OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov

September 25, 2015
MEMORANDUM FOR:

The Honorable Jeh C. Johnson
Secretary
The Honorable Joseph Clancy
Director
United States Secret Service

FROM:

John Roth
Inspector General

SUBJECT:

Investigation into the Improper Access and
Distribution of Information Contained Within a Secret
Service Data System

Attached is our memorandum summarizing our investigation into the
allegations of improper access and distribution of information contained within
a Secret Service data system. The memorandum is furnished for whatever
action you consider appropriate.
Should you have any questions regarding the report, please feel free to contact
me.
Attachment

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
This memorandum summarizes the investigation the Office of Inspector
General undertook regarding the allegation that one or more United States
Secret Service (Secret Service) agents accessed, through restricted Secret
Service databases, the employment application of an individual who later
became a member of Congress, which was then published by the media. We
undertook this investigation after referrals from you, the Secret Service, and
staff from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
This memorandum is part of a series of reviews the Office of Inspector General
is conducting regarding the Secret Service.1 This was a purely factual review of
the conduct of Secret Service personnel regarding a specific incident; our Office
of Information Technology Audits will review the Master Central Index (MCI)
system to determine the effectiveness of the protections in place to prevent and
detect unauthorized access and disclosure of information within MCI.
Additionally, the Secret Service data systems will be part of our annual review
pursuant to the Federal Information Security Management Act. Our Office of
Inspections and Evaluations and our Office of Audits are also conducting work
regarding certain Secret Service programs and operations, as well as specific
security incidents. At the conclusion of that work we will summarize what we
have found and the larger lessons we can learn from them.
We have substantially completed our review of the allegation and have
determined that a Secret Service database containing sensitive personally
identifiable information (PII) pertaining to Congressman Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, was
accessed on approximately 60 occasions by Secret Service employees. We have
concluded that a vast majority of those who had accessed the information did
so in violation of the Privacy Act, as well as Secret Service and DHS policy.
Additionally, we identified one individual who acknowledged disclosing
information protected by the Privacy Act to an outside source. However,
See, Memorandum to Secretary Johnson, Investigation into the White House
Complex on March 4, 2015 (May 6, 2015)
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mga/OIG_mga-050615.pdf[oig.dhs.gov;
Management Advisory-Alarm System Maintenance at Residences Protected by
the U.S. Secret Service (Redacted) OIG 15-61(April 20, 2015) http://srvhq11c03webs/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG_15-61_Apr15.pdf; Memorandum to Secretary
Johnson, Allegation into Misuse of Secret Service Resources, (October 17, 2014)
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/pr/2014/Allegations-of-Misuse-USSSResources-101714.pdf.
1

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
2

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
because the number of individuals with access to this information was so
great, we were unable to identify others who may have disclosed protected
information to third parties.
We conducted this investigation from April 2, 2015 to August 21, 2015. Our
objectives were to determine: (1) whether Secret Service personnel
impermissibly accessed information concerning Chairman Chaffetz’
application; (2) the identity of those individuals; (3) whether the information
was further disseminated in violation of the Privacy Act; and, (4) what actions,
if any, Secret Service management took to prevent unauthorized access of such
information.
This investigation was undertaken by OIG personnel, with assistance from
members of the Secret Service Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). We
conducted more than 50 interviews, reviewed Secret Service records, and also
obtained, pursuant to subpoena, records from a private entity. We conducted
a search of the Secret Service email system, reviewed the Master Central Index,
reviewed DHS privacy policies, Secret Service privacy and personnel policies,
and examined telephone records.
The findings in this report, and its conclusions, consistent with the
independence requirements of the Inspector General Act and our general
practice, are the exclusive product of the Office of Inspector General.2
The First Unauthorized Access of Sensitive Information
On March 24, 2015, the House of Representatives, Oversight and Government
Reform Committee (OGR), conducted a hearing on the actions of the Secret
Service on the evening of March 4, 2015, concerning allegations that two Secret
Service supervisors breached a crime scene and may have been under the
influence of alcohol. The Committee’s sole witness was Secret Service Director
Joseph Clancy.
The hearing began at approximately10:00 a.m. By 10:18 a.m., a senior Secret
Service agent,
, who was an
assigned to the Office of Administration at Headquarters, holding a grade of
GS-14, queried Chairman Jason Chaffetz’ name in the MCI Secret Service
2

The Secret Service, similar to any component that is the subject of a report by this office, was
provided an opportunity to review the report prior to publication to identify any information
that could compromise its security mission.

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
3

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
database. MCI is a 1980’s vintage, electronic database and system of records
used by the Secret Service to house agency-unique information, including
information on individuals who are the subject of criminal, non-criminal, and
protective intelligence investigations, Secret Service personnel and applicant
data, and other records such as firearms and physical fitness qualifications.
To access the database,
would have first logged on with a unique user
ID and password, and would have seen the following warning screen:

This warning, which reminds the user that the information contained within
the system is for official use only, is necessary because, as we describe below,
the information contained within the database is protected by the Privacy Act,
applicable to all government data systems that contain information regarding
CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
4

