MEMORANDUM
TO: Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
FROM: Senate Judiciary Committee, Oversight and Investigations Staff
DATE: December 21, 2018
Re: Senate Judiciary Committee Investigation of Numerous Allegations of Wrongdoing by
the U.S. Marshals Service
Introduction
The Committee began investigating allegations of wrongdoing at the U.S. Marshals Service
(USMS) approximately three years ago. Throughout the investigation, the Committee identified
a culture of mismanagement, reckless spending, favoritism, and a general lack of accountability at
the USMS. In what has been described by whistleblowers as a “frat” style of management, senior
officials appear to act with impunity while lower level employees are held to a stringent standard.1
According to the more than 100 current and former employees who have contacted the Committee
since early 2015, the actions of managers have a demoralizing effect on the brave men and women
of the Marshals Service, and thus tend to undermine the public’s trust in America’s oldest law
enforcement agency. 2
This memorandum summarizes the Committee’s work and provides a status update on the
Committee’s ongoing investigations into allegations of wrongdoing by the USMS. Many of these
investigations are still ongoing; therefore, certain topics lack the finality or conclusory results of a
completed investigation.
Executive Summary
The Committee began investigating allegations of wasteful spending by the USMS Assets
Forfeiture Division (AFD) in early 2015. Since then, approximately 100 whistleblowers have come
forward with serious allegations of mismanagement, favoritism, unfair hiring practices, and lack
of accountability. Allegations from fifteen whistleblowers have involved violations of federal law.
The Committee investigated complaints from eight whistleblowers alleging wasteful
spending by the USMS. It found that the USMS has repeatedly spent taxpayer dollars on lavish
and unnecessary items, such as a $22,000 conference table and a speechwriter who received
contracts totaling over a million dollars. It also found that the USMS misused the Assets Forfeiture
Fund (AFF) by opening a costly but rarely used training facility in Texas, and by drawing from it
to pay the salaries of employees not fully dedicated to asset forfeiture as well as expenses
apparently incurred improperly by federal officers involved in Joint Law Enforcement Operations
(JLEO).

A whistleblower described USMS upper management as a “boys club” with a “frat” like culture.
One whistleblower recently sent a letter to Chairman Grassley expressing his appreciation for the Committee’s
oversight work. His letter has been included as an attachment to this memorandum. See: Letter from Jason R.
Wojdylo to Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (December 3, 2018). [Exhibit
1]

1

2

1

 The Committee also investigated complaints from thirteen different whistleblowers
alleging ethics violations. The Committee found, and the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
concurred, that several senior officials violated hiring practices and federal ethics standards.
The OIG concluded that the Director of the USMS, Stacia Hylton, violated 5 C.F.R. §
2635.702(a) when she recommended a personal friend of hers for a position within the USMS.
The OIG also concluded that Deputy Assistant Director for Asset Forfeiture Division, Kimberly
Beal, violated 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8) when she gave preferential treatment in the hiring process
to the individual that Director Hylton recommended. The Committee and OIG also investigated
whistleblower allegations that a quid pro quo hiring arrangement existed between the two whereby
Ms. Beal would receive a promotion to Assistant Director in exchange for giving Director Hylton’s
friend preferential treatment. The OIG could not substantiate that a formal quid pro quo
arrangement existed. However, they also found that Ms. Beal violated 5 C.F.R. § 705(b) by having
a subordinate fill out part of her application for the Assistant Director position. According to
multiple whistleblowers, multiple senior officials in addition to Ms. Beal likewise directed their
subordinates to fill out applications for senior executive service positions.
The OIG also confirmed whistleblower complaints that then-Assistant Director of the
Tactical Operations Division, William Snelson, and then-Chief of the Office of Protective
Operations in the Judicial Security Division, David Sligh, hired each other’s wives into their
respective divisions. Although the OIG could not substantiate that formal quid pro quo
arrangement existed, it cited both senior officials for ethical violations relating to favoritism and
impartiality in hiring. The OIG also found that Snelson lacked candor in his communications with
the OIG. Such behavior for USMS employees could earn them a 14 day suspension or removal
according to the agency’s table of offenses.
The Committee noted a very troubling overall lack of accountability at the USMS. Just
last year, a Chief Deputy United States Marshal (CDUSM) was allowed to retire with full benefits
and without receiving any punishment despite two DOJ OIG investigations which concluded that
he misused his government vehicle and cell phone, engaged in sexual harassment, threatened and
committed acts of retaliation against employees participating in a DOJ OIG investigation, and
lacked candor during interviews. According to the OIG, someone in the USMS Office of General
Counsel first proposed that the matter be settled, and support for doing so grew in part out of fears
at the USMS that the Merit Systems Protection Board would be critical of and possibly reverse a
decision to terminate the CDUSM. The DOJ OIG flatly rejected the agency’s line of reasoning,
characterizing its failure to hold the official accountable as amounting to “gross mismanagement.”
In another instance, the agency issued suspensions of seven days or less to deputies who solicited
prostitutes while on detail abroad, and at one point issued only a letter of reprimand in a case where
a judge’s signature was forged on hundreds of subpoenas in order to obtain records from
telecommunications providers.
The Committee further found evidence that problems of management and accountability
have directly put its employees’ lives at risk. In 2017, the Committee investigated reports that the
USMS had failed to properly plan for, and manage the replacement of, body armor units used by
operational personnel. Based on the Committee’s findings, by mid-summer 2017, over 2,000
2

 USMS operational employees were using expired or soon-to-be expired body armor. Additionally,
the Committee found that the USMS was not adhering to the training protocols outlined by experts
for the High Risk Fugitive Apprehension program.
The Committee has also received more than twenty complaints of whistleblower retaliation
at the USMS, including complaints of reprisal for making protected disclosures to this Committee.
Among the allegations received are reports that USMS managers have used the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) to seek information on employees making disclosures, used trumped up
misconduct charges to put pressure on employees to withdraw complaints, and openly threatened
employees for speaking to outside investigators.
Finally, in response to its oversight requests, the Committee received on multiple occasions
incorrect and misleading responses from USMS. It is paramount that the agency ensure it provides
fulsome and correct responses to congressional committees, particularly its oversight committee.
The agency’s repeated failure to provide complete, meaningful, and accurate information to
Congress does not inspire confidence in the agency’s competence, adherence to basic good
government principles, commitment to properly train, equip, and manage its workforce, or its
ability to serve as even minimally acceptable stewards of taxpayer and government resources.
The Chairman expects that new leadership will fully implement recommendations from the
Committee’s investigations, the Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, and the
Office of Special Counsel, pay particular, critical attention to significantly raising the standards
for effective and ethical management, and work very hard to foster a culture that supports protected
disclosures and treats whistleblower communications appropriately under the law.
Wasteful Spending
The Committee investigated and substantiated multiple instances of misspending and
mismanagement of funds by the USMS. In 2017, the Committee received information that the
USMS had been paying for an outside speechwriter and management consultant since 2010. The
speechwriter, who reportedly worked from home in Kansas but maintained an empty office in
D.C., received contracts totaling more than one million dollars.3 Following inquiries by the
Committee about specifically allotted office space for an individual who does not even live in
D.C., the agency apparently simply removed the name plate from the work station.
In 2015 and 2016, there were also allegations of wasteful spending regarding the relocation
of the USMS headquarters in Arlington, VA. According to whistleblowers, the agency arranged
to pay for a private gym, personal in-office bathrooms and showers for leadership, several lucrative
consultant contracts, expensive and unnecessary audio-visual equipment, and office space for
individuals assigned to headquarters divisions who do not live in the commuting area of
Washington, D.C.4 The spending of public funds on elaborate and unnecessary office furnishings
is part of a broader pattern that pre-dated the move to the new offices. Documents produced by
3

Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to David Harlow,
Acting Director, U.S. Marshals Service (April 24, 2017). [Exhibit 2]
4
Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Hon. Loretta Lynch,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (Oct. 1, 2015). [Exhibit 3]

3

 the agency and provided by whistleblowers also confirmed a pattern of excessive spending of the
Assets Forfeiture Fund.
The Assets Forfeiture Fund
The Committee found a history of wasteful spending and mismanagement of funds
associated with the USMS Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF), which includes assets seized through the
Asset Forfeiture Program (AFP). For example, in an April 3, 2015, letter to the Committee, the
USMS admitted to purchasing a conference table for the Asset Forfeiture Division’s (AFD)
headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, at an excessive cost of approximately $22,000.5
The Asset Forfeiture Academy
It was also from this fund that the agency drew money to establish the recently shuttered
Asset Forfeiture Academy (AFA) in Houston, TX – a facility purportedly established to train
employees and contractors in the AFD on fundamentals of asset forfeiture law and the AFP. The
facility, which cost nearly $50,000 per month in rent, was outfitted with luxury furnishings such
as high-end granite countertops and expensive custom artwork.6 Operating costs allotted for the
AFA were between $75,000 and $175,000 each year from FY 2012 until FY 2017. In FY 2014,
the facility was used for approximately 32 days out of the year, and in FY 2017, it was scheduled
to be used for approximately 52 days.7 When not in use by the USMS, other government agencies
could use the facility free of charge.8 After repeated oversight inquiries from Chairman Grassley
calling attention to exorbitant spending on the AFA, the AFD announced in June 2018 that it would
close the facility effective September 30, 2018, and relocate operations to district office space.
There have been several instances when the USMS has not been candid with the Committee
about expenditures for the AFA. When whistleblowers alleged that the establishment of the AFA
was unnecessary and that its expenses were excessive and wasteful, the Chairman requested
detailed explanations for its costs. In response, the USMS underreported its rent costs by $7,774
per month, or $93,292 per year.9 It also reported that operating costs were $50,000 per year.
However, according to AFF budget requests, between FY 2012 and FY 2017, the Department of

5

Letter from William Delaney, Chief of Congressional and Public Affairs, U.S. Marshals Service, to Hon. Charles
E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (April 3, 2015). [Exhibit 4]
6
Memorandum from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Oversight and Investigations Staff, to the Committees on the
Judiciary and Appropriations, United States Senate (Sept. 11, 2017) at 3 (citing AFF brochure and plans),
(hereinafter SJC Memo). The SJC Memo was sent to the Department of Justice as an attachment to: Letter from
Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Hon. Jeff Sessions, Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice, and Hon. Lee Lofthus, Assistant Attorney General for Administration, U.S.
Department of Justice (Sept. 12, 2017). [Exhibit 5]
7
Id. (citing AFF Budget Requests); Also see: Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee
on the Judiciary, to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (Oct. 1, 2015).
8
Letter from Stephen E. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate
Committee on the Judiciary (June 25, 2018) at 6 [Exhibit 6]; also see: U.S. Marshals Service Asset Forfeiture
Academy, Brochure (on file with the Committee).
9
SJC Memo at 3 (citing AFF brochure and plans).

