US. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington. D. C. 20530 April 28, 2015 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department recently learned that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had in March 2015 completed the disciplinary process for its employees involved in the detention of Mr. Daniel Chong by San Diego Field Division. Given your previous interest in this matter, including your letters to DEA Administrator Leonhart dated August 27, 2014, and April 21, 2015, we would like to share with you the outcome of that process. As you are aware, the Department of Justice (Department) Of?ce of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated an investigation into this matter in late April 2012. In the normal course, DEA awaited the OlG?s ?ndings, which were issued in June 2014. Of?ce of Professional ReSponsibility (OPR) reviewed the OIG report, concluded it was suf?cient to forward to the DEA Board of Professional Conduct (Board), and, as a result, DEA did not pursue a further investigation. Following its review, the Board issued proposed discipline regarding two DEA employees and two DEA task force of?cers identi?ed in the OIG report, as well as four additional DEA personnel identi?ed by the Board. The enclosed chart depicts the ?nal disposition of the disciplinary matters involving all six DEA personnel found to be involved in the incident regarding the custody of Mr. Chong. In summary, the DEA-imposed penalties on the six agents involved in this matter ranged from Letters of Reprimand to a seven day suspension without pay. DEA referred the cases against the two task force of?cers back to their parent agencies because DEA does not have authority to administer discipline to non-DEA personnel. What happened to Mr. Chong is unacceptable. While DEA leadership took immediate steps following the incident to implement protocols and procedures with regard to monitoring holding cells and detainees, given the signi?cant misconduct at issue, the Department has serious concerns about the adequacy of the discipline that DEA imposed on these employees. failure to impose signi?cant discipline on these employees ?nther demonstrates the need for a systematic review of disciplinary process, which former Attorney General Eric Holder recently directed. As you know, through this review, the head of the Department?s Of?ce of Professional ReSponsibility will examine processes and procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct as well as its processes determining and effectuating disciplinary action where appropriate. Following this review, the Department will work with DEA to enhance its policies and procedures to ensure that all allegations are thoroughly investigated and that any substantiated ?ndings of misconduct are properly addressed through the disciplinary process. The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Page Two We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Sincerely, Qt Vail Peter J. Kadzik Assistant Attorney General Enclosure Cc: The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy Ranking Member Final disposition ofdiseiplinary matters involving DEA personnel concerning the detention of Mr. Daniel Chong Supervisory Special Agent Failure to Exercise Proper Supervision (Two speci?cations) Suspension Without Pay for 7? Days 3,11332015 Special Agent #1 Inattention to Duty Suspension Without Pay for 5 Days 3a?l3i?2015 Special Agent #2 Inattention to Duty Letter ot'Reprimand 32'l3r?20l5 Sepeial Agent #3 lnattention to Duty Letter ot?Reprimand 3f] 3f20 5 Special Agent #4 Inattention to Duty Letter of Reprimand 32?1332015 Special Agent #5 Inattenlion to Duty Letter ot?Reprimand 3f] 3f20 5