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
individuals. Additionally, the database contains sensitive PII, such as dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, contact information, and other information
that, if improperly disclosed, could lead to personal embarrassment or an
increase in the possibility of identity theft or other compromises in personal
security. The result of an individual’s employment application may also be
considered sensitive PII.
The query resulted in Special Agent
discovering that Chairman
Chaffetz, identified by his date of birth, Social Security number, and city of
birth, had in fact applied to the Secret Service at the
Office in
September of 2003, but that the application had not been acted upon and the
applicant had not been interviewed, reflected in MCI by a data field that read
“BQA,” which meant that other better qualified applicants existed.
Special Agent
had no official need to query Chairman Chaffetz’ name,
because this information was not needed for
to do
job. Thus,
violated the Privacy Act in accessing the information.
told us
did
so out of curiosity. When
was interviewed,
stated that
was “struck
by Chairman Chaffetz’ outward animus towards” Director Clancy during his
testimony.
questioned whether there was something else underlying the
way Representative Chaffetz treated Clancy, such as Chaffetz having been
rejected as an applicant to the Secret Service.
, upon accessing this information, immediately telephoned Special
Agent
, of the Dallas Field Office, where
used to
work. According to
,
informed him of the fact of the application.
, whose duties largely consisted of investigating applicants, accessed MCI
at 10:23 a.m., five minutes after
, and confirmed the fact of the
application.
also shared the information regarding Chairman Chaffetz
with
,
, USSS,
Presidential Protection Division;
, then, Office of Administration; and
, an
within the Office of Government and Public Affairs. None of these individuals
would have had an official purpose in receiving this information. Each
subsequent transfer of information, because it came from a Privacy Actprotected record and was made to an individual who had no official need for it,
violated the Privacy Act.
, the Dallas agent who first received the information from
, in turn
disclosed the information to Special Agent
, also of the Dallas Field
Office, who confirmed the information by searching for Chairman Chaffetz’
CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
5

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
name within MCI at 2:23 p.m. that afternoon.
access this record.

had no official need to

By the end of the first day, seven individuals had accessed the record; only one
may have had an official purpose in doing so. By the end of the next day,
March 25, 2015, an additional 13 personnel had accessed the record; only 2
had an arguable official need for doing so.3 We were able to determine through
an examination of MCI records that in total 45 employees accessed the record
approximately 60 times by the time the information was published in the media
on April 2, 2015. By our analysis, only four had an arguably legitimate need to
do so. A full list of the individuals who accessed Chairman Chaffetz’ record in
MCI during the time period in question, and the dates and time of their access,
is attached as Appendix 1.
Agents accessing the information were located across the country and abroad,
including agents working in the following offices:
















Office of Government and Public Affairs;
Office of Administration;
Dallas Field Office;
Office of Training;
Office of Investigations;
Phoenix Field Office;
Presidential Protective Division;
Charlotte Field Office;
London Resident Office;
Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information;
Washington Field Office (WFO);
Sacramento Resident Office;
Office of Human Resources;
Albany (Georgia) Resident Office;
Rowley Training Center;

Courts have held that to determine an “official purpose,” sufficient to have
access to information protected by the Privacy Act, one looks to “whether the
official examined the record in connection with the performance of duties
assigned to him and whether he had to do so in order to perform those duties
properly.” Bigelow v. Department of Defense, 217 F.3d, 875, 877 (D.C. Cir.
2000). The best example of an “official purpose” in this instance is the conduct
of Deputy Assistant Director Cynthia Wofford, which we describe below.
3

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
6

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security















Countersurveillance Division;
San Francisco Field Office;
Indianapolis Field Office;
Protective Intelligence Division;
Special Operations Division;
William Clinton Protective Division;
Madison (Wisconsin) Resident Office;
Houston Field Office;
Tucson Resident Office;
Technical Security Division;
New Haven Resident Office;
Boston Field Office;
Investigative Support Division;
Pittsburg Field Office.

We interviewed each agent who accessed MCI and memorialized the results in a
Memorandum of Interview.4 Pursuant to established policy, the results of
those interviews will be given to the Secret Service for whatever personnel
action the Secret Service believes is appropriate.
We were unable to determine with certainty how many of those individuals in
turn disclosed this information to others who did not have a need to know, who
may have then told others. However, the disclosure was widespread, and
recipients of the information likely numbered in the hundreds. Those agents
we interviewed acknowledged freely sharing it with others in the Secret Service,
often contemporaneously with accessing the information. One agent reported
that by the end of the second day, he was sent on a protection assignment in
New York City for the visit of the President of Afghanistan, and many of the
approximately 70 agents at the protection briefing were talking about the issue.
With one exception, every employee interviewed cooperated with the OIG by
providing a sworn written statement when requested, as required by DHS
Directive 0810.1. One employee, Special Agent
of the San
Francisco Field Office, refused to provide a written statement after his
interview. On July 13, 2015, after repeated efforts to obtain a sworn
statement, the OIG referred the matter to the Assistant Director, Office of
Professional Responsibility. As of the date of issuance of this report, the USSS
has not notified the OIG of what action, if any, has been taken for his failure to
cooperate as required by the DHS policy.
4