4

 Justice (DOJ) actually allotted between $75,000 and $175,000 per year.10 The agency also
underreported to the Committee the amount of custom granite installed in the facility. 11
Asset Forfeiture Salaries
The USMS also has a history of using funds from the AFF to pay employees for work that
should have been paid with appropriated funds. By law, the AFF may be used to pay only asset
forfeiture-related expenses and certain enumerated investigative expenses.12 Despite this, the
USMS has used AFF funds to pay eight headquarters employees from the AFF who, according to
whistleblowers, are not fully dedicated to the asset forfeiture mission.13
There have been similar violations for employees working at the district level. Since FY
2013, the salaries of district-level employees who spend a preponderance of their time on asset
forfeiture work have been fully funded by the AFF.14 The AFF has been used to pay not only these
employees’ salaries but also their leave time, holidays, and benefits. According to whistleblowers,
these employees are not actually 100% dedicated to asset forfeiture, and the USMS does not track
how much time they devote to non-asset forfeiture work. The flawed rationale used to justify this
practice is based on the notion that money paid to non-dedicated district workers for asset forfeiture
work should balance out the funds paid to fully funded AFF employees for any work they do that
is not related to asset forfeiture. However, since the agency does not track time spent on unrelated
work by dedicated AFF employees, there is no way to know whether or not this is actually the
case.15 This makes it impossible to oversee these expenditures and ensure they are proper.
Joint Law Enforcement Operations
The USMS has likely misused funds specifically authorized by Congress to pay the costs
of state and local law enforcement officers involved in joint law enforcement operations (JLEO),
and has instead used these funds to pay for other expenses. The Technical Operations Group
(TOG) has repeatedly sought funds for cellular tracking equipment and associated operating costs
– known as circuit costs and intercept fees – through JLEO.16 However, according to multiple
sources, the vast majority of the personnel who use either TOG equipment or USMS surveillance
equipment which incur associated circuit costs are federal officers. Task force officers with
Regional Fugitive Task Forces do not operate TOG equipment or incur costs for intercept fees. 17
Similarly, funds from JLEO are regularly used to pay database costs, despite the fact that
the majority of database users are federal officers. Between FY 2015 – 2017, the USMS did not
10

SJC Memo at 3 (citing AFF Budget Requests)
SJC Memo at 3 (citing Invoices for Table Tops, on file with the Committee)
12
Enumerated investigative expenses include awards for information, purchase of evidence, equipping of
conveyances, and joint law enforcement operations. 28 U.S.C. § 524(c)
13
SJC Memo at 5 (citing AFF Budget Request); also see: Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Sally Quillian Yates, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
(June 10, 2015). [Exhibit 7]
14
SJC Memo at 6 (citing AFF Budget Requests)
15
SJC Memo at 6-7
16
SJC Memo at 8-9 (citing an e-mail from J. Kirsch)
17
SJC Memo at 9 (citing an individual familiar with these investigations who stated, “that should never happen.”)
11

5

 offer information to the DOJ about the number of federal vs. non-federal task force officers using
databases paid for with JLEO money.18 In response to inquiries by Chairman Grassley, the DOJ
sought additional information and learned that just 42% of database users are non-federal task
force officers. The DOJ responded by adjusting the percentage of costs allocated from the AFF in
its initial FY 2017 AFF budget allocation and by reminding the USMS that Congress has not
authorized the use of JLEO funds to pay for unrelated federal expenses.19 The Chairman trusts
that the DOJ will follow continue to appropriately allocate JLEO funds to USMS for these
expenses.
Ethical Violations
Unfair hiring practices are a serious issue at the USMS. According to a 2016 Office of
Personnel Management Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, 41% of USMS employees “strongly
disagreed or disagreed that USMS promotions are merit-based.”20 Only 34% of respondents felt
that USMS promotions were merit based.21 A recent GAO report also cited the USMS for awarding
points to applicants for having served in an “acting” capacity for a given position. USMS
subsequently remedied this situation; however, GAO noted that USMS “could improve employee
engagement to promote a stronger merit-based culture.”22
In early 2015, several whistleblowers approached the Committee with allegations of
improper hiring practices and a quid pro quo hiring scheme. In a series of letters to the Department
of Justice, Chairman Grassley laid out the allegations against then-Director Stacia Hylton and thenDeputy Assistant Director Kimberly Beal, as well as allegations of improper hiring practices by
senior USMS officials William Snelson and David Sligh.23 The Committee ultimately concluded
in a staff report that the Director of the USMS recommended an individual with whom she was
affiliated in a non-governmental capacity for a contractor position, and, when it was determined
he was not the favored candidate for the job, Ms. Beal exerted significant and unusual efforts to
ensure he was hired.24

18

SJC Memo at 10 (citing AFF Budget Requests)
SJC Memo at 11 (citing 2018 AFF Budget Request)
20
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-18-8, U.S. Marshals Service: Additional Actions Needed to Improve
Oversight of Merit Promotion Process and Address Employee Perceptions of Favoritism (2017), available at
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687759.pdf
21
Id. at 20
22
Id. at 1
23
Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Sally Q. Yates,
Acting Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (Mar. 19, 2015). [Exhibit 8]; Letter from Hon. Charles
E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Sally Q. Yates, Acting Deputy Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice (Apr. 7, 2015) [Exhibit 9]; Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, to Sally Q. Yates, Acting Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (Apr.
23, 2015). [Exhibit 10]
24
S. Rpt. 114-25 – Allegations of Improper Hiring Practices and Whistleblower Reprisal at the U.S. Marshals
Service (November 1, 2016), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CPRT-114SPRT22413/CPRT114SPRT22413.
19

6

 Similarly, in September 2018, the DOJ OIG concluded its investigation into allegations of
improper hiring practices stemming from Chairman Grassley’s correspondence.25 The report
included the following findings: Director Hylton violated 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(a) when she
recommended a personal friend for a position within the Asset Forfeiture Division. 26 Director
Hylton recommended her friend through a series of phone calls and emails with Deputy Assistant
Director Kimberly Beal. The OIG also found that Ms. Beal violated 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8)
when she gave preferential treatment to Director Hylton’s friend during the hiring process –
ultimately hiring that individual by creating a new position that was not previously available. 27
Whistleblowers alleged that Ms. Beal gave preferential treatment to Director Hylton’s
friend in exchange for a promotion herself. The OIG was not able to substantiate this quid pro
quo allegation.28 However, the OIG did find that during Ms. Beal’s application process, she
delegated the duties of writing her Executive Core Qualifications (ECQ) to a subordinate. The
subordinate wrote Ms. Beal’s ECQ during work hours in violation of 5 C.F.R. § 705(b).29 This
conduct does not appear to be limited to Ms. Beal. Since March 2015, the USMS Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR) has evaluated eleven allegations that USMS employees
impermissibly assisted in the preparation of Executive Core Qualifications for other employees.30
The Committee and OIG both investigated whistleblower allegations that a hiring
arrangement existed between William Snelson, and David Sligh, whereby each hired the other’s
wife into his respective division. The OIG was not able to substantiate that a formal quid pro quo
agreement between Mr. Sligh and Mr. Snelson existed.31 However, the OIG did find that several
prohibited personnel practices were committed.
The OIG found that Mr. Sligh violated 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(a)(2) when he did not recuse
himself from the hiring of Snelson’s wife.32 Similarly, the OIG found that Mr. Snelson violated 5
U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6) when he provided Sligh’s wife with an improper advantage during the hiring
process. The OIG also found that Mr. Snelson lacked candor in his dealings with OIG.33
Lack of Accountability
The Committee found that there is a general lack of accountability for many at the USMS
who knowingly break the rules.
25

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General., Oversight & Rev. Division 18-05, A Review of
Allegations of Improper Hiring Practices in the United States Marshals Service and Related Matters (Sept. 2018)
available at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/o1805.pdf at i
26
Id.
27
Id.
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Letter from William Delaney, Chief of Congressional and Public Affairs, U.S. Marshals Service, to Hon. Charles
E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Apr. 25, 2018). [Exhibit 11]
31
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General., Oversight & Rev. Division 18-05, A Review of
Allegations of Improper Hiring Practices in the United States Marshals Service and Related Matters (Sept. 2018)
available at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/o1805.pdf. at ii
32
Id. at 45
33
Id. at 48

7

 A case in point is the USMS’ response to the issuance of fraudulent subpoenas by a task
force based in the Southern District of Indiana.34 A 2007 OIG investigation prompted by reports
from a whistleblower uncovered evidence that a USMS task force there had been routinely
customizing an electronic subpoena template and pasting in a digital image of a local judge’s
signature obtained from legitimate court documents in order to give the appearance of official
judicial approval.35 The OIG found that between the years 1995 and 2005, approximately 800
fraudulent subpoenas had been served by the task force. 36
In response to an inquiry from the Committee about disciplinary administrative actions
taken, the agency explained that one Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal who was involved received
a letter of reprimand. That person later was later promoted to the position of GS-14 Supervisory
Criminal Investigator.37 Two involved personnel retired after the OIG report was completed but
before any potential disciplinary action, and two others retired without discipline being imposed
after a panel did not substantiate allegations against them. One of the latter received a promotion
prior to his retirement.
Another example involves the USMS’ response to sexual misconduct by agents on detail
assignments abroad. In 2016, the DOJ OIG found evidence to support allegations that in 2010,
two USMS Chief Inspectors solicited prostitutes while on detail in Mexico and brought them to a
taxpayer-funded apartment. The OIG concluded that the inspectors’ solicitation of prostitutes
“likely violated USMS Policy Directive 1.2, Code of Professional Responsibility, Section E,
paragraph 28 --- Conduct, which states… Avoid any criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or
notoriously disgraceful conduct, including use of intoxicants and illicit drugs.”38 The Committee
investigated the USMS’ response to the OIG’s findings and found that the three employees who
were involved only received security clearance warning letters and “punishments ranging from
three to seven days suspension.”39
In 2015, the OIG also reviewed the USMS’ handling of a case in which a Deputy U.S.
Marshal (DUSM) solicited a prostitute while on an extradition mission in Thailand in 2010. The
34

Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and Patrick J. Leahy,
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Hon. Lorreta E. Lynch, Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice (July 15, 2015). [Exhibit 12]
35
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Report of Investigation, Case Number 2005-006966-I
(December 13, 2007). [Exhibit 13]
36
Id. Around 2000, the USMS took over the initiative, which had initially been run by state and local law
enforcement. The practice of issuing the fraudulent subpoenas predated USMS involvement but continued after the
USMS became involved and task force members were sworn-in as Special Deputy U.S. Marshals.
37
Letter from Peter J. Kadzik, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member, U.S. Senate
Committee on the Judiciary (November 3, 2015). [Exhibit 14]
38
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Report of Investigation, Case Number 2015-007158
(February 23, 2016) at 3, enclosed in: Letter from Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Justice, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (May 16, 2017). [Exhibit
15]
39
Letter from William Delaney, Chief, U.S. Marshals Service, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate
Committee on the Judiciary (October 3, 2017). [Exhibit 16]; Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to David Harlow, Acting Director, U.S. Marshals Service (May 31, 2017).
[Exhibit 17]

