureaus apathy to these issues. The totality of the reprisals is currently being investigated by the Office of Special Counsel, however, this does not relieve the Bureau of actively reviewing all of our complaint filed under the class related to the discriminatory practices being used wholesale within the San Francisco field division. As you are also aware, I respectfully request that these complaints be reviewed and included in the prior formal complaint filed under the class action clause of the EEOC complaint process by multiple employees of the San Francisco field division. Please amend my pending complaint in the ATF EEOC process to include these allegations. Respectfully submitted ****************
Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice, Investigations Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Room 4706, Washington, DC 20530 Served via Hotline Fax ((202) 616-9881) and E-mail (firstname.lastname@example.org) Re: Report of possible violation of Federal laws and/or violation of DOJ policies and ethical standards by ATF managers and Internal Affairs. Dear Mr. Fine, I am forwarding documentation which is evidence that the conduct of Internal Affairs investigations involving managers within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives lack candor, honesty and consistently are conducted in a lackluster manner to cover the misconduct of managers. It is my understanding that this complaint has been repeatedly reported to your Office from across the nation. This particular allegation relates to the willful destruction of sensitive government property and the brazen attempt by mid and upper level managers to conceal the willful act. The bulk of the facts are contained in the attached documents. However for clarity sake I believe the following occurred. My U S DOJ badges were intentionally destroyed while in the possession of ATF managers. Upon discovering the destruction of the property, ATF managers in San Francisco undertook a series of actions designed to conceal the damage and enlist the assistance of headquarters employees to craft a story explaining how they were destroyed. When this set of circumstances was discovered, a formal complaint related to them was forwarded to Internal Affairs. As a result of the report to IA, an investigation was conducted. It contained no personal interviews, no sworn statements and no probative questions directed at the managers alleged to have violated ATF policy and possibly Federal law. There was an inference on the part of management that the Agent destroyed the badges, yet the agent was never interviewed, or requested to make a sworn statement or submit to a polygraph which are the generally accepted protocols. Additionally, impartial eye witnesses to the transfer of the badges were ignored and not interviewed. I am attaching the internal affairs report along with the attachments for your review. If you need any further information, I may be contacted at (209) 595-6803. Respectfully Submitted, ********* Special Agent ATF Attachments ATF IA Report
MEMORANDUM TO: Paul J. Vido, Division Director, Dublin Field Division FROM: ***************, Special Agent SUBJECT: Grievance DATE: 01/08/05 1. This is a presentation under the Bureau's administrative grievance procedure. 2. The matter that aggrieves me occurred on January 6, 2006, and is described in detail as follows: On or about January 5, 2006, I contacted my RAC, Dennis Downs and expressed to him that I had not yet met with the (Division Director), Special Agent in Charge since he had reported to San Francisco. Furthermore, I explained that I had several concerns and dissatisfactions with decisions that had been made and communicated to me related to an open ongoing investigation of mine. I requested to briefly speak to the Special Agent in Charge regarding these matters. On January 6, 2006, I was advised telephonically by RAC Downs, that the Assistant Special Agent in Charge Michael Gleysteen had denied my request for an informal meeting with the SAC. 3. The personal relief I seek is to speak to the Special Agent in Charge, Paul J. Vido regarding personal and professional matters that concern me related to the Dublin, (Formerly San Francisco) Field Division. 4. There has been no complaint or appeal regarding this matter filed with the Office of equal opportunity, the Merit Systems protections Board, the Office of special Counsel, the Departmental Inspector General, or under any union contract. 5. I will represent myself in this matter.