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
7

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
As we discuss below, Chairman Chaffetz’ application was protected by the
Privacy Act, and each disclosure of information contained within the MCI to an
individual without a need to know it, even if transmitted orally, constituted a
violation of the Privacy Act. If the individual knew that it came from a record
protected by the Privacy Act, this action exposed the agent and the agency to
criminal and civil liability.5
Notwithstanding the warning banner and Secret Service policy, many
employees insisted that their actions were not inappropriate. A typical
response from a GS-13 Special Agent was, “At the time I accessed MCI
information I did not think it was inappropriate. If I had known, I would not
have accessed the information…. I understand there was a ‘banner’ when a
user logs onto MCI, [but] I did not read it.” Some thought that accessing such
a record, even to satisfy personal curiosity, was appropriate because it was
“our database.” However, other employees told us that upon finding the
Chaffetz record they immediately realized it was a mistake to have looked for
the information, and a number of them self-reported to their supervisor.
E-mail transmission of the MCI screenshot containing sensitive PII
Additionally, agents distributed the information via the Secret Service email
system. On the afternoon of the first day, March 24th, Dallas Special Agent
circulated a screen shot of the MCI record, which contained
Chairman Chaffetz’ PII, to another Secret Service agent. That agent, Special
Agent
from WFO, distributed the email in turn to two other
agents,
from WFO and
, an Assistant to the
Special Agent in Charge from WFO. To the extent we have been able to
determine, neither of those agents further distributed the email.
, a supervisor, was aware that
had accessed MCI in this fashion,
but “didn’t think much further about the incident.” This email and the chain
that followed it – a total of three emails – are the only official Secret Service
We interviewed some agents who recalled that they had heard of the Chaffetz
rumors before
accessed MCI on March 24th. However, none of those
agents were able to tell us where they heard the rumor from, or what the
source of the rumor was. We were unable to confirm that anyone in the Secret
Service had direct knowledge of Chairman Chaffetz’ application until it was
first accessed by
. We have concluded that the knowledge of the
Chaffetz application originated from the MCI and not any other source.
5

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
8

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
emails that we found containing the actual MCI record. By embedding the MCI
record into an email, which contained sensitive PII such as a social security
number and date of birth,
’s action violated DHS PII policy and increased
the risk that Chairman Chaffetz’ PII would be compromised.
,
failed to follow DHS policy when they received the
, and
email by not immediately reporting the action as a Privacy Incident. In
addition,
and
violated the Privacy Act as they knew that this
information had come from a Privacy Act protected database and that
,
, and
had no need to know the information.
We also found a number of other emails within the Secret Service system, sent
before the publication date of April 2nd, that disclosed the Chaffetz application
but did not include his Social Security information or date of birth.
Disclosure Outside of the Secret Service
Two media outlets had apparent access to the fact of Chaffetz’ application and
the particulars surrounding it, although our investigation did not identify the
initial source of their information. The initial publication occurred on the
evening of April 2nd by “The Daily Beast,” an internet-based news outlet, which
reported in an article entitled “Congressman Who Oversees Secret Service Was
Rejected by Secret Service” that Chairman Chaffetz had applied to the Secret
Service in 2002 or 2003 and had been rejected.6 It also contained a response
from Chairman Chaffetz. Also that evening, the Washington Post published an
online article, “DHS asked to probe Secret Service over release of Chaffetz’s
rejection,” which focused on the reaction to the fact that Secret Service agents
had improperly accessed Chairman Chaffetz’ application.7 The article reported
that senior Congressional staffers had asked DHS to look into the matter and
contained responses from Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings,
DHS Secretary Johnson, and Director Clancy.

See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/02/congressman-whooversees-secret-service-was-rejected-by-secret-service.html#, last accessed
September 17, 2015.
6

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dhs-asked-to-probe-secretservice-over-release-of-chaffetzs-job-rejection/2015/04/02/08352c52-d98e11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html, last accessed September 17, 2015.
7

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
9

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Because of the significant number of individuals who had knowledge of
Chairman Chaffetz’ application history, we were unable to conclusively
determine the universe of sources of the disclosure of PII to individuals outside
of government. We were also unable to uncover any evidence that particular
members of the Secret Service disclosed Chairman Chaffetz’ application status
to the Daily Beast. With regard to the Washington Post, one agent,
, from WFO, acknowledged in a written statement to OIG that he
disclosed, on two separate occasions, information he knew to be derived from
Secret Service records, and hence a system of records protected by the Privacy
Act, to a Washington Post reporter. He told us that he had confirmed for the
reporter the fact that he had received an email that had contained the Chaffetz
applicant record.8 However,
understood that he was not the sole, or
even original, source for this information.
Secret Service Senior Management Awareness of Employee Access
We identified 18 supervisors at the GS-15 or Senior Executive Service level who
appeared to have known or should have known, prior to the publication of the
fact, that Chairman Chaffetz’ MCI record was being accessed. Yet, with a
single exception, we found no evidence that any of these senior Secret Service
managers attempted to inform the Director or higher levels of the supervisory
chain, or to stop or remediate the activity. Furthermore, we found no evidence
that a manager at any level issued written guidance for employees to
discontinue accessing MCI for anything but official use. Some senior
managers, when informed of the fact that agents were accessing MCI for this
unofficial purpose, did appropriately counsel the offending employee on the

also acknowledged accessing Secret Service data systems that
reflected that another agent was on “Do Not Admit” status as a result of an
allegation of sexual assault on another employee, and passing that information
onto the reporter. This information was protected by the Privacy Act.
was the only person who accessed that record who did not have an obvious
official need for it, and was being investigated separately by the Secret Service
Office of Professional Responsibility for that incident and other instances of
apparent unauthorized access.
8

The
matter was referred to the Department of Justice, which declined
prosecution in favor of administrative action.
has since resigned from
the Secret Service.
CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
10