8

 OIG found that a district supervisor who learned of the misconduct from the DUSM’s colleague
and failed to promptly report it to the USMS Office of Professional Responsibility- Internal Affairs
(OPR-IA) “violated the USMS policy requiring all employees to report allegations of misconduct,
whether on duty or off.”40 The OIG determined that the supervisor was not investigated or
disciplined by the USMS for his failure to report the incident to the OPR-IA.41
Moreover, there is no indication that these problems have been resolved in recent years.
Just last year, in what the DOJ OIG called an instance of “gross mismanagement,” a Chief Deputy
United States Marshal who engaged in sexual harassment, misused his government phone and
vehicle, obstructed an OIG investigation by threatening and retaliating against subordinates, and
lied to the DOJ OIG, was allowed to retire with full benefits and without receiving any punishment
whatsoever. This case will be discussed in greater detail below in the section on whistleblower
retaliation.
Agency Mismanagement
In the summer of 2017, Chairman Grassley received information from a whistleblower that
the USMS was using expired or soon-to-be expired body armor. The Committee immediately
opened an investigation into this matter, and on July 5, 2017, the Chairman wrote to the USMS to
inquire about the status of their body armor.42 On March 8, 2018, the USMS responded to the
Chairman’s letter to inform him that new body armor units had been purchased for all operational
employees.43 However, the USMS response letter and subsequent document production raise
additional concerns about mismanagement and a general lack of accountability.
The USMS outfitted the majority of their operational employees with body armor through
a large purchase of 756 units made in 2011, and another purchase of 3,565 units in 2012.44 These
vests came with a manufacturer’s warranty of five years, after which the manufacturer considers
the units to be “expired.”45 In 2013, the USMS conducted body armor testing to determine if these
units were safe to use after five years.46 These tests determined that expired body armor units had
a 13% penetration rate. Based on these findings, the USMS determined that all body armor units
needed to be replaced within five years.47 This replacement cycle is also consistent with the
replacement cycle of other agencies such as DEA, FBI, and ATF.48 The USMS then sought to
40

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, The Handling of Sexual Harassment and
Misconduct Allegations by the Department’s Law Enforcement Components at 32 (Mar. 2015), available
at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/e1504.pdf at 18-19
41
Id. at 19
42
Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to David Harlow, Acting
Director, U.S. Marshals Service (Jul. 5, 2017). [Exhibit 18]
43
Letter from William Delaney, Chief, U.S. Marshals Service, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate
Committee on the Judiciary (Mar. 8, 2018). [Exhibit 19]
44
Memorandum from [redacted] to David Anderson, Assistant Director, U.S. Marshals Service (May 3, 2017); SJCBA-00350. [Exhibit 20]
45
Id.
45
Id.
46
U.S. Marshals Service, FY 2017 Performance Budget, President’s Budget, Salaries & Expenses and Construction
Appropriations (Feb. 2016), available at https://www.justice.gov/jmd/file/821041/download at 72; SJC-BA-00129.
47
Id.
48
Id.

9

 implement a five year cyclical plan to replace all units. Under this plan, all units would be replaced
slowly over the course of five years. 49
Based on the above referenced set of facts, in order for the USMS to replace the body armor
units purchased in 2011/2012, they would have had to either make two large purchases in
2016/2017 or replace each unit slowly over the years leading up to their expiration date. It appears
that the USMS did not follow either course.
First, the USMS awarded a 5-year contract for the replacement of body armor units in
February 2016.50 Under this contract, it appears as though the contractor would supply body armor
units over a five year period. This is problematic because 756 units were set to expire that same
year, and an additional 3,565 units were set to expire the following year. Under the USMS’ plan,
it appears as though they would have been replacing body armor units purchased in 2012 as late
as 2021.
Second, the USMS did not adequately prepare financially for the impending replacement
of body armor. In the FY15 and FY16 budget requests submitted to Congress, the USMS did not
request specific funds for the replacement of body armor.51 In FY17, the USMS submitted a budget
request to Congress in which they asked for $1.3 million for the cyclical replacement of body
armor.52 This amount is far below what would have been needed to replace the 3,565 units that
were set to expire that year.
Several USMS employees took notice of these serious inconsistencies and began warning
upper management as early as 2016. In an email obtained by the Committee dated November 14,
2016, someone wrote, “I foresee a time period next year at which there will be numerous
operational District and Division employees that will have expired ballistic panels unless a
substantial increase in funding is achieved.”53 In several other emails received by the Committee,
employees pleaded with senior officials in the USMS to replace expired or soon-to-be expired
body armor units. Even more alarming, an email sent to Deputy Assistant Director Stephanie
Creasy in June 2017 stated, “[a]s you will see it is far more extensive than I believed with many
of the body armor expiring in April of 2016 and some as old as April 2011.”54 By the time this
email was sent, approximately 1,381 deputies were using expired body armor with an additional
715 body armor units set to expire later that year.55

49

Memorandum from [redacted] to David Anderson, Assistant Director, U.S. Marshals Service; SJC-BA-00350.
Id.
51
U.S. Marshals Service, FY 2015 Performance Budget, President’s Budget, Salaries & Expenses and Construction
Appropriations (Mar. 2014), available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/12/03/usmsjustification.pdf; U.S. Marshals Service, FY 2016 Performance Budget, President’s Budget, Salaries & Expenses
and Construction Appropriations (Feb. 2015), available at
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/pages/attachments/2015/02/01/20._u.s._marshals_service_usms.pdf
52
U.S. Marshals Service, FY 2017 Performance Budget, President’s Budget, Salaries & Expenses and Construction
Appropriations at 72 (Feb. 2016).
53
SJC-BA-00289 [Exhibit 21]
54
SJC-BA-00600 [Exhibit 22]
55
Id.
50

10

 On July 7, 2017, Acting Director David Harlow sent an email to all USMS personnel in
response to Chairman Grassley’s letter regarding expiring body armor and his efforts to call
attention to the prior study of actual USMS body armor. In this email, Acting Director Harlow
waived off the study showing a 13% failure rate and wrote, “[w]hile some body armor is exceeding
its warranty period, this is not the actual lifespan of the armor…research overwhelmingly indicates
that the 5-year mark is merely the end of the manufacturers’ liability on the product, not the actual
lifespan of the armor.”56 He further wrote, “if the armor is in good condition and has been properly
cared for, the Training Division believes it retains its full ballistic capabilities as you await your
replacement armor even though the manufacturer period has expired.”57
This email is very troubling because the USMS cited the 13% failure rate of expired armor
as a justification for their FY18 budget request.58 In short, the USMS was representing to Congress
that this study showed that expired body armor was dangerous and needed to be replaced while
telling its own employees that the old armor was safe to use.
Acting Director Harlow’s email also raises serious concerns about the operational
awareness of senior officials. Acting Director Harlow wrote, “if armor is in good condition and
has been properly cared for…it retains its full ballistic capabilities.”59 This statement neglects to
take into account that Deputy Marshals across the country perform their duties in the heat, cold,
rain, and snow. Exposure to sunlight, humidity, or even excessive flexing or bending of armor can
lead to degradation over time.60 It is difficult to imagine a situation in which a Deputy Marshal
would not expose their body armor to any of those factors on a daily basis. Moreover, the effect
of this type of exposure on body armor obviously applies whether the armor in question was the
actual DUSM armor used in the previous test or the armor deputies currently wear today. 61 The
most significant factor in the rate of degradation in either case are environment, use, and care.
In June 2017, after months of ignoring pleas from junior level employees, the USMS
allocated $6 million to purchase body armor for roughly over 2,000 operational personnel with
expired or soon to be expired body armor.62 The Committee is currently not satisfied with the
response provided by the USMS and continues to investigate this matter.
Around the same time, the Committee investigated whistleblower allegations that the
USMS was not adhering to its own training protocols with regard to its the High Risk Fugitive
Apprehension Program.
In 2011, USMS established HRFA to create a standardized tactical training program for
operation employees and task force officers. The program called for the training of Tactical
56

SJC-BA-01034 [Exhibit 23]
Id.
58
U.S. Marshals Service, FY 2018 Performance Budget, President’s Budget, Salaries & Expenses and Construction
Appropriations (May. 2017), available at https://www.justice.gov/file/968956/download at 73
59
SJC-BA-01034
60
SJC-BA-01088 [Exhibit 24]
61
SJC-BA-01034 (Director Harlow argued that newer armor does not suffer from the same degradation over time as
the previous DUSM armor).
62
SJC-BA-01942 [Exhibit 25]
57

11

 Training Officers (TTO) who would then deploy across the country and train others in the
apprehension of violent fugitives.63 Initial recommendations called for TTOs to have five or more
years of consecutive violent fugitive apprehension experience in order to qualify. However, later
iterations of the plan reduced this requirement to three years of experience in fugitive apprehension
or as a lead instructor experienced in law enforcement curriculum. In theory, under this plan a
person could be certified as a TTO without having any experience in high risk fugitive
apprehension. Allegedly, this is already occurring since the USMS has been certifying Special
Operations Group (SOG) deputies as TTOs without vetting them or subjecting them to the
recommended criteria.
According to whistleblowers, this breakdown in the training and vetting of TTOs is what
led to the death of a Deputy during a fugitive apprehension in 2015. On June 15, 2018, the USMS
responded to Chairman Grassley’s letter by stating that the reduction in experience and
qualifications was changed to adapt to the available personnel in the smaller judicial districts. 64
The USMS also pushed back on allegations that SOGs were unprepared for the role of TTOs by
arguing that SOGs were chosen to roll out the program because they have completed hundreds of
hours of additional arduous tactical training.65 But according to a whistleblower, that particular
training is not necessarily calibrated to the unique challenges of fugitive apprehension, and the
USMS never attempted to recruit candidates with the recommended qualifications. This is
currently an ongoing investigation.
Inaccurate Letter to Chairman Grassley
On March 19, 2015, Chairman Grassley wrote to then-Acting Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates regarding allegations of inappropriate hiring practices at the USMS.66 On March 26,
2015, the Chairman received a response that contained misleading and inaccurate information.67
Subsequently, an OIG report confirmed that the USMS letter contained erroneous information,
and the OIG concluded that the error occurred because “the USMS relied on an inadequate and
flawed process to gather the information used to draft the response.”68
In this letter, the USMS made three assertions which were plainly false. First, they claimed,
“[t]he Director did not recommend Mr. Lenzie for any position, nor did she instruct Ms. Beal, or
anyone else at the USMS or within the Department, to take any action, officially or otherwise, on

