LER Discipline Analysis Report F?scal Years 201 1?2013 Appendices 25 Appendix 1 Agency-Wide Discipline FY 2011 Of?ce Adverse Disciplinary Inde?nite Probation/ of Removals Demotions Suspensions Suspensions Suspensions Trial Reprimands Total Population Administration 0.98% Air Marine 4 I 18 0 34 59 3.19% 30m? Patm' 24 11 30 285 16 173 648 1,187 5.27% Commissioner 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.85% Field Operations 29 2 25 138 I4 33 369 610 2.22% Human Resources Management 1 0 0 0 7 16 2.69% Information: Technoiogy 0.96% Intelligence Investigatlve Liaison Internal Affairs 2.10% International Affairs 0 0 0 0 2 1.08% International Trade 0.29% Public Affairs 2.l5% Technology I lnnovation& I Acquisition 0.00% Training& Development 1.56% Tet?! . 61 . 564 .467 '22-1' . 1.08.45 . 1.935.. - 3.32% 26 Appendix 2 Agency-Wide Discipline LER Discipline Analysis Report Fiscal Years 201 1-2013 FY 2012 . . . . . 9 Of?ce Removals Demotions Amer.? Dumping?)? inde?nfte Pmb?tlon/ Reprimands Total A or. Suspenmons Suspensions Trial Population Administration 0.4% Air Marine Border Patrol 24 6 24 304 17 25 571 971 4.2% Commissioner 0.0% Congressional Affairs 0.0% Field Operations 4915." 1.8% Human Resources 1.1% Management Information 0 0 I 3 6 0.5% Technology Intelligenee 0.4% Investigative Liaison Internal Affairs 1.0% International Affairs 0.6% International Trade 0 0 0 0 0 2. 0.6% Public Affairs 0.0% Technolng Innovation 0.6% Aeqmsmon . Tra'm?g& 0 2 4 0 . 151 1.8% Development - Total ?55> .- is. i I .4615;- I 29* 3 58' i 8'79. "1.;549 2.6% 27 Appendix 3 Agency?Wide Discipline LER Discipline Analysis Report Fiscal Years 2011-2013 FY 2013 Of?ce Removals Motions 50333:? 33.233333 5:22:23; Reirimnds Total, Administration 0 0 2 0 4. 0.3% Air Marine 2 0 3 1 14 27 1.5% 30rd618 1,003 43% Commissioner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Congressional Affairs 0.0% Field Operations 26 4 10 106 I7 25 358 546 1.9% Human Resources 0.i% Management Intelligence 1.5% Investigative Liaison Internal Affairs 0.3% International Affairs 0.0% International Trade 0.0% Public Affairs 0.0% Technology Innovation I 0.0% Acquisition 1-0 5531731313% TOW :29? 35.: 59 1,013 1:619 17% 28 LER Discipline Analysis Report Fiscal Years 2011-2013 Appendix 4 031? Probationary Terminations by Sector FY 2011 Probation?'rial FY 2012 -- Blaine 3 Big Bend 0.3 .I . Del Rio 16 Buffalo .- - El Centro 10 Detroit - - Grand Forks 2 El Paso -- .. - -- Houltou 2 Havrc Maria 6 Laredo :?Miami' ?o - .j-Mi'ami- New Orleans 0 New Orleans - -- 1 Rio Grandc 23 Rio Grande Valley Spokane 0 Spokane Tucson 36 Probation/Trial 2013 Probation/Trial Big Bend j- .- Buffalo Del-Rio Detroit ?El Centro El Paso Grand Forks l-lavrc 'Houiton Laredo Miami New Orleans 'IR'am'cy' I Rio Grande Valley *Shh Diego Spokane 'Sii?an'ton' Tucson pun LER Discipline Analysis Report Fiscal Years 2011-2013 Appendix 5 OFO Probationary Terminations by Field Of?ce FY2011 Probation/?I?rial . . Atlanta Boston Chicago goat-"mise- El l?aso -. . La redo ai-zl?dganigaes' Miami . . . New I?m-Clearance San Francisco . Seattle Tucson FY 2012 Probation/Triat FY 2013 .- . . Probation/Trial Atlanta Atlanta titi?i?dl?ie 5-: imam Boston Boston Buffalo Chicago Chicago ?D?ti-?b?it- .- .-- - - El Paso El Paso La redo Lore-(lo I. I . Miami Miami i'NoWJOrl?ans New York New York - Pro-Clearance Pro-Clearance San Francisco Seattle Seattle Tucson Tucson 30 LER Discipline Analysis Report Fiscal Years 2011-2013 Appendix 6 Actions by Sector FY 2011 SECTOR Removals Demotions Pr??ltionl DiSCiplillary Adver.? Inde?llite Reprimands FY11 rial Suspensnons Total Blaine '919 Buffalo Detroit Como Paso 2 15 19 9 2 83 13.8 Grand Forks 15?