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
issue, but it was done orally and without reporting up the chain of command or
an attempt to address what was becoming a widespread issue.
One instance is illustrative of what we found. WFO Special Agent in Charge
Kathy Michalko became aware on or about March 25th that several of her midlevel WFO supervisors had accessed or were aware of the Chaffetz record. She
told us that she did not pass the information to her supervisors at Secret
Service Headquarters because she “viewed this matter as specific to WFO and
able to be handled at my level,” but she directed her subordinates to cease any
further access of the MCI record. No other Secret Service personnel at WFO
accessed the Chaffetz record after that date, but 25 others around the country
did.
Appendix 2 contains a timeline detailing which managers knew about the MCI
access and when they knew it.
Similarly, senior managers who knew of the widespread rumors concerning the
Chaffetz application should have understood that employees were accessing
the MCI applicant record in violation of both Secret Service policy and the
Privacy Act and had the potential of causing unfavorable publicity for both the
Chairman and the Secret Service. That understanding, in turn, should have
caused them to take steps to prevent and mitigate what was occurring.
Additionally, we found two specific instances in which senior managers missed
an opportunity either to stop the information themselves, or to inform Secret
Service Director Clancy about the Chaffetz record and its improper access by
Secret Service employees. These occurred shortly after the initial unauthorized
MCI access on March 24th.
Deputy Assistant Director Cynthia Wofford, of the Office of Strategic
Intelligence and Information (SII), recalled hearing rumors of the Chaffetz
application during the Director’s March 24th testimony. After unsuccessfully
searching the internet for confirmation of the rumor, Wofford accessed MCI on
the morning of March 25th and found the Chaffetz record. Wofford stated in
her interview that, in her position overseeing SII, she is charged in part with
being aware of any information – such as developing media stories – which may
prove embarrassing to the Secret Service, and further, with making notification
to the Director or Deputy Director when appropriate.
Wofford told us in her sworn statement that she attempted to brief Deputy
Director Craig Magaw about the Chaffetz record in person on or about March
25th. According to her written statement, the Deputy Director “made a shooCONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
11

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
ing hand motion and stated ‘Yeah, yeah we know.’ I took this to mean that he
didn’t want to talk about it any further and that he was well away [sic] of the
rumor.” Magaw did not discuss this information with the Director at that time.
Magaw, for his part, told investigators that he did not recall the exchange.
Also in the middle of the day on March 25th, Dallas Field Office Special Agent
, who was the third person to access the Chaffetz record (and was
unauthorized to do so), informed Chief of Staff Michael Biermann during a
phone conversation that the Chaffetz applicant record existed in MCI.
Biermann, who serves as the de facto gate keeper for the Director and Deputy
on many issues, also chose not to pass on this information to either one. He
said that by March 25th, he was aware of the rumors regarding Chaffetz earlier
that day, although he stated he was not sure where he heard the rumors, other
than it came from “the 8th floor” (which is the location of Secret Service senior
management). Biermann stated that he was consumed with the issues
surrounding the March 4th incident, including the Department and
Congressional taskings related to it.
It appears that both Magaw and Biermann were aware of the chatter flowing
through their agency, but failed to comprehend the seriousness of what was
developing. Neither apparently understood that the rumors were being fueled
by, and confirmed by, numerous agents who improperly accessed the protected
MCI record of the Chaffetz application. Neither acted, as they certainly had the
power to do, to stop this unauthorized and unlawful activity. Each could have
issued a directive, deleted or restricted access to the Chaffetz record in MCI, or
taken other actions to contain the damage. Neither let the Secret Service
Director know.
Moreover, at least one senior Secret Service executive, who knew about the fact
of the Chaffetz application, suggested that it be leaked. On March 31st, two
days before the publication of the information, Ed Lowery, who is an Assistant
Director and in charge of training for the Secret Service, replied to an email
from Faron Paramore, another Assistant Director who was in charge of
Congressional and public affairs. Paramore’s email distributed a press
statement by Secretary Johnson regarding Chairman Chaffetz’ decision to
subpoena Secret Service agents. Lowery’s reply, sent only to Paramore, is
reprinted in its entirety:

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
12

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Lowery, in his interview, denied directing anyone to release information and
believed it would have been inappropriate to do so. He described the statement
as reflecting his stress and his anger. The recipient of the email, Paramore,
stated he never responded to the email and did not act on it. We have no
information that would establish that either Lowery or Paramore made good on
the email.
Director Clancy told us he did not hear about the Chaffetz application rumor
until April 1st and did not know about the improper MCI access until learning
of it in connection with the Washington Post article on the evening of April 2nd.
Shortly thereafter, on the same evening, the Director had his staff prepare a
message addressing the unauthorized release of protected information by
Secret Service employees and had the message sent agency-wide that night.
This email obliquely referenced the disclosure of the Chaffetz MCI record to the
media and reminded employees that they are prohibited from disclosing
sensitive agency information, even between Secret Service employees, except
pursuant to applicable rules and policies. The message concluded with a

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
13

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
warning that “All dissemination of any such information must immediately
cease.”
On April 3rd, the Director held a staff meeting with his senior managers to
address this issue. On April 17th, the Director issued another all-agency
message referring to recent employee misconduct incidents and stated that he
will not tolerate employees who continue to disregard rules and violate the oath
they once swore to uphold. Those communications are attached as Appendix
3.
Applicable Rules, Regulations and Statutes
Privacy Act
In common terms, the Privacy Act prohibits the government from disclosing
records it maintains about an individual to anyone – even inside their own
agency – unless that individual consents to disclosure or the disclosure falls
within a dozen categories of permissible disclosure. A “disclosure” needn’t
mean the actual record itself, but can be made by any means, including
written, oral or electronic. The exceptions to the prohibition allow an agency to
distribute a record without the individual’s consent. A disclosure can be made
within the agency were an individual has a need for the record in the
performance of his or her duties. Other exceptions include responding to a
Freedom of Information Act request, for law enforcement purposes under
certain conditions, for compelling circumstances involving health and safety,
certain Congressional notifications, and other reasons. Other than the
“performance of duties” category for Secret Service personnel, none of these
exceptions apply to this matter.
Knowing and willful disclosure of material protected by the Privacy Act is a
crime. 5 U.S.C. 522a(i)(1). Such a prosecution would require proof that the
individual knew that the material was protected by the Privacy Act but
nonetheless disclosed it.
Additionally, violation of the Privacy Act exposes the agency to civil liability, in
the form of injunctive relief or money damages, if the agency is found to have
acted in an intentional or willful manner. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(D). The