U.S. Marshals Service, Training Division – U.S. Marshals Academy, Comprehensive Risk Mitigation Training
Program (Aug. 2011).
64
Letter from William Delaney, Chief, U.S. Marshals Service, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate
Committee on the Judiciary (Jun. 15, 2018). [Exhibit 26]
65
Id.
66
Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Sally Q. Yates,
Acting Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (Mar. 19, 2015).
67
Letter from Hon. Sally Q. Yates, Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles E.
Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Mar. 26, 2015). [Exhibit 27]
68
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General., Oversight & Rev. Division 18-05, A Review of
Allegations of Improper Hiring Practices in the United States Marshals Service and Related Matters (Sept. 2018),
available at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/o1805.pdf at 80
63

12

 behalf of Mr. Lenzie.”69 Second, the USMS denied that Mr. Lenzie was improperly hired because
“[a] four-member interview panel…unanimously recommended another individual for the SFFS
position,” and “the same four-member panel unanimously recommended him for a [FFS]
position.”70 Third, the USMS argued that no hiring arrangement occurred between Director Hylton
and Ms. Beal because her selection was the result of a “unanimous recommendation by a threemember senior executive interview panel…nearly three years later.”71
The first claim that Director Hylton never recommended Mr. Lenzie is plainly false. The
OIG report concluded that Director Hylton took actions that amounted to, and were interpreted as,
a recommendation.72 The USMS’ letter also alleged that Mr. Lenzie did not get preferential
treatment because he was not hired for the SFFS position and was instead chosen for an inferior
FFS position.73 However, they neglected to include that Ms. Beal was a member of this panel, and
that there was no FFS opening in the Boston office at the time.74 Lastly, the USMS response stated
that no quid pro quo hiring arrangement existed between Director Hylton and Ms. Beal because
she was selected by an independent panel and it occurred “nearly three years later.”75 However,
they did not mention all the steps taken to insure that Ms. Beal was selected for the job.76
The OIG concluded that Director Hylton bore primary responsibility for the inaccurate
letter to Senator Grassley. They concluded that she was not forthcoming with her staff and failed
to provide those individuals writing the agency’s response with emails and other communications
that pertained to the contents of the letter.77 The OIG also concluded that Ms. Beal’s actions
directly contributed to the inaccurate letter. They cited Ms. Beal for her actions both before and
after the letter was sent.78 The OIG concluded that Ms. Beal’s actions constituted misconduct.79
However, she was not referred to the USMS for disciplinary action because she had retired by the
time the report was completed.80

69

Letter from Hon. Sally Q. Yates, Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles E.
Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Mar. 26, 2015).
70
Id.
71
Id.
72
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General., Oversight & Rev. Division 18-05, A Review of
Allegations of Improper Hiring Practices in the United States Marshals Service and Related Matters (Sept. 2018) at
11
73
Letter from Hon. Sally Q. Yates, Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles E.
Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Mar. 26, 2015).
74
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General., Oversight & Rev. Division 18-05, A Review of
Allegations of Improper Hiring Practices in the United States Marshals Service and Related Matters (Sept. 2018) at
7, 13
75
Letter from Hon. Sally Q. Yates, Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles E.
Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Mar. 26, 2015).
76
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General., Oversight & Rev. Division 18-05, A Review of
Allegations of Improper Hiring Practices in the United States Marshals Service and Related Matters (Sept. 2018) at
17
77
Id. at 83-84
78
Id.
79
Id. at 86
80
Id.

13

 The OIG also cited the USMS Office of General Counsel (OGC) for not disclosing to the
drafters of the USMS response letter that allegations of quid pro quo hiring had been previously
reported in 2013, and that no investigation of these allegation had been conducted.81 At the time,
OGC concluded that the matter should have been referred to OPR for investigation because it
involved allegations of employee misconduct.82 Unfortunately, no referral was made by OGC to
OPR. As a result, the OIG also criticized them for failing to report employee misconduct to OPR
for a proper investigation.83
Furthermore, the Committee takes issue with the fact that the USMS sent this letter denying
any culpability at the same time that they communicated to Committee staff that they were
investigating these allegations.
Whistleblower Retaliation
The Committee has received reports from approximately twenty individuals alleging
whistleblower retaliation at the USMS. Among these allegations are reports that managers have
used Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to seek information on employees who may
have made protected disclosures for the purpose of using that information to retaliate against
them.84 Whistleblowers have also reported that managers have maintained lists of employees
suspected of being whistleblowers, assessed who on those lists is most likely responsible for
various allegations, and openly threatened employees for speaking to independent investigators.85
Suspensions and removals reportedly have been imposed following internal investigations
against employees who have disclosed public safety concerns, questioned the treatment of
prisoners within Marshals Service custody, disclosed wrongdoing to or participated in government
investigations conducted by the Inspector General, the Department of Justice (including the FBI),
the Office of Special Counsel, and USMS OPR.86 Employees have reported that they have been
subjected to explicit and implicit threats, hostile and unsafe working environments, warnings to
disengage from protected activities, and frivolous or vindictive misconduct investigations.87
Employees have also reported that participation in the Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) process has led to misconduct allegations being levied against participants, which USMS
management then proposed to settle in return for dismissing the EEO complaint.88 This type of
management behavior is disturbing, as it unjustly punishes employees who come forward to report
bad behavior and chills additional reporting.

81

Id. at 82
Id.
83
Id.
84
Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Hon. Sally Quillian
Yates, Acting Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (April 23, 2015).
85
Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Hon. Sally Quillian
Yates, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (June 3, 2015). [Exhibit 28]
86
Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Hon. Michael E.
Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice (October 14, 2016). [Exhibit 29]
87
Id.
88
Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Hon. Gene L.
Dodaro, Comptroller General, United States Government Accountability Office (July 31, 2017). [Exhibit 30]
82

14

 By examining several examples of whistleblower retaliation in greater detail, it is possible
to bring the nature and extent of these problems into sharper focus.
Western Oklahoma Whistleblower Reprisal
The circumstances surrounding the retirement of a Chief Deputy United States Marshal
(CDUSM) in the Western District of Oklahoma reflect several problems endemic to the agency’s
culture, including a lack of accountability and lack of regard for whistleblowers.89
In 2014, the DOJ OIG investigated misconduct allegations against the CDUSM. The
OIG’s report of investigation of those allegations “substantiated serious misconduct by [the
CDUSM], including misuse of a government vehicle, conduct unbecoming a CDUSM, failure to
properly supervise, interfering with an investigation, misuse of government property, and lack of
candor.”90 Among other forms of misconduct, the CDUSM was found to have “engaged in sexual
harassment of a subordinate contract employee, misused his USMS cell phone…” and to have
given out “inappropriate and offensive awards of a sexual nature at a USMS retreat…” He was
also found to have lacked candor during an OIG interview.91
During the OIG’s investigation of these allegations, the CDUSM and other senior officials
at the WDOK office proceeded to retaliate against employees who were perceived as cooperating
with the OIG’s investigation. The OIG investigated allegations of interference and released a
second report on February 13, 2017.92 In that report, the OIG found that the CDUSM and two
other officials had violated the USMS Code of Professional Responsibility by pressuring a
subordinate to disclose her level of involvement with the OIG investigation.93 In doing so, the
CDUSM made “highly inappropriate comments” that could have been construed “as chilling her
from cooperating with the OIG investigation, and as threatening retaliation if she did not side with
management in the OIG investigation.”94
The OIG also found that the CDUSM lacked candor when questioned regarding these
matters, in violation of 28 CFR and the USMS CPR, Section E, Paragraphs 23, 26, 28, and 29. In
addition, the CDUSM violated both the Inspector General Act of 1978 and 5 USC § 2302 (b) (8)
(B), which prohibit reprisal against an employee who makes a complaint or disclosure to an IG.95
The OIG also found that the CDUSM violated Section 7(c) of the Inspector General Act of 1978

“Justice Dept. Watchdog: Senior Marshals Service Staff Punished Employees for Cooperating in Internal
Investigation, then Lied about it” (February 24, 2017), available at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/newsreleases/justice-dept-watchdog-senior-marshals-service-staff-punished-employees.
90
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Report of Investigation (September 4, 2018) at 3,
Enclosed in: Letter from Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles
E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (October 23, 2018). [Exhibit 31]
91
Id. at 1
92
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Report of Investigation (February 13, 2017).
Enclosed in: Letter from Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles
E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (February 23, 2017). [Exhibit 32]
93
Id. at 1
94
Id at 18
95
Id. at 18-19
89

15

 and 5 USC § 2302 (b) (8), as well, when he directed a subordinate to restrict the work assignments
of another employee due to that employee’s perceived cooperation with the OIG investigation.96
The OIG also found that a Task Force Officer violated the USMS CPR, DOJ regulations,
and Section 7(c) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 when he made threatening statements toward
employees who were perceived to have cooperated with the OIG.97 Another Supervisory Deputy
U.S. Marshal (SDUSM) committed similar violations when he “made retaliatory statements
attempting to dissuade employees from cooperating with the OIG investigation…”98 Like the
CDUSM, both of these officials also lacked candor when questioned by the OIG about their
actions.
Despite an initial proposal from the USMS that the CDUSM be removed from federal
service for his misconduct, the USMS allowed him to remain on paid administrative leave for six
months. It then opted to enter into a settlement agreement that “rescinded the proposed removal
penalty, imposed no discipline whatsoever… for the serious misconduct that both the OIG and
USMS had found, and allowed [him] to use a combination of sick leave, annual leave, and unpaid
leave for a period of an additional 9 months until … he became eligible to retire with a full
pension.”99 According to the OIG, the CDUSM retired “without any discipline having been
imposed.”100
Following a request from the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) alleging that
the USMS had violated several policies by allowing the CDUSM to enter into this settlement and
retire as he did, the OIG issued another report on September 4, 2018. 101 In that report, the OIG
did not substantiate the OSC’s allegations. However, it did find that the USMS “committed gross
mismanagement that resulted in a gross waste of taxpayer funds” by failing to hold the CDUSM
accountable for his misconduct violations and retaliation against USMS employees who
cooperated with the OIG investigation, as well as by entering into a settlement agreement that
enabled the CDUSM to avoid any discipline and reach his full retirement date.102
The OIG found that the proposal to enter into a settlement originated at the USMS OGC
and that support for the idea grew out of concerns that a Merit Systems Protection Board judge
“would be critical of them for not agreeing to a settlement” and might reverse the decision if the
CDUSM were terminated.103 While the OIG allowed that officials may consider litigation risks
96