- Havre '18 Houlton Laredo "69 Marfa 65' Miami New Orleans Ramey Rio Grande Valley San Diego 137 Spokane 11 2 0 2- Sw-anton .510: .2: Tucson 5?50?? x. LER Discipline Analysis Report Fiscal Years 201 1-2013 Appendix 7 OBP Actions by Sector FY 2012 SECTOR Removals Demotions Pmbitm/ Discip'i?lm Myer?? ?dam?? Reprimands rim Trial Suspensxons Suspensnons Total Big Bend '5'1 Blaine Buffalo Detroit "'94 El Paso 5 0 2 47 1 5 1.06 Grand Forks Havrc 15' Hou-lton Laredo 55' Miami New Orleans Ramey Rio Grande Valley 112" I San Diego 1-24 Spokane Swanton Tucson Appendix 8 OBP Actions by Sector LER Discipline Analysis Report Fiscal Years 201 1-2013 FY 2013 SECTOR Removals Demotions DiSCipliqary Adver.? Inde?nite Reprimands FY13 Trial Suspensnons Total Big Bend Blaine Buffalo .68 Detroit Centre .Paso 4 0 3 31 5 2 108 153 Grand Forks Havre 0 2 1 0 3' Houlton Laredo Miami New Orleans Ramey Rio Grande Valley 159' San Diego '125 Spokane 1-0- Swanton 0 0 1 0 7 Tucson 1157- Yuma 1 3 20 3 1 31 "7259*" . 16' 618 ?1}003' 33 LER Discipline Analysis Report Fiscal Years 201 1-2013 Appendix 9 OFO Actions by Field Office 2011 Field Of?ce Removals Demotions Promi?on/ Disapmiary Adverfe Inde?liitc Reprimands Trial Suspensions Suspensnons ?Totalr Atlanta Baltimore Boston Buffalo Chicago 10. Detroit P330 Houston 2 0 16 0 0 l7 36? Laredo 64. Los Angeles .33 Miami New Orleans New York 38]} Portland Pro-Clearance San Diego '62 San Francisco 333: San Juan 13185 Seattle Tampa Tucson 1.312522% 5 - 3693.; . ,1 - LER Discipline Analysis Report Fiscal Years 201 1?201 3 Appendix 10 OFO Actions by Field Office FY 2012 Probation! Disciplinary Adverse Inde?nite . I Field Of?ce Removals Demetmns Trial Suspensions Suspensions Suspensions chnmands HQ Atlanta 0 . Baltimore 0 A6: Boston 0 ?11-3 Buffalo 0 '13 i A Chicago - Detroit El Paso Houston . Laredo 30 Los Angeles 13 . Miami 26 New Orleans New York Portland Prc-Clcarance San Diego San Francisco San Juan Seattle Tampa Tucson - . gaeuacmcamcuamumaauewec Fa.- 0 r: LER Discipline Analysis Report Fiscal Years 2011-2013 Appendix 11 OFO Actions by Field Of?ce FY 2013 Field Office Removals Demotions Pr?bif??m DiSCip'i'fm Adm?? Inde?nite Reprimands Trial Suspensxons Total 39% Atlanta 1 1 6 0 1 21 13.9 .. 1 Baltimore Boston 520' Buffalo Chicago Detroit Paso 1 0 5 3 0 24 33. Houston 33"- Laredo 4 0 9 6 50 71 Los Angeles Miami New Orleans New York Portland 0 0 0 0 2 Pre-Clearance San Diego 5 I 14 0 2 37 '60- San Francisco San Juan Seattle 45' Tampa Tucson Commissioner Snapshot internal Affairs Misconduct October 2014 MISCON DUCT Asof10!31l14 FY13 YTD FY14 YTD Change NMC ?10 ?13 30% 0 0% OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL MCC OFFICE OF OPERATIONS MCC 0 0 0% Employee Misconduct: Arrests, indictments, citations, and detainments (hereafter, ?misconduct?) of CBP employees? for violations of law that have been reported to the Joint intake Center (J 1C). CBP Employee: A current or former employee, contractor, or student volunteer intern who has an adjudicated CBP (or legacy agency) background investigation and has been entrusted with sensitive in formation or access, power, and authority by virtue of hisfher of?cial position. Leveis of Misconduct: Non-Mission Misconduct (NMC): Misconduct unrelated to the execution of o??rcial duties or one?s of?cial authority as a federal law enforcement c??icer. For example: Domestic violence Corruption (C): Misconduct for personal gain? that involved the misuse or abuse of the knowledge, access, or authority granted by virtue of official position. For example: Theft of government propertyl?mds HUD fraud, wire fraud Querying personal associates in TECS Gain: A material or non?material bene?t or advantage power, influence, revenge, goods, services, money). Mission Compromising Corruption (MCC): Misconduct for personal gain that violated or facilitated the violation of the laws that CBP enforces (cg. narcotics, humans, contraband, and citizenship documents, and trade). For exampie: Alien harboring Allowing loads of narcotics through a POE or checkpoint Providing sensitive information to DTO Selling immigration documents For Of?ciai Use Only (FOUO) - Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) Page 17 of 17 Commissioner Snapshot internal Affairs Misconduct September 2014 MISCONDUCT As onorem FY13 YTD FY14 YTD Change NMC 173 165 3 'l ?57% OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL MCC 2 0 400% NMC 101 71 -30% 7 1 ~85% OF FIELD OPERATIONS MCC 5 3 ~50% Employee Misconduct: Arrests, indictments, citations, and detainments (herea?er, ?misconduct?) of CBP employees* for violations of law that have been reported to the Joint Intake Center (J 1C). CBP Employee: A current or former employee, contractor, or student volunteer intern who has an adjudicated CBP (or legacy agency) background investigation and has been entrusted with sensitive information or access, power, and authority by virtue of hisfher of?cial position. Levels of Misconduct: Non?Mission Compromising Misconduct (N MC): Missonduct unrelated to the execution of of?cial duties or one?s of?cial authority as a federal law enforcement of?cer. For example: Domestic Violence Corruption (C): Misoonduct for personal gain** that involved the misuse or abuse of the knowledge, access, or authority granted by virtue of official position. For example: Theft of government property/ funds HUD ?'aud, wire fraud Querying personal associates in TECS ?Personal Gain: A material or non-material bene?t or advantage (cg, power, influence, revenge, goods, services, money). IVIissiou Compromising Corruption (MCC): Misconduct for personal gain that violated or facilitated the Violation of the laws that CBP enforces g. narcotics, humans, contraband, and citizenship documents, and trade). For example: Alien harboring Allowing loads of narcotics through a POE or checkpoint Providing sensitive information to DTO Selling immigration documents For Of?cial Use Only (FOUO) - Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) Page 17 of 17 Commissioner Snapshot Internal Affairs Misconduct September 2013 MISCONDUCT As of 9:30113 FY12 YTD FY13 YTD Change NMC 2'10 173 48% 4 3 ~25% OF BORDER PATROL MCC 3 2 ~33133% OF FIELD OPERATIONS MCC 3 6 100% Employee Misconduct: Arrests, indictments, citations, and detainments (hereafter, ?misconduct?) of CBP employees* for violations of law that have been reported to the Joint Intake Center (JIC). CBP Employee: A current or former employee, contractor, or student volunteer intern who has an adjudicated CBP (or legacy agency) background investigation and has been entrusted with sensitive information or access, powor, and authority by virtue of hisIher of?cial position. Levels of Misconduct: Non-Mission Compromising Misconduct (NMC): Misconduct unrelated to the execution of of?cial duties or one?s official authority as a federal law enforcement of?cer. For example: Domestic violence Corruption (C): Misconduct for personal gain** that involved the misuse or abuse of the knowledge, access, or authority granted by virtue of of?cial position. For example: Theft of government property/funds HUD fraud, wire fraud Querying personal associates in TECS ?Personal Gain: A material or non?material bene?t or advantage power, in?uence, revenge, goods, services, money). Mission Compromising Corruption (MCC): Misconduct for personal gain that violated or facilitated the violation of the laws that CBP enforces g. narcotics, humans, contraband, and citizenship documents, and trade). For example: Alien barberng Allowing loads of narcotics through a POE or checkpoint Providing sensitive information to DTO Selling immigration documents For Of?cial Use Only (FOLIO) - Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) Page 17 of 17 LER Discipline Analysis Report Fiscal Years 201 1-2013 Appendices 25