Original signed by *************, Special Agent
DECLARATION OF ********** 1. My name is ******** and I am 52 years old. I was an ATF agent for 20 ½ years from February 1, 1987 until the date of my retirement on September 30, 2007. I know Special Agent **********, but I am not involved in this EEO case other than for the purpose of giving this declaration. 2. When I commenced my employment with the ATF in February 1987, I was a Special Agent in the San Francisco Field Division and served in this capacity for 15 years until the Summer of 2002 when I was promoted to the position of Special Agent/Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Coordinator, a Headquarters Program Manager for the San Francisco and Seattle Field Divisions. I still physically worked at the San Francisco Field Division after receiving this promotion, but my supervisor was located in Washington, D.C. At some point in 2006 there was a program-wide change, and the San Francisco Field Division Special Agent in Charge (SAC) was assigned as my direct supervisor. This was SAC Steve Martin. 3. During the summer of 2007 I went to see my primary care physician at Kaiser Hospital for some knee and foot pain issues. The routine pre-exam screening revealed a very high blood pressure reading, which quickly became the more urgent concern. During this same time frame I had my primary physician and one other doctor advise me that based upon my age, weight, blood pressure and family history, I was at risk of having a stroke. The second doctor was quite knowledgeable about stress related diseases and explained that stress encountered in a law enforcement career is cumulative. Significant lifestyle changes were prescribed to improve my health and get my blood pressure down to a normal level. My doctor placed me on a non-work status for 30 days. I had previously used about 8 days of sick leave during my entire 20 ½ year career with the ATF and had accumulated approximately 1800 hours of unused sick leave. [This number would be higher, but I did not accrue sick leave during 2 ½ years of military deployments] 4. After one month had passed and I was beginning my second month of doctor- ordered sick leave, SAC Martin called me at home to inquire about my sick leave and wanted to know when I would return to work. When I explained my condition, but could not provide a projected return to work date I could tell that he was not pleased. He also inquired as to exactly how my high blood pressure was and what kind of medicine I had been prescribed, which I found to be intrusive. The whole conversation made me feel defensive as opposed to speaking with someone who was genuinely concerned about my health. I felt that the doctor's form that I had provided to ATF management regarding my sick leave was all the evidence of my medical condition that SAC Martin needed to be aware of. To assuage any notion on his part that I was seeking a medical retirement I was adamant (wrongly) that my condition was not job related, but just a factor of my age and family history. 5. During this conversation, SAC Martin told me that there was a form that my doctor needed to fill out which would ascertain what level of work I was capable of, i.e., if I was able to sit at a desk, file paperwork and answer phones. He at some point in this conversation explained that this was setting a bad precedent for other ATF agents by not coming into work and made inquiry about my having the necessary years for retirement. 6. In light of what I had just told the SAC and the fact that I had never been a problem employee, or a sick leave abuser, I believe that a better approach on his part would have been to tell me to work with my doctor, take what time I needed, and return to work when healthy. I would have hoped that the SAC would have taken the time to review my service record, rather than act on his first impressions. He would have seen that I had always been a top producer, had always held collateral duties of Special Response Team (team leader and national instructor) or office Firearms Instructor. SAC Martin would also have seen 14 Special Act or Service Awards, 2 Distinguished Service Medals (1 from the Waco incident) and 1 Hostile Action Award (also Waco). The personal history form would show that upon discharge from the Marine Corps in 1977, I joined a local police department and worked there for almost 10 years prior to joining ATF. The DD214s (discharges from active military service) in my file would further document 3 military deployments with the Coast Guard Reserve post September 11, 2001; 2 to the Middle East , one to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at least a portion of the 30 USMC/USN/USCG ribbons, campaign medals and personal awards earned. Not exactly the record of a malingerer. A thoughtful person might pause and consider that there may be a genuine source for worn-out joints, stress and hypertension amongst those events. 7. Until the Summer of 2007 when I requested sick leave for my documented medical condition, I felt like a valued employee of the ATF and I could have worked for ATF for 5 more years before reaching mandatory retirement. Had some consideration been extended me, and had I been able to take the necessary time to rehab physically and mentally, I'm sure that I would have been inclined to return to work. Instead it became apparent to me that if I was not able to perform work, I was actually of no value, or was in fact a liability in setting a "bad precedent". After researching potential recourses for me, I decided in favor of preserving my own physical and mental health and opted to retire from the ATF on September 30, 2007. When I advised SAC Martin of my intention to retire in an e-mail, he responded only with "Sounds good," as if I had relieved him of a persisting problem and did not offer me any thanks or expression of gratitude for 20 ½ years of stellar service with the ATF. 8. I feel that the reasons for SAC Martin's questioning of my medical condition and use of accrued sick leave were motivated by a desire to protect the agency financially, to fill a chair with a worker, and to maintain a virtual wall around other employees that may be in my same position. As an agent who was well respected by my peers, the treatment that I received most likely sent several demoralizing messages, the key being; no need to be a good steward of your sick leave, because toward the end of your career, when you really need it, management will fight you over it. I have observed that once an agent reaches 15 to 20 years of journeyman experience in ATF, and that agent does not express interest in joining upper management (becoming a Special Agent in Charge or an Assistant Special Agent in Charge), then ATF management views the agent differently and the relationships often become adversarial. For these reasons, I believe SAC Martin's actions in my instance were standard ATF fare. My past service or current health was of no consequence. I could either come back to work and produce, or retire. Either outcome solved a problem. I state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and memory.