Id. at 1; In a separate case, the DOJ OIG investigated a complaint by the CDUSM that an employee who had
cooperated with the OIG’s investigation made an “obscene sexual gesture with a baseball bat behind the CDUSM’s
back in the presence of other employees.” The OIG did not substantiate the CDUSM’s allegation. See: U.S.
Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Report of Investigation (February 13, 2017). Enclosed in:
Letter from Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary December 8, 2017) at 1-2 [Exhibit 33]
97
Id. at 1
98
Id.
99
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Report of Investigation (September 4, 2018) at 1-2.
Enclosed in: Letter from Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles
E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (October 23, 2018).
100
Id. at 4
101
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Report of Investigation (September 4, 2018) at 3.
Enclosed in: Letter from Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles
E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (October 23, 2018).
102
Id. at 2
103
Id. at 3, 5

16

 when making personnel decisions, it also rejected the line of reasoning as justification for letting
the CDUSM off the hook. The OIG stressed that leaders, managers, and lawyers must “act
responsibly and consistent with their management responsibility” and that “the terms of the …
settlement agreement were so clearly not reasonable that they amounted to gross
mismanagement.”104
The OIG concluded its report with strong words of criticism for the USMS’ handling of
the case. It noted: “[n]ot only did [the CDUSM] retire with a full law enforcement pension and no
discipline… management failures and the settlement potentially send a message to USMS
employees that senior USMS officials will not be held to account for their serious misconduct,
thereby possibly dissuading USMS employees from coming forward to report misconduct by
USMS officials.”105 The OIG rightly found this “to be wholly unacceptable and antithetical to the
interests of accountability for USMS employees.”106
Cell-Site Simulators Whistleblower
Another example involves efforts undertaken by the USMS to investigate the source of
information disclosed to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in 2014 pertaining to the agency’s use of
planes and cell signals to track criminal suspects. Following the publication of two articles on that
topic by the WSJ on November 13, and 14, of 2014, the agency seized several personal portable
electronic storage devices and a USMS laptop computer from an individual they considered to be
a possible source for the articles. The USMS OPR asked that the DOJ OIG investigate.
The DOJ OIG concluded that the disclosure to the WSJ was a protected disclosure under
the Whistleblower Protection Act and Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, and informed
the USMS that “the USMS should not investigate or otherwise further seek to identify the source
of the disclosure to the WSJ.”107 The OIG also informed the USMS that “any personnel action
based on findings relating to the personal devices could also reasonably be construed as having
been taken in reprisal for making a protected disclosure.108
Despite these words of caution, the USMS sent a follow-up memorandum to the DOJ OIG
in which it repeatedly referred to the individual whose materials had been seized by name and
referred to him as the “source of the disclosures.” The USMS also asked the OIG to delete law
enforcement sensitive information from the individual’s storage devices, verify that he did not
have other devices with sensitive information, and request that he acknowledge prohibitions

104

Id. at 7
Id. at 8
106
Id.
107
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Report of Investigation (March 28, 2016); Letter
from William M. Blier, General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, to Stan Griscavage, Chief Inspector,
Office of Inspections, U.S. Marshals Service (January 25, 2016). Both enclosed in: Letter from Hon. Michael E.
Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate
Committee on the Judiciary (October 26, 2016). [Exhibit 34]
108
Letter from William M. Blier, General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, to Stan Griscavage, Chief
Inspector, Office of Inspections, U.S. Marshals Service (January 25, 2016).
105

17

 against connecting personal devices to and installing computer applications on government
computers.109
In a strongly worded follow-up letter, the OIG stressed that the individual had never been
determined to be the source of the disclosures and reiterated that the disclosures were protected,
noting that the USMS’ “authority for seizing the devices….was questionable, and in any event,
the seizures occurred in connection with an effort to identify the source of protected
whistleblowing activity.”110 The OIG strongly cautioned against singling out the individual and
requesting acknowledgements from him, since such actions “could reasonably be construed as an
action by the USMS taken in reprisal for the USMS belief that he made a protected disclosure.”111
Deputy U.S. Marshal in California
In 2016, a Deputy U.S. Marshal in California was proposed for removal following years of
engaging in protected activities. These included reporting threats to public safety created by his
superiors and others in the transportation of dangerous fugitives, sharing concerns with
management in management meetings, and disclosing concerns about public safety, abuse of
authority, and reprisal to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This Deputy Marshal alleges he was threatened by management to avoid associating with
other employees who raised concerns; treated as a criminal suspect by his management in
meetings; ordered to sign resignation forms; inappropriately questioned by management about his
family life; questioned by a supervisor during an internal investigation about the substance of an
EEO complaint; charged with AWOL while on sick leave to care for an ill child and despite
providing documentation; harassed and threatened with discipline after requesting FMLA to care
for his terminally ill mother; and physically threatened for sending an e-mail to a superior stating
he felt he was experiencing retaliation.112
Expired Body Armor Whistleblower
In 2017, a whistleblower who was then-acting Deputy Assistant Director blew the whistle
on various unsafe practices within the USMS, including the use of expired body armor and the
watering down of training for the High Risk Fugitive Apprehension Program (HRFA). He
suffered severe retaliatory actions as a result.
The most concerning form of retaliation against this whistleblower occurred last spring.
On March 12, 2017, the whistleblower met with the Committee for the purpose of disclosing
agency misconduct and threats to public health and safety. Prior to this meeting, the
whistleblower notified his Assistant Director of his intent to meet with the Committee. Three
days after the meeting with Committee staff took place, the whistleblower was removed from his

109

Letter from William M. Blier, General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, to Blair Deem, Acting Assistant
Director, Office of Professional Responsibility, U.S. Marshals Service (March 28, 2016). Enclosed in: Letter from
Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman,
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (October 26, 2016).
110
Id.
111
Id.
112
Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Hon. Michael E.
Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice (October 14, 2016).

18

 acting position and forced to move out of his office and sit within direct supervision of the
Assistant Director.113 The timing of this demotion is highly suspect, and the Committee is
currently investigating his disclosures and apparent reprisal.
Federal Managers Association
In 2017, the USMS sought to chill communications between the Federal Managers
Association (FMA) and Congress. Issues began to arise when the Committee sought the opinion
of the local FMA chapter on a proposed bill that would have allowed the Director of USMS to
appoint a deputy marshal or criminal investigator in the excepted service. It is typical for the
Committee to seek input from various stakeholders, such as the FMA, when considering
legislation.
FMA accepted the Committee’s request for input and met with Committee staff.
Approximately one month later, the USMS sent a letter to the FMA threating to terminate the
agency’s longstanding relationship over what they perceived as attempts to “undermine significant
Agency initiatives[.]” The letter referred specifically to the recent meeting between the FMA and
the Committee, stating: “there have been several widely disseminated emails sent, and outside
meetings held,” and “[w]e view these efforts to be contrary to the purpose of any positive
consultative relationship.”114
The President of the FMA informed the Committee of this letter on August 10, 2017, and
Senator Grassley sent a letter expressing his concerns to the Department of Justice on August 11,
2017.115 The Committee views the USMS’ actions as an attempt to chill communications with
Congress. As a major stakeholder in hiring practices, the FMA has the right to express their views
on pending legislation.
Recommendations
Based on evidence gathered during its investigation, the Committee offers the following
recommendations for the new Director of the USMS:
1. The new Director should, on his first day of office, issue a memorandum which
affirms his commitment to whistleblowers. This memorandum should make clear
that retaliation against whistleblowers will not be tolerated.
2. The new Director should immediately end all practices requiring whistleblowers
involved in retaliation claims to resign or retire as a condition of settlement.

113

Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Hon. Jeff Sessions,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (Mar. 27, 2017). [Exhibit 35]; SJC817-29 [Exhibit 36]
114
Letter from Dave Barnes, President, Federal Managers Association, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Aug. 10, 2018). Enclosed in: Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman,
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (Aug. 11,
2017). [Exhibit 37]
115
Id.; Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, to Jeff Sessions,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (Aug. 11, 2017).

19

 3. The new Director should immediately end the practice of allowing employees who
have serious and substantiated misconduct findings against them to use paid or unpaid
leave in order to retire and avoid termination.
4. The new Director should implement mandatory training for all management level
employees on proper handling of whistleblower disclosures.
5. The new Director should commit to the safety and well-being of all operational
personnel by ensuring that all cyclical safety equipment, such as body armor, is up to
date.
6. The new Director should commit to resolving all pending claims before the Office of
Special Counsel in his first 90 days of office. Furthermore, the new Director should
institute a policy of resolving all future claims in a timely manner and improving
communication and cooperation with OSC.
7. The new Director should commit to responding to all Congressional inquiries in a
manner that is both timely and accurate.
8. The new Director should work with the Justice Management Division to ensure that
all AFF expenditures, including JLEO expenditures, are fully documented, tracked,
allowable, and made readily available to JMD for oversight purposes.
Conclusion
Throughout this investigation, the Committee has uncovered countless instances of
mismanagement, favoritism, and a lack of accountability. The OIG has confirmed many of the
allegations the Committee has received, and identified multiple additional instances of misconduct
and mismanagement—including by the most senior leaders in the agency. Those leaders set the
tone for the entire organization, and their actions affect employees throughout their many districts
and divisions. To cite just one example, it’s not difficult to comprehend why only 34% of USMS
employees felt that hiring was merit based, especially when the Director of USMS recommended
her personal friend for a position with an agency contractor, and then denied she had done so to
those responsible for crafting a response to a congressional investigators. Her actions and those
of her subordinates led to the agency submitting an inaccurate and misleading statement to the
Committee.
Fortunately, new leadership can be a powerful source for organizational change. Based on
the results of its investigation, the Committee expects that the next Director of the USMS will put
an end to favoritism (or even the appearance of favoritism), and hold each individual accountable
for their actions. Additionally, the new Director should immediately put an end to wasteful
spending, do more to protect whistleblowers, and commit to providing accurate and complete
information to Congress—particularly to the agency’s own oversight committee.

20

 Moving forward, it will be critical for the new director to have a firm grasp of the agency’s
history and its past problems if he is to steer it in the direction that it needs to go. Hopefully, this
report has provided some of that context and clarified ways that it can help to inform future
decisions.

21

 Exhibit 1

    

December 3 2018

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, Chairman
United States Senate

Committee on the Judiciary

135 Hart Senate Of?ce Building

Washington, DC. 20510

SUBJECT: Nomination of Donald W. Washington as
Director of the US. Marshals Service

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I write to you today serving as an Acting Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal and the Vice
President for Law Enforcement Operations of the US. Marshals Service OJSMS) Chapter of the
Federal Managers Association.1 I speak for many of my colleagues in expressing sincere
appreciation for the integral role you play in chairing an essential Congressional Committee
which provides oversight of the USMS.