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
14

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
legislative history indicates that the standard “is viewed as only somewhat
greater than gross negligence.”9
DHS and Secret Service Policies
Secret Service policies include the Secret Service Information Technology (IT)
Rules of General Behavior.10 Among its provisions, it lists 43 Rules of Behavior
and a General Principle that cover employees’ use of all Secret Service IT
systems. This policy requires Secret Service employees to safeguard sensitive,
classified and privacy related information against unauthorized disclosure to
the public. It further requires that all Secret Service employees acknowledge
review and understanding of the provisions enumerated in that policy upon
entering on duty with the Secret Service and annually thereafter. This
acknowledgement is memorialized on a standard form and maintained within
an employee’s personnel record. The Secret Service also has a Table of
Penalties to address misconduct including unauthorized use of a government
computer and disclosure of information in violation of the Privacy Act.
Appendix 4 contains the applicable provisions of these policies.
The March 2012 DHS Handbook for Safeguarding Sensitive Personally
Identifiable Information contains policies that apply to all DHS including all
Secret Service employees. Social Security numbers are included in the
definition of PII which if disclosed could cause substantial harm to an
individual.11



Only access or use Sensitive PII when you have a need to know that
information, that is, when your need for the information relates to your
official duties.
Never browse files containing Sensitive PII out of curiosity or for personal
reasons.

“The degree of culpability required is somewhat greater than gross negligence;
damages will be assessed against an agency for committing [an] act without
grounds for believing it to be lawful, or ... flagrantly disregarding others' rights
under the Act.” Reuber v. United States, 829 F.2d 133 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
10 IRM-10(03) (04/23/2007).
11 (See
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy/Guidance/hand
bookforsafeguardingsensitivePII_march_2012_webversion.pdf).
9

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
15

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security




Share Sensitive PII within DHS if the recipient’s need for the information
is related to his or her official duties.
Disclosure of Sensitive PII requires a published routine use under the
applicable Privacy Act Systems of Records Notice.
Employees are required to report to their supervisor all incidents
involving unauthorized access or unauthorized disclosure where persons
have access to PII for other than an authorized purpose.

The January 2012 DHS Privacy Incident Handling Guidance manual requires
DHS personnel to inform their supervisor immediately upon discovery or
detection of a Privacy Incident, which includes where an authorized user
accesses PII for an unauthorized purpose.12
Secret Service policy for contacts with the media is set forth in its Directive
System, Government and Public Affairs, GPA-01 issued 11/26/2003. The
Public Affairs Program “serves as the spokesman for all official Secret Service
policies, issues, policies and procedures…coordinates the receipt and
responses to requests for information from the public to the Secret Service…”
As we note in the body of the report, Secret Service personnel violated not only
the Privacy Act, but each of these DHS and Secret Service policies.
Conclusion
This episode reflects an obvious lack of care on the part of Secret Service
personnel as to the sensitivity of the information entrusted to them. It also
reflects a failure by the Secret Service management and leadership to
understand the potential risk to the agency as events unfolded and react to
and prevent or mitigate the damage caused by their workforce’s actions.
All personnel involved – the agents who inappropriately accessed the
information, the mid-level supervisors who understood what was occurring,
and the senior leadership of the Service – bear responsibility for what occurred.
Better and more frequent training is only part of the solution. Ultimately, while
the responsibility for this activity can be fairly placed on the shoulders of the
agents who casually disregarded important privacy rules, the Secret Service
leadership must do a better job of controlling the actions of its personnel. The
12

(See http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-incidencehandling-guide.pdf).

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
16

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Secret Service leadership must demonstrate a commitment to integrity. This
includes setting an appropriate tone at the top, but more importantly requires
a commitment to establishing and adhering to standards of conduct and
ethical and reasonable behavior. Standards of conduct and ethics are
meaningful only if they are enforced and if deviations from such standards are
dealt with appropriately.
It doesn’t take a lawyer explaining the nuances of the Privacy Act to know that
the conduct that occurred here – by dozens of agents in every part of the
agency – was simply wrong. The agents should have known better. Those who
engaged in this behavior should be made to understand how destructive and
corrosive to the agency their actions were. These agents work for an agency
whose motto – “worthy of trust and confidence” – is engraved in marble in the
lobby of their headquarters building. Few could credibly argue that the agents
involved in this episode lived up to that motto. Given the sensitivity of the
information with which these agents are entrusted, particularly with regard to
their protective function, this episode is deeply disturbing.
Additionally, it is especially ironic, and troubling, that the Director of the Secret
Service was apparently the only one in the Secret Service who was unaware of
the issue until it reached the media. At the March 24th hearing, he testified
that he was “infuriated” that he was not made aware of the March 4th drinking
incident. He testified that he was “working furiously to try to break down these
barriers where people feel that they can't talk up the chain.” In the days after
this testimony, 18 supervisors, including his Chief of Staff and the Deputy
Director, were aware of what was occurring. Yet, the Director himself did not
know. When he became aware, he took swift and decisive action, but too late
to prevent his agency from again being subject to justified criticism.