September 18, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: William J. Hoover, Assistant Director Field Operations, Washington, D.C. FROM: Vincent A. Cefalu, Special Agent, Senior Operations Officer SUBJECT: Grievance 1. This is a presentation under the Bureau's administrative grievance procedure. 2. The matter that aggrieves me occurred on September 7, 2007, and is described in detail as follows: On June 28, 2007 Dr. Joseph Gannon, recommended in writing that I be placed in an environment that would not require me to report immediately to the managers who I have openly made allegations against for significant violations of ATF/DOJ policy, EEOC regulations and laws, waste fraud and abuse, abuse of authority and Federal criminal laws. On September 7, 2007, I was issued a letter containing 2 sentences, denying my appropriate and medically supported request for a reassignment outside of the hostile work environment. This letter was issued without explanation, reference to medical documentation, or a request for further medical documentation. I have attached a brief chronology of events, (see attached bullets in support of my representation of the existence of a hostile work environment). GRIEVANCE MEMORANDUM : SPECIAL AGENT VINCENT A. CEFALU 3. The personal relief I seek is:
- To be placed back to the position I held (Special Agent Stockton, California), prior to my disability occurring.
- That I report to a supervisor not currently involved in or named in any unethical, criminal or retaliatory acts or anyone previously found to have discriminated or retaliated against ATF employees.
- That I assist SFFD by working NIBIN hits throughout the California central valley which are going virtually uninvestigated. Follow-up investigations or intelligence investigations are also lacking in my previous locale of Stockton, Ca.
- That I also be considered to coordinate the numerous OCDETF initiatives that are pending in the SFFD since I have significant experience with OCDETF cases. Our current OCDETF coordinator has submitted his retirement papers. I would be willing to aid the SFFD by sharing my institutional knowledge of the OCDETF process.
- Threat of transfer and reclassification - Result of standing firm on ATFs inv. position and challenging local PDs unethical acts jeopardizing Agent safety, and personally facing unknown period of disability.
- ASAC thru RAC refuses to allow me to speak informally to SAC about any concerns. I file grievance to SAC requesting to have the facts heard.
- SAC denies my request to speak to him, threatens disciplinary action, and alleges a chain of command violation for filing grievance.
- I advise RAC I am meeting with EEOC rep. to discuss my situation, that same night RAC crafts list of derogatory and inflammatory representations covering months of alleged misconduct, within 30 days of outstanding mid year evaluation.
- 3 days later I am transferred to Sacramento w/o warning significantly lower COLA area, 90 mile commute
- It is alleged months later that the transfer was the result of allegations related to my misconduct made by two outside agencies. These allegations remain uninvestigated and were subsequently refuted as literally without specificity or merit by sworn testimony given in depositions by SFFD RAC, ASAC and 2 SAC's. This only after I have filed informal EEOC complaint and grievance.