As you are aware, US. Marshals are entrusted with the responsibility of protecting and
defending the Constitution. In large part it begins most days at the doors of US. courthouses
across our Nation where the judicial process is carried out. Upholding the rule of law comes
with awesome power over people and processes. That said, in the wise words of Dr. Philip
Zimbardo, and Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, ?If you give people
power without oversight, it?s a prescription for abuse.?2

I am not alone in having grown weary of the misconduct, often times without
consequence, by some at the top of 0m organization. The misbehavior leads to fluther
malefaction during descent within the ranks. Statistics reportedly demonstrate the USMS has the
second highest nrunber of employee misconduct complaints among Department of Justice
agencies, only behind the Bureau of Prisons. This is quite remarkable given the relatively lower
number of employees at the USMS, compared with its sister agencies. However, it is not
imexpected given the example being set by some in leadership positions. The lack of
accountability and adherence to the rules and regulations erodes confidence in the system,
resulting in lower morale and more often insubordination. Systemic failru?es throughout the
organization follow.

Top level executives should be leaders who emulate the principles of 0m organization?s
motto of Justice Integrity Service. These are the people we should aspire to be like.

 

1 Mwuu' . fedmana gers . org/About-Us
zimbardo 011 the stchologv of evil

1

The last Director of the USMS issued “A Message about Ethics” to all agency employees
within months of her confirmation and subsequent appointment.3 Less than four years later, the
Committee you chair launched the most comprehensive Congressional investigation of the
USMS seen to date. You sought answers about widespread and egregious misconduct alleged to
have occurred among some top officials in the organization. Subsequent to your investigation,
the Director and others resigned,4 retired,5 or were fired.6
Early on the evidence you gathered gave you reason to conclude: “U.S. Marshals Service
Leadership has a Sordid History of Misconduct, Cooperation with Investigations.”7 While many
employees with “unique insight into the problems that exist within [the Agency]” experienced
regular retaliation for making protected disclosures, it is abundantly clear your instincts were
accurate.
While I appreciate the increased stability within the USMS experienced under the current
Acting Deputy Director, independent investigations about behavior during the last USMS
Administration continue. Alarmingly, some involve senior career officials who still remain in
their posts, perpetuating a culture of mistrust and raising questions whether other abuses persist.
It saddens me to be able to offer a snapshot of some findings by independent bodies charged with
governmental oversight and investigative functions:


In November 2016, a 569-page Majority Staff Report was issued by the
Committee detailing findings into serious allegations of improper hiring
practices and whistleblower reprisal at the USMS.8



On October 17, 2017, the Government Accountability Office subsequently
issued its own independent report into additional actions needed to improve
oversight of hiring practices that seemingly propagated under the watch of
the former Director and others.9



On September 20, 2018, the Inspector General issued a Report that further
corroborated the findings of the Majority Staff Report. It cited: 1) Serious
violations of the Standards of Ethical Conduct; 2) prohibited personnel
actions; 3) use of inadequate and flawed processes to gather information
and failing to exercise reasonable care in investigating allegations that led to
misleading Congress; and, 4) other serious findings.10

                                                            
3

A Message about Ethics, Stacia A. Hylton, April 27, 2011, Exhibit A
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-resignation-us-marshals-service-directorstacia-hylton
5
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-retirement-us-marshals-service-assistantdirector-kimberly
6
Noelle B. Douglas v. Department of Justice, Docket No. DC-0752-17-0130-I-1, Exhibit B
7
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-us-marshals-leadership-has-sordid-historymisconduct-cooperation  
8
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/USMS%2C%2011-2916%2C%20MAJORITY%20REPORT%20-%20Improper%20Hiring%2C%20WB%20Reprisal.pdf
9
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-8
10
https://oig.justice.gov/press/2018/2018-09-20a.pdf
4

2
 

 

On October 18, 2018, a subsequent Investigative Summary was issued by
the Inspector General detailing misconduct by top officials for committing
gross mismanagement resulting in a flagrant waste of taxpayer funds.11



Troubling evidence recently surfaced involving the conduct of other top
officials, one now retired, another still within the Agency.12 While the
USMS General Counsel vowed to review the material I offered, he has
instead remained generally unresponsive to the disclosures.



When Committees of both Houses of Congress failed to act on granting the
USMS excepted service hiring authority for an agency already with
documented abuses in its hiring practices, the USMS refused to respect the
legislative process and instead sought, and obtained, an Executive Order
through the Executive Office of the President. The USMS Office of
General Counsel refused to even acknowledge an earlier Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request by the USMS Chapter of the Federal
Managers Association for material on the Agency’s proposed
implementation plan. The request remains unanswered more than a year
later. According to one top USMS official who spoke at a recent USMS
management conference, circumventing the legislative process left the
Office of Personnel Management displeased. This is understandable. For
an agency that cannot seem to follow competitive service hiring rules,
excepted service is increasingly ripe for abuse.



In a recent Report outlining the Top Management and Performance
Challenges Facing the Department of Justice, its Inspector General states,
“The Department faces similar challenges as an employer.”13 He went on to
say, “The Department continues to face challenges with its employees
respecting the role of whistleblowers.” It is obvious the same challenges
exist within the USMS (i.e., no less than 2 of the 5 instances, or 40%, of
retaliation against whistleblowers cited by the Inspector General in his
Memorandum were documented as USMS-specific).14

Donald W. Washington is being considered as the newest Director of the USMS. He is
awaiting your vote before moving to the full Senate for confirmation. I listened to his recent
testimony before the Committee. He is well spoken and commands the presence that we have
long sought in a Director. His credentials are inspiring and he is unmistakably qualified. Many
of my colleagues and I look for his immediate leadership in the following areas:

                                                            
11

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/f181018.pdf  
Auerbach/Wojdylo redacted emails, USMS Response to Draft OIG Report, David Musel email, USMS Office of
General Counsel and Office of Professional Responsibility guidance emails, and Senate Judiciary Committee
oversight hearing of the FBI, Exhibit C
13
https://oig.justice.gov/challenges/2018.pdf, at page 29
14
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/f180718a.pdf and https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/f170223.pdf
12

3
 

 

Strive to reduce the sheer number of misconduct complaints by establishing
an ethical culture where top agency officials are held accountable.15 The
rank and file can hardly be expected to conform to the highest standards
expected of civil servants when they repeatedly observe agency executives
skirt the rules and regulations for their benefit. Granting those in more
senior positions earlier-than-planned retirement with full pensions to avoid
discipline rewards bad behavior. The former Director, for example, was
issued retirement credentials while lower ranking employees have been
denied theirs, the latter even on the allegation of misconduct (i.e., cases that
will never be adjudicated). If confirmed, the new Director should consider
exercising his discretion to recover the retirement credentials of the former
Director, and any other top executive named in recent investigative reports.
This would alleviate the perception that top officials are rewarded, despite
their transgressions.



With the anticipated retirement of the current USMS General Counsel,
name his successor from outside the Agency, one who will be fair, respect
transparency, and timely respond to FOIAs. The perceived culture in the
current USMS Office of General Counsel is “win at any cost.” Their
strategy of delay exhausts employees mentally and financially. This
effectively thwarts the process of equity and justice. New leadership in the
top two positions of this office is essential for the Agency’s success and to
change the views of organizations charged with oversight and investigative
functions that some agency attorneys obstruct their important work.



Recognize the value of whistleblowers and reward them. “Walk the talk” in
establishing a safe environment for lawful protected disclosures. We need
to foster the disclosure of information by employees and see to it that they
do not face retribution for their candor and courage.



Resolve all open whistleblower complaints accepted by the Office of
Special Counsel within the first 90 days of assuming office, some that have
been pending for years on end. Forbid any settlement agreements with
conditions that include a clause requiring whistleblowers to leave
employment. In recent years the Agency has reportedly paid nearly
$700,000 to two whistleblowers in full settlement of retaliation and other
complaints. However, despite being the source of the protected disclosures,
both were required to leave the Agency and forbidden from re-employment,
even as an onsite contractor, as a condition of the settlement.16 Such a
clause is viewed as further reprisal and has a chilling effect on others
coming forward.

                                                            
15

https://oge.gov/web/OGE nsf/0/D65181941B4954EB852581B500460DFA/$FILE/OGE%20Acting%20Director%
20Memo%20to%20Agency%20Heads.pdf  
16
Settlement Agreement redacted, Exhibit D

4
 

 

Reduce the size of USMS headquarters’ units substantially by leveling the
playing field and applying a staffing model consistent with the same
staffing levels applied to district offices. Bring the ratio between positions
assigned to districts and headquarters more in line with other Department of
Justice law enforcement agencies.17



Uphold the principle that “equal pay should be provided for work of equal
value.”18 This is particularly important for positions within the Agency’s
district offices where the incumbents are performing at an equal or higher
level as their peers in headquarters’ positions, yet aren’t equally being
compensated (e.g., 36 Administrative Officers and 20 Canine Handler).

After nearly four years of rigorous oversight of the USMS it is clear continued oversight
by Congress is a central piece of the organization’s activities. This is particularly true in the
areas of its asset forfeiture spending and officer safety initiatives.
Despite the belief of a few, this is not about one whistleblower. To the contrary, it is
about dozens upon dozens of employees who have grown tired of the dishonest practices by too
many―certainly not all―within some of the most senior positions within the USMS. If we as a
federal law enforcement organization are entrusted with upholding the rule of law across the
Nation, we must first uphold the rule of law from within.
While I anticipate some of my colleagues may view my letter to you unfavorably, I know
many more will join me in supporting Mr. Washington as a new Director of the USMS, believing
he will do well to focus on pulling the weeds so the flowerbeds in the Agency may again fully
blossom by springtime. While the need for strong, ethical leadership is what we want in a new
Director, I have no doubt that with such change our organization can exemplify our motto of
Justice Integrity Service.
In light of other voluminous and troubling documents recently shared with me that
originate from a senior USMS official who retired at the end of last year, I remain available to
answer any additional questions of the Committee. I thank you for your service and look
forward to your continued oversight. Never underestimate the confidence you have restored in
righteousness. Be well Mr. Chairman!
Very truly yours,
/s/ Jason R. Wojdylo
Jason R. Wojdylo
Enclosures
                                                            
17
18

Letter on Staffing at the USMS, Federal Managers Association, USMS Chapter, February 26, 2018, Exhibit E 
5 U.S.C. § 2301

5
 

 Exhibit A

US. Department of Justice

United States Marshals Service

 

O?'ice of the Director

 

Alexandria. VA 2230I-1025

April 27, 2011

MEMORANDUM TO: @es Marshals Service EmplOYees

I . 
FROMtacra A. y?hx?i
Director

SUBJECT: A Message about Ethics

The ethics rules and policies are an important part of our federal service in the
US. Marshals Service. I am committed to these rules, and urge all US. Marshals Service
employees to continue to uphold our tradition of integrity and ethics compliance.

The principles of ethics compliance and integrity are important for all federal employees.
However, I believe these are even more critical for a law enforcement agency entrusted with
great authority on behalf of, and a rich tradition of service to, the American public.