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE
17

 APPENDIX 1:
Chronological MCI Access of the Chaffetz Application Record

Title

Name

SA
SA

SA

†

SA

DAD
SA
SA

SA
SA

Cynthia R. Wofford†

Assignment

Grade

Office of
Administration
Dallas Field
Office
Dallas Field
Office
Office of
Administration
Government
and Public
Affairs
Office of
Investigations
Phoenix Field
Office
Presidential
Protective
Division
Charlotte Field
Office
London
Resident Office
Strategic Intel.
and
Information
Washington
Field Office
Washington
Field Office
Washington
Field Office
Sacramento
Resident Office
Office of
Human
Resources

GS-14

Access
Access
Date*
Time*
3/24/15 10:18 AM

GS 13

3/24/15 10:23 AM

GS-13

3/24/15

2:23 PM

GS-14

3/24/15

4:05 PM

GS-13

3/24/15

4:53 PM

GS-13

3/24/15

5:18 PM

GS-08

3/24/15

5:20 PM

GS-11

3/25/15

9:57 AM

GS-14

3/25/15 10:05 AM

GS-13

3/25/15 10:07 AM

ES-00

3/25/15 10:17 AM

GS-13

3/25/15 10:58 AM

GS-07

3/25/15 11:21 AM

GS-14

3/25/15 11:40 AM

GS-13

3/25/15 11:47 AM

GS-13

3/25/15

1

1:12 PM

 Title

Name

SA
†

SA
SA

ASAIC

John R. Rotella, Jr.

SA
SAIC

SA
SA
SA

SA
SA

Gary L. Durham

Assignment

Grade

Charlotte Field
Office
Washington
Field Office
Albany (GA)
Resident Office
Washington
Field Office
Los Angeles
Field Office
Lexington (KY)
Resident Office
Rowley
Training Center
Countersurveillance
Division
San Francisco
Field Office
Indianapolis
Field Office
Protective
Intelligence
Division
Special
Operations
Division
Special
Operations
Division
William Clinton
Protective
Division
Madison (WI)
Resident
Agency
Houston Field
Office
Los Angeles
Field Office
Houston Field
Office

GS-13

Access
Access
Date*
Time*
3/25/15 1:39 PM

GS-14

3/25/15 1:49 PM

GS-14

3/25/15 4:25 PM

GS-13

3/25/15 9:05 PM

GS-13

3/26/15 1:27 PM

GS-11

3/26/15 2:39 PM

GS-14

3/27/15 9:56 AM

GS-15

3/27/15 12:02 PM

GS-13

3/27/15 1:35 PM

GS-15

3/27/15 2:09 PM

GS-14

3/27/15 2:27 PM

GS-13

3/28/15 5:39 AM

GS-13

3/29/15 1:02 PM

GS-13

3/30/15 2:39 PM

GS-13

3/30/15 5:28 PM

GS-13

3/31/15 11:24 AM

GS-13

3/31/15 1:24 PM

GS-14

3/31/15 5:34 PM

2

 Title

Name

SA
SA
SA
SA

SA
SA

SA
SAIC

Eric P. Zahren
†

Assignment

Grade

Tucson
Resident Office
Special
Operations
Division
Protective
Intelligence
Division
Vice
Presidential
Protective Div.
Technical
Security
Division
New Haven
Resident Office
Boston Field
Office
Investigative
Support
Division
Los Angeles
Field Office
Pittsburgh
Field Office
Phoenix Field
Office

GS-13

Access
Access
Date*
Time*
3/31/15 7:34 PM

GS-13

4/1/15 10:02 AM

GS-13

4/1/15 11:44 AM

GS-13

4/1/15 12:32 PM

GS-13

4/1/15 1:47 PM

GS-13

4/1/15 2:26 PM

GS-13

4/1/15 2:26 PM

GS-14

4/1/15 3:14 PM

GS-13

4/1/15 4:44 PM

GS-15

4/2/15 1:06 PM

GS-08

4/2/15 6:31 PM

*This table reflects only the initial query of the Chaffetz record by the above
individuals. We were unable to reliably determine the number of times an
employee accessed the record within a single session in which an employee
was logged into the MCI database. Our investigation determined the above
45 employees accessed the record approximately 60 times.
†These 4 employees were determined to have a legitimate business reason to
access the Chaffetz record.

AO
ASAIC
ATSAIC
DAD

List of Title Abbreviations Used
Administrative Officer
Assistant Special Agent in Charge
Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge
Deputy Assistant Director
3

 ISA
POS
PSS
RA
RAIC
SA
SAIC

List of Title Abbreviations Used
Investigative Support Assistant
Protective Operations Specialist
Protective Support Specialist
Resident Agent
Resident Agent in Charge
Special Agent
Special Agent in Charge

4

 APPENDIX 2:
Timeline of Senior Management Awareness of Chaffetz Record Access,
3/24/15 – 4/2/15‡
Date/time
3/24 – 10:18 am
3/24 – approx.
10 am -12 pm
3/24 - 6:40 pm
3/25 – unknown
time
3/25 – after
10:05 am
3/25 – after
10:07 am
3/25 – after
10:17 am