- Subsequent sworn testimony by the above mentioned managers equally supports my representations made repeatedly in writing for months prior to being transferred that actions were being undertaken by members of the two departments in question that significantly put our undercover agents at risk and subjected our investigation to violations of Federal rules of criminal procedure. AUSA held meeting to confirm these facts and generated subsequent email to this effect
- Two days prior to my OWCP surgery and weeks after official notification to my RAC that surgery was scheduled, I was given a demand for 1 ½ years worth of medical documentation under threat of disciplinary action up to termination. My RAC and division were well aware of my treatments and had been advised months in advance of the surgery.
- At this same meeting I am also given a referral to the EAP based on the assertions of the RAC. This was in lieu of a proposed psychological evaluation which was my RACs original intention as identified in subsequent sworn testimony.
- 3 days post surgery, while still in a cast, I was given an email stating I had been detailed to Houston for a VCIT detail 6-12 mos. When I advised my RAC I was not medically able to comply, I was handed a 3 day suspension based solely on anonymous and un-witnessed representations. I was then advised that if I went to Houston the suspension would be rescinded.
- Transferred back to Stockton, Ca. without explanation.
- Refused answers to official written requests for division policies.
- RAC accompanied by former partner come to my residence in front of my family to retrieve my firearms after 2 qtrs non qual. A formal request to use FATS system as allowed by policy and supported by treating physician was ignored. This within 6 mos of providing virtually sole testimony, majority of prosecutorial follow-up and pretrial transport of all 18 Federal defendants arrested in prior case. Over 150 total arrests related to case including state charges. These arrests occurred in MY hometown.
- I remained on temporary disability continue rehabilitation. I provide 6 (six) doctors representations that additional surgery is required. 4 of the doctors are government referred. I request light duty or a reasonable accommodation until surgery can be scheduled. I am told I am reassigned to D.C as an analyst. Take it or leave it. I ask for clarification after ATF HR indicates this action seems premature.
- I am given a proposed termination for turning down analyst job 3000 miles away. I accept position in D.C to keep income coming in while I pursue surgery through private insurance (even though OWCP ultimately approves surgery approx.2 months later). I am then given the job of answering telephones in the public reception area of the field division but only until I report to D.C.
- I was required to email supervisor everyday upon arrival and departure to work to include each and every restroom or meal break, accounting for over 850 emails during my temporary detail. No other employee in the SFFD is or has been required to do this. Much less a 20 year Special Agent. (20 out of 22 EFS/O evaluations)
- I provide medical docs supporting I can return to full duty. It takes almost 3 months to do so, negating my LEAP from being reinstated. Or my D.C. Transfer from being cancelled causing untold grief to my family.
- Once reinstated I am transferred once again away from my duty station back to Sacramento, Ca. The next day I am transferred yet again and assigned to the SOO job in division. Two transfers in 3 days.
- Upon reporting, it is quickly revealed (intimately through sworn testimony) that member(s) of SFFD intentionally destroyed, concealed the destruction of and/or took action to conceal the intentional destruction of my previous held badges (both) numbered 2138. This required me to carry loaner badges until new ones could be made. This act was never reported until SFFD managers were confronted weeks later under oath. Reported over 60 days ago, I have not yet been interviewed.
- PCS funds and assignment restrictions have been non stop and I have not been able to affect the required PCS move.
- Official SF 50 falsified to recreate the above mentioned series of events.
- Based on the aforementioned acts directed against me and the effects such actions have had on my health and well-being, I requested to merely be re-assigned away from those alleged to have been responsible for the destruction of my career, my reputation and my families well-being. I offered options. I received no response for months to an official written request. I attached supporting documentation as to the harm being created by this assignment. When my repeated requests for a formal decision, (my 90 day clock was running on my pending PCS), I again asked for a formal decision I was promised by my first line supervisor I would have weeks earlier. At this time I emailed my first line supervisor and CCd DAD Carroll wondering in light of the aforementioned facts, whether my original request had ever been forwarded at all. I was given a reprimand for violating the chain of command.