It is important that you comply with all the ethics rules, policies and requirements, avail
yourselves of ethics training opportunities, and contact Ethics Team members in the Office of
General Counsel with any questions. Our reputation and effectiveness depends in large measure
on the public?s perception of US. Marshals Service employees? ethical behavior and integrity.

One source of excellent information about the Standards of Ethical Conduct for
Executive Branch Employees and the US. Marshals Service ethics policies can be found in the
Ethics section of the Of?ce of General Counsel?s website. Please take the opportunity to review
the contents of that website. In addition, please discuss ethics issues with supervisors and Of?ce
of General Counsel Ethics Team members to ensure that we live up to our own, and the
American public?s, expectations of ethical conduct to make America?s Star shine ever brighter.

I thank you for making ethics and integrity a part of your everyday activities as an
employee of the US. Marshals Service.

Exhibit 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
Office of the Clerk of the Board

1615 Street, NW.
Washington, DC. 20419-0002

Phone: 202?65&7200; Fax: 202?65&7130; Email: 

 

March 31, 2017

sum/1AM?

  

RE: Final Release for Request MSPB-2017-000099

This is the ?nal release to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S.
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dated March 29, 2017 and received March 30, 2017. In
yoru? request, you sought ?copies of any and all MSPB decisions to include appellate decisions in
the case(s) of U.S. Marshals Service employee, Noelle Douglas, former Assistant Director for
the Judicial Security Division, who was removed from federal service but appealed her removal
to the We have interpreted yoru? response to be seeking all Initial Decisions and Final
Orders of the Board.

We conducted a comprehensive search of 0m electronic ?les for records responsive to
yoru' request. We have located the following record which is being released to you full.

Noel/e B. Douglas v. Department of Justice, DC -0752-1 7-0 1 30-1? 1

If you have any questions regarding this request, or? if you disagree with this disposition,
in whole or part, you have the right to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison, appeal the
determination, or contact the Of?ce of Government Information Services to participate in dispute
resolution services.

If you wish to contact the FOIA Public Liaison, you may do so via email to
foiahq@mspb.gov or telephone at (202) 254-4475. If you wish to participate in dispute
resolution services, you may contact the Of?ce of Government Information Services (OGIS).
The contact information for OGIS is as follows:

Of?ce of Government Information Service
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi 
College Park, Maryland 20740-6001

E-mail at ogis@nara.gov
Telephone at 202-741-5570
Toll free at 1-877-684-6448
Facsimile at 202-741-5769
If you wish to appeal the determination, you may do so by submitting your appeal
through FOIAonline or by mailing your appeal to:
Chairman, c/o Clerk of the Board
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
1615 M Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20419
Your appeal should be identified as a “FOIA Appeal” on both the letter and the envelope,
if applicable. It should include a copy of your original request, a copy of this letter and your
reasons for appealing this decision. You may also submit your appeal by email to
foiahq@mspb.gov or by fax at (202) 653-7130. You appeal must be filed within ninety (90)
days from the date of this letter.

Sincerely,
//signed//

Government Information Specialist
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE

NOELLE B. DOUGLAS,
Appellant,

DOCKET NUMBER
DC-0752-17-0130-I-1

v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Agency.

DATE: March 27, 2017

Lawrence Berger, Esquire, Glen Cove, New York, for the appellant.
Margo L. Chan, Esquire, and Susan E. Gibson, Esquire, Washington, D.C.,
for the agency.
BEFORE
David A. Thayer
Administrative Judge
INITIAL DECISION
On November 17, 2016, Noelle B. Douglas filed an appeal challenging the
action of the Department of Justice that removed her from her position, effective
October 21, 2016. The Board has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to
5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-7513. A hearing was held at the appellant’s request.
Based on the following analysis and findings, the agency’s action is
MITIGATED.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The agency bears the burden of supporting its action by preponderant evidence.
Prior to her removal, the appellant encumbered a position as a Chief
Investigator, GS-1811-15, with the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transport System

 2
of the U.S. Marshals Service. Appeal File (AF) Vol. 1, Tab 6, p. 8. On July 25,
2016, the agency proposed the appellant’s removal based on two charges:
(1) misuse of position (2 specifications); and, (2) lack of candor (3 sustained
specifications).

AF Vol. 1, Tab 6, pp. 134-143.

The appellant and her

representative presented an oral reply to the proposal on September 29, 2014, as
well as a written response. AF Vol. 1, Tab 6, pp. 14-72 (transcript of oral reply),
73-130.

On October 19, 2016, after considering the proposal notice, the

supporting materials, as well as the appellant’s oral and written responses, the
deciding official, Cheryl Jacobs, found that the evidence supported Charge
1 (misuse of position, both specifications), and Charge 2 (lack of candor) but only
specifications A, C, and D. AF Vol. 1, Tab 6, pp. 8-13. She concluded that the
in light of the sustained charges, removal was appropriate. Id. The appellant
then filed this appeal.
The agency has the burden of supporting its action by a preponderance of
the evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(1)(B); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a) (2016). A
preponderance of the evidence is that degree of relevant evidence that a
reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient
to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.4(q) (2016).
Preponderant evidence supports Charge 1, Specification A, that the appellant
misused her position for personal gain.
Under the first charge, the agency provided two specifications, each
relating to a subordinate employee whom the appellant is accused of having used
to perform non-official work for her own benefit. AF Vol. 1, Tab 6, pp. 134-135.
The agency presented the first specification (“Specification A”) as follows:
Specification A: During approximately April-May, 2014, you
accepted the assistance of a subordinate employee, Kimberly Shelton
Jolie, to draft responses for your Senior Executive Service (SES)
promotion package.
Id. at 134.

 3
The appellant testified that she worked as a Chief Inspector for the U.S.
Marshals Service. She related that she was acquainted with Kimberly Shelton
Jolie, who would have been three levels of supervision below her. She described
the supervisory chain as Dan Hall being Jolie’s immediate supervisor followed by
Glen Legus, who would have been Dan Hall’s supervisor, and who directly
reported to the appellant.
The appellant stated that the agency announced an SES vacancy in April
2014.

She described the extensive package of materials to be included in a

completed SES application.

She indicated that the package required narrative

descriptions of her Managerial Technical Qualifications (MTQs) and five
different narrative statements, two pages each, to address her Executive Core
Qualifications (ECQs). She indicated that she had previously applied for an SES
position in July of 2013, and still had the basics of the application package. She
explained that the prior application was also for a Marshals Service position, so
there was similarity to the newest application, but she still required revisions to
make a customized response.
The appellant recalled working with Jolie on a PowerPoint presentation, a
very sensitive project on physical access control systems. She related that Jolie
demonstrated proficiency with PowerPoint and so the appellant considered her a
competent employee.

The appellant remembered Jolie asking her if she was

planning to apply for the vacant SES position. She said that Jolie seemed very
interested in whether she would apply—she was very complimentary and
positive—suggesting that she wanted to see the appellant succeed as a woman in
the professional position. The appellant recalled that Jolie offered to do anything
she could to assist with the process.
The appellant testified that Jolie offered to help write her application,
claiming that she had previously worked on the successful SES application for
another former boss. The appellant remembered Jolie as being insistent that she
help, so the appellant relented and agreed to allow Jolie to review her draft ECQs.

 4
The appellant asserted that she accepted Jolie’s offer to help with the caveat that
Jolie could not do any work on it during official time, or in any way conflict with
her official duties, and it would in no way be considered any kind of official duty.
The appellant acknowledged that she had sent the email identified as
Government Exhibit 6 to Jolie (Vol. 3, Tab 17, p. 16). She explained, however,
that the exchange was clearly a joke—no one should seriously think she asked
Jolie to write the ECQs on a PowerPoint presentation, on “official” format slides
in “pink, with butterflies, please.”
The appellant acknowledged that she did communicate with Jolie about her
work on the SES package. She agreed that she had sent background materials to
Jolie and also asked for her comments to analyze materials that the appellant had
written.
The appellant remembered a conversation with Greg Legus in which he
asked about Jolie working on the appellant’s SES package. The appellant said
she was surprised by the question, because she expected, as she had instructed
Jolie, to only work on it during off-duty time.

The appellant stated that she

responded to Legus that, “Oh, she (Jolie) should not be doing that on any official
time” after which Legus made no further comment.
The appellant reviewed several email communications sent between her and
Jolie (AF Vol. 3, Tab 15, pp. 139, 160, 161, 181). She acknowledged that they
had been sent during regular work hours on official email service. She explained
that she did not have a concern that Jolie was working on the SES application
during her official duty hours, even though she might have received the
communication during that time. She reported that she ultimately did not use
Jolie’s efforts in her final application, although Jolie had obviously spent time on
it.
The appellant related that Jolie was “extremely insistent” that she help with
the SES application process.

She indicated her impression that Jolie became

emotionally attached to the idea of the appellant’s application, becoming

 5
completely invested in it.

The appellant explained that she was sensitive to

Jolie’s emotional attachment and wanted to avoid making her feel slighted by
telling her outright that her efforts would not be used. She justified her attempts
at tactful resistance to Jolie’s enthusiasm by clarifying that she found Jolie to be
“a very difficult person,” who took offense easily, without justification.
Kimberly Shelton Jolie testified that she worked in the research and
evaluation branch of the Marshals Service Court Security Division. She recalled
that her supervisor was Greg Legus, who was supervised by Dan Hall, and the
appellant was her third-level supervisor. Jolie noted that the appellant had no
involvement in assigning official duties or projects.
Jolie stated that her core work hours were from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
She claimed that she typically worked 12 to 16 hour days—basically “from the
time she got up in the morning until she went to bed at night.” She asserted that
she would work on official assignments during those hours.
Jolie reported that, one day, she encountered the appellant walking down
the hallway carrying a large, unwieldy stack of materials. Jolie recalled asking if
she needed help, and the appellant told her about the SES application; Jolie
offered to help with it. She indicated there was no discussion of official time or
personal time—it was not addressed. She remembered a brief comment about the
announcement and closing date but not much else.
Based on the testimony of the witnesses, there is not a dispute that the
appellant used the services of her subordinates to assist with the preparation of
her SES application.

Thus, notwithstanding the appellant’s protestations or

pointed instructions, I find preponderant evidence that Jolie’s work on the
appellant’s SES application was mixed with official business. The agency argued
that when the assistance was provided—while on duty or while off—is irrelevant
to their charge. The mere fact that the appellant, as a supervisor with power and

 6
authority over another employee, would use that employee’s skill or effort for her
own benefit is an unacceptable use of her position. 1
In her testimony, the appellant stressed that she admonished her
subordinates to avoid any work while on duty or in connection with any official
activity.

Nevertheless, the emails exchanged reflect work done on the SES

application during regular business hours.