3/25 – sometime
in am
3/25 – around
mid-day

‡

Event
First known access of Chaffetz MCI record by
(GS-14)
, Office of Administration,
while watching Director Clancy’s testimony on TV.
DAD Cynthia Wofford heard rumors of Chaffetz
application during Director’s testimony, which she
was watching on TV.
SA
, Dallas FO, sent cryptic email to
COS (DAD) Mike Biermann that he had “some info”;
Biermann did not respond until 3/25 (see below).
SA
, Dallas FO, notified
(1st line supervisor) of his and
’s
(a former Dallas SA) access.
questioned why
they did this; unknown if he pursued up chain.
of the Charlotte FO accessed
record, printed and showed SAIC Russell Nelson,
Charlotte FO.
SA
, London RO, accessed record,
notified his supervisor, RAIC (GS-15) Eric Whatley,
London RO.
Wofford briefed Deputy Director Craig Magaw, who
dismissed her with “Yeah, yeah we know.” Wofford
stated this occurred “shortly thereafter” she became
aware of rumor and looked up record on 3/25.
Magaw acknowledged this probably occurred, but did
not specifically recall the event.
Biermann first heard of Chaffetz BQA rumor on “8th
Floor” (Senior executive location in USSS
Headquarters).
Biermann returned call to
;
told Biermann
he wanted to ensure USSS senior management was
aware of the Chaffetz applicant record in MCI.
reported that the record showed Chaffetz had applied
to the USSS in 2003 through the
FO and
had been BQA'd for an unknown reason. (
did
not identify the actual date as 3/25, but rather as
“several days later” relative to the 3/24 call)

Bolded names are GS-15 or SES level special agents

5

 Date/time
3/25 – 2:24 pm

3/25 – afternoon

3/27 – 11:35 am

3/27 – after
12:02 pm

3/27 –2:09 pm
3/31 – 10:00 pm

4/1 – 10:30 am

Event
, WFO (1st line supervisor),
received copy of MCI record embedded in email from
SA
, WFO.
did not make any
notifications or otherwise address; claimed to have
deleted email.
SAIC Kathy Michalko, WFO, learned of MCI record
access when approached by three of her WFO
supervisors:
, ASAIC Martin
Mullholland and DSAIC James Murray. Date/time
determined relative to access of another WFO
supervisor,
. Michalko addressed
issue and ordered subordinates to stop accessing,
but did not pass up chain.
AD Faron Paramore, GPA, sent Magaw email
requesting to discuss “recent rumor.” Magaw and
Paramore both stated this was their first recollection
of hearing the Chaffetz application rumor, although
Magaw responded to Paramore that he had already
heard this before (See Paramore Statement).
Paramore stated he was unaware at this time that
employees had accessed the MCI record.
ASAIC John Rotella, Counter-surveillance Division,
accessed MCI record, and then self-reported to SAIC
Steven Stanford. Stanford remarked he shouldn’t
have done so. Stanford is a direct report to Wofford,
above, but it does not appear he discussed this with
her.
SAIC Gary Durham, Indianapolis FO, accessed
record personally. Does not appear he passed this
up his chain.
AD Edward Lowery, Office of Training, sent email to
AD Paramore with comment about “embarrassing”
information concerning Rep. Chaffetz (i.e. he had
knowledge of information contained in the MCI
record in order to make this comment). Paramore
did not follow-up with Lowery on this comment.
, Houston FO, accessed MCI
record then briefed results at supervisor’s meeting on
this date. Present were Houston supervisors: SAIC
Cynthia Marble, DSAIC Jerald Page, ASAIC Mark
McKevitt and several unidentified ATSAICs.

6

 Date/time
4/1 – after 3:14
pm
4/1 – unknown
time
4/2 – 1:06 pm
4/2 – 7:24 pm
(or shortly
before)

Event
,
, Investigations, accessed
record, and “Soon thereafter,” notified his
supervisors, ASAIC Sean Scott and SAIC Stephen
Gasvoda.
Director Joseph Clancy’s first recollection of
hearing rumor of Chaffetz application (but not BQA).
SAIC Eric Zahren, Pittsburgh FO, accessed record
personally. Zahren did not pass this up his chain.
notified by email and phone of
Washington Post’s intent to print article with
information from Chaffetz record;
passed to AD
Level at this point.

List of Abbreviations Used
AD
Assistant Director
ASAIC
Assistant Special Agent in Charge
ATSAIC Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge
BQA
Better Qualified Applicant (term for applicant
rejection)
COS
Chief of Staff
DAD
Deputy Assistant Director
DSAIC Deputy Special Agent in Charge
FO
Field Office
GPA
Office of Government and Public Affairs
ISD
Investigative Support Division
MCI
Master Central Index (USSS System of Record)
MOA
Memorandum of Activity
RAIC
Resident Agent in Charge
RO
Resident Office
SA
Special Agent
SAIC
Special Agent in Charge
WFO
Washington Field Office

7

 APPENDIX 3:

Director Clancy?s Response to Chaffetz Record Access

APRIL 2 EMAIL

From: DIR

Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 9:48 PM

To: USA

Subject: 175.040 Handling of Sensitive Information

//Routine//

From: Headquarters (Director) File: 175.040
To: All Employees

Subj: Handling of Sensitive Information

It has recently come to my attention that employees may have accessed and
circulated sensitive information concerning an individual. This is to remind
and advise all employees that they are prohibited from disclosing any record
maintained by this Agency except pursuant to applicable Agency rules and
policies. Disclosure of such information between employees is prohibited
unless the employee to whom the information is being disclosed has a need

for such record in the performance of their duties.

All dissemination of any such information must immediately cease.

Headquarters (Director) Clancy

APRIL 17 EMAIL

FunnzD?2
PM


Subject: 175.040 Director's Message

From: Headquarzers (tirecnor) File: 
To: All Employees
Subj: Director?s Message

Over the past 150 years, the Secret Service has established itself as one the
most highly regarded law enforcement agencies in the world. Throughout our
history, we have continued to answer the call to serve our country, and
through our work, created a tradition of excellence. The cornerstone of our
success has always been the selfless dedication to duty displayed by the men
and women of this Agency. Having dedicated most of my professional career to
the Secret Service, I know that the quality and professionalism of our
workforce is without parallel.

Today, the Secret Service is comprised of nearly 6,500 special agents,
Uniformed Division officers and adminiSEZative, professional and technical
personnel. The overwhelming majority of our employees come to work each day,
are dedicated to their duties and conduct themselves in a professional
manner. However, a small group of individuals continue to disregard the
rules and choose to ignore the oath they once swore to uphold. Their
behavior tarnishes the reputation of our Agency and I will not tolerate it
and I know you will not tolerate it.

I understand that we are all human and that sometimes we make

mistakes. However, I do not consider the majority of recent misconduct to be
mistakes. Each incident represented a lack of judgement and that is
something we can control. As I stated during my testimony on Capitol Hill,
everyone regardless of grade or tank will be held accountable for their
actions and behavior. Now is the time for the 39% who represent this Agency
honorably, to step forward and pull the 1% up with us. Each of us has a
responsibility, not only to the American people, but to each other. Duty,
Courage, Honestly, Loyalty and Justice are the values that define this
Agency. From this day forward we must reaffirm our commitment to those
values, those same values that I am sure your families hold dear.

As a result of alleged and confirmed instances of misconduct, there has been
widespread media coverage and intense levels of scrutiny from Congress. We
must each recognize that Congress is legislatively mandated to exact
oversight on the Secret Service. Just as we do, they also serve the American
people. Each member of Congress wants to see this Agency succeed. Whether
you agree or disagree with the accuracy of media reporting is

irrelevant. The fact is, these incidents occurred and our employees were
reaponsible. Frustration cannot be directed toward any external entity. We
must accept responsibility for our errors and commit ourselves to ensuring
they do not happen again.

Por the last several months, I have met with a large cross-section of our
workforce. During my recent visit :0 the west ceast offices, I listened as
employees discussed legitimate concerns, challenges and recommendations. I

APRIL 17 EMAIL, CONTINUED:

want each and every employee to know that I am listening to you. In many
instances, we have already moved forward to implement new and improved ways
of doing business. Some require long?term and systemic changes, but make no
mistake: we will continue to change for the better. To that point, it is
imperative that I know where problems exist so that the appropriate solutions
can be developed. Voicing your concerns through a third party outlet may
prOVide short-term satisfaction but will not correct the problem long-

term. My door is open. If there is an issue that needs to be addressed, I
encourage you to work with me to identify a solution collaboratively. If you
are serious abOut wanting to enact positive change, then it should start in-
houSe.

This represents a critical time for the Secret service. Each of us must
reevaluate and reaffirm our commitment to our core values and this

Agency. If you are personally unable to make that Commitment then perhaps
this is not the right job for you.

I?m confident that 99% of you are more than willing to make that
commitment. I would like to bring that 1% along with us to help us succeed
with our mission. However, we are not waiting for everyone to get on

board. Our mission is too important. The American people are depending on
us. Too many have sacrificed before us. we have too many goals, too much to
achieve and too many [uture experiences to share.

AS Your Director. I am committed to moving the Secret Service forward and
making the neCessary changes to ensure the success of our mission and
workforce. Our AgenCy's strength, just as it was 150 years ago. is derived
from the quality of our people. Together, we will work to restore our
reputation and regain the confidence of the American people.

Thank you for your continued dedication and service.

Headquarters {Director} Clancy

10

APPENDIX 4:
Applicable Provisions from USSS IT General Rules of Behavior§ and
Table of Penalties**
Rule No.
Text of Rule of Behavior
General The following principles apply to all authorized users of Secret
Principle Service information resources. Because written guidance cannot
cover every contingency, personnel must use their best judgment
and highest ethical standards to guide their actions.
3
Users shall protect information from disclosure to unauthorized
persons or groups.
26
Users shall not access materials or engage in activities that could
post or release sensitive, classified, or privacy related information to
the public.
43
Unauthorized or improper use of Government office equipment and
information systems/computers may result in the loss of use or
limitations on the use of the Internet or Secret Service computers,
disciplinary actions, criminal penalties, and/or being held
financially liable for the cost of inappropriate use.

Offense
Offense
Code
3.6
Using a government computer or
other electronic device for Misuse
of Government Computer(s)
personal, unofficial, or
unauthorized use. This does not
include use of a classified system.
This does not apply to de minimis
use, i. e., where the cost to the
government is negligible, as long as
the use is not otherwise
objectionable. See 5 C. F. R. § 2635.
704, IRM- 10( 03),and ITG- 03( 06).
4.14

Without authorization, disclosing
or attempting to disclose the

Penalty
Mitigated: Letter of
Reprimand —1 Day
Penalty: 3 Days
Aggravated: 5 — 14 Days

Mitigated: 1— 5 Days

Excerpted from Information Technology (IT) General Rules of Behavior, IRM-10(03), United
States Secret Service Directives System, 04/23/2007.
** Excerpted from United States Secret Service Table of Penalties, ITG-04, United States Secret
Service Directives System, 12/01/2014.
§

11

 Offense
Code

Offense

Penalty

USSS's, or another Agency' s,
sensitive material. This also
includes Information disclosures of
information in violation of the Privacy
Act of 1974, 5 U. S. C. § 552a.

12

Penalty: 7 Days
Aggravated: 10 Days —
Removal