Accordingly, I find preponderant

evidence that the appellant misused her public position for private gain.
Charge 1, Specification A is sustained.
The agency presented preponderant evidence to support Specification B of
Charge 1.
In the proposal notice, the agency alleged that the appellant had improperly
used the services of Natalie Pichetvivantana-Mendez;
Specification B: During approximately April-May, 2014, you
accepted the assistance of a subordinate employee, Natalie
Pichetvivatana-Mendez, to review and edit portions of your SES
promotion package.
AF Vol. 1, Tab 6, p. 136.
The appellant testified that Mendez offered to help her update her resume.
She recalled that Mendez said she was familiar with the SES application and that
she had also assisted a former boss and knew the format. She explained that
Mendez offered to help and she accepted the personal offer.

1

I find the example provided with the government ethics regulation at 5 C.F.R.
§ 2635.705(b) instructive in this instance: Example 1: An employee of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development may not ask his secretary to type his personal
correspondence during duty hours. Further, directing or coercing a subordinate to
perform such activities during nonduty hours constitutes an improper use of public
office for private gain in violation of § 2635.702(a). Where the arrangement is entirely
voluntary and appropriate compensation is paid, the secretary may type the
correspondence at home on her own time. Where the compensation is not adequate,
however, the arrangement would involve a gift to the superior in violation of the
standards in subpart C of this part.

 7
The appellant acknowledged that she sent Mendez the announcement for
the SES position. She recalled that she also sent Mendez a 280B, the Marshals
Service form for the merit promotion system. The appellant testified that she
expected Mendez to look at the application during a free moment, not during any
official duty time.
The appellant remembered that Mendez, when she offered her assistance,
indicated that she had helped her prior boss with his application. She said that
other agency managers had received help from their subordinates, naming Ron
Ruckert, Aldean Lee, and Evan Moarales. She reported also that Evan Driscoll
could not get his package approved by OPM, so the director at the time (who had
apparently selected Driscoll), instructed his subordinates to recreate Driscoll’s
package so that it met OPM’s requirements.
Natalie Pichet-Vivatana Mendez testified that she works as a Management
and Program Analyst in the U.S. Marshals Service Management Support Division.
She recalled that in 2013, she worked in the Judicial Security Branch and the
appellant was her second-level supervisor.

She remembered one afternoon

stopping by the appellant’s office and offering assistance with her SES
application.

Mendez asserted that she volunteered her assistance and the

appellant “took her up on the offer.”
Mendez related that the appellant sent her a copy of the SES vacancy
announcement.

She recalled that she looked at the appellant’s work history

information and prepared her resume. She said that after writing it, she sent the
resume to the appellant. Mendez admitted that she worked on the resume during
regular work hours, even though she did not consider it an official work
assignment. Mendez denied having any memory of the appellant telling her to
not work on the application during official time. Her recollection was that the
conversation was very brief and never covered the distinction between official
time or personal time. She said that she volunteered to do the work and was not
paid for it.

 8
Regardless of the amount of work, I credit the testimony from Mendez that
she worked on the appellant’s SES application. Moreover, the work was done
during official duty hours and was not compensated.

Accordingly, I find

preponderant evidence that the appellant accepted the assistance of Natalie
Pichetvivatana-Mendez, a subordinate employee, to help write portions of her
SES promotion package. Charge 1, Specification B is sustained.
I have sustained both specifications of Charge 1.

The charge that the

appellant misused her position for private gain is, therefore, sustained.
The agency failed to present preponderant evidence to support Charge 2, that the
appellant lacked candor.
The agency charged the appellant with lack of candor.

In Ludlum v.

Department of Justice, 278 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Federal Circuit
explained that lack of candor and falsification are distinct charges.

While

falsification “involves an affirmative misrepresentation, and requires intent to
deceive,” lack of candor, by contrast, “is a broader and more flexible concept
whose contours and elements depend on the particular context and conduct
involved.”

Id. at 1284.

Lack of candor need not involve an affirmative

misrepresentation, but “may involve a failure to disclose something that, in the
circumstances, should have been disclosed to make the statement accurate and
complete.” Id. Unlike falsification, lack of candor does not require “intent to
deceive.” Id. at 1284-85.
Nonetheless, lack of candor “necessarily involves an element of
deception.” Id. at 1284; see Parkinson v. Department of Justice, 815 F.3d 757,
766 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Rhee v. Department of the Treasury, 117 M.S.P.R. 640,
¶ 11 (2012), overruled in part on other grounds by Savage v. Department of the
Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612 (2015). The Board has held that, in light of Rhee and
Parkinson, a charge of lack of candor requires proof: (1) that the employee gave
incorrect or incomplete information; and (2) that she did so knowingly. Fargnoli
v. Department of Commerce, 123 M.S.P.R. 330, ¶ 17 (2016).

 9
The agency did not present preponderant evidence to support Specification A of
the lack of candor charge.
The agency presented the following allegations in the proposal notice under
specification A of the second charge:
Specification A: You displayed a lack of candor on February 17,
2016, during your sworn OPR-IA interview, when you stated in part;
" ... Let me put this very clearly on the record I did not use what
Kim wrote or provided. "
AF Vol. 1, Tab 6, p. 137
The appellant testified that she had no deceptive intent and had no
knowledge that what she said to the investigators was in any way inaccurate or
untrue. She claimed that she sincerely believed she had instructed both Jolie and
Mendez to only work on the application during non-duty hours. She expressed
surprise that they would fail to comply with that directive. Further, she asserted
that the application was her creation and, regardless of Jolie’s insistence, as
reported by the investigators, the appellant herself was the author of the
application.
The appellant testified that the SES application was due or submitted on
May 15, 2014. She noted that the interview with the investigators happened on
February 16, 2016, almost two years after she turned in the application.

She

recalled that the investigators asked her who “authored” the document, but they
failed to give her any document to compare while she was being interviewed.
She asserted that her responses were based on her recollection. She said that she,
alone, made the creative choices about content and editing; she made the stylistic
decisions based on her own thought process and ideas.
Jolie testified that she considered the appellant’s application an official
assignment, because “this is how all her assignments came;” she could have said
“no,” or she could have talked to her boss (Legus). She claimed that she went
and talked to Legus to let him know she would push aside other official duties to
accomplish the work on the application. She remembered simply telling Legus

 10
that the appellant wanted her help to write her SES application package.

She

claimed that she did not work on the application as a personal favor.
Jolie remembered the appellant sending her “many, many documents” to
review and incorporate in the application. She asserted that she worked full time,
8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, with her full attention to the SES application
assignment. She said she had no time to work on anything else.
Jolie remembered talking to Robin Schroeder about the effort she was
putting in to writing the ECQs.

She also remembered complaining about the

effort to Senator Grassley, that she “may have felt a little defensive.”
She remembered telling Schroeder about all the work she did and that she
felt frustrated that it took up so much of her personal time. She asserted that
writing the SES project took many 16 hour days of work. She acknowledged that
she reviewed ECQs for Greg Legus when he made an SES application, but they
were “nothing as intense” as the appellant’s. She asserted that she authored the
entire document: “Yes, I wrote them all!”
Robyn Schroeder testified that she worked as an IT (Information
Technology) Specialist for the U.S. Marshals Service.

She indicated that she

knows Kimberly Jolie. She recalled that she talked to Jolie about the appellant’s
SES package.

She remembered in July or August 2015, reading a letter on

Senator Grassley’s page (website) that another director, Kimberly Beal, had
subordinates writing her ECQs. She said she talked to Jolie about it. Schroeder
recalled that Jolie told her she had written the appellant’s ECQs in evenings when
she was off work.
Schroeder reported a second conversation she had with Jolie about a year
after the first, in June 2016. She remembered Jolie stepping in to her office and
telling her about the appellant’s disciplinary case. She said that Jolie claimed she
was the “whistleblower,” and that Jolie wanted to do it because the appellant had
made her mad—she was upset about things happening in her work environment.

 11
Schroeder explained that she was unaware that it was improper to use
subordinates on their private time to help with a personal application.
I question the plausibility of Jolie’s adamant claim that she devoted all her
time, both official and a significant portion of her private time for weeks, to the
creation of the appellant’s application. In this regard, I credit the testimony of
Robyn Schroeder that Jolie told her she worked on the application only in the
evenings. I find Jolie’s descriptions of time usage highly questionable. Further,
Schoeder’s report that Jolie became somehow embittered and sought occasion to
damage the appellant’s circumstances lends additional doubt to Jolie’s claim of
unceasing toil. I do not question that Jolie provided work on the SES application.
However, I find it inherently implausible that it was her total and exclusive
activity for days on end as she claimed.
Further, although the agency combed through the application, it could
identify only a few, very few, phrases common between what Jolie claims she
wrote and the actual application submitted by the appellant.

The appellant

explained that some of the words may be the same, but that is not surprising
considering the nature of the application. I find merit in her assertion that the
structure of the sentences and the focus of the message is different from Jolie’s
“draft.”
I do not credit the agency’s argument that the few sentences and chosen
words sprinkled through the first few sentences of only one (out of five) of the
ECQ responses (and none of the MTQs) amounts to adequate evidence that Jolie
“authored” the application. On the contrary, I credit the appellant’s claim that
she created, or “authored,” the application. She was the one with the personal
interest; she was the one responsible for it. Accordingly, I find that the agency
has failed to present preponderant evidence: (1) that what the appellant told the
investigators was actually incomplete or inaccurate; and (2) that she had any
knowledge or belief that her response was in any way inaccurate. Cf. Fargnoli,
123 M.S.P.R. 330, ¶ 17. Thus, I find the agency has not provided preponderant

 12
evidence that the appellant lacked candor when she said “Let me put this very
clearly on the record. I did not use what Kim wrote or provided.” Specification
A is NOT SUSTAINED.
The agency did not present preponderant evidence to support Specification C of
the lack of candor charge.
The agency presented the following allegations in the proposal notice under
specification C of the second charge:
Specification C: You displayed a lack of candor on February 17, 2016,
during your sworn OPR-IA interview, when you minimized the extent of
MPA Shelton Jolie's role in assisting you with your SES promotion
package.
AF Vol. 1, Tab 6, p. 138.
The appellant testified that she had no idea Jolie’s work on the SES
package interfered with her official duties. She said that Jolie never told her it
had caused a problem.

She stated that Legus, also, did not tell her the SES

package work was interfering with Jolie’s official work.
The appellant indicated that she considered Jolie merely as a “second set of
eyes” to review her work. She asserted that she knew her application was already
“good enough to get in the door” because she had been offered an interview with
the prior SES application.

She explained that Jolie, apparently on her own

volition, went “high and left” taking the volunteer assistance to extreme levels of
effort, “going rampant on it” without the appellant’s knowledge.
In a similar manner to my assessment of the “authorship” of the
application, I discount the agency’s interpretation of the appellant’s description
of Jolie’s contributions.

In light of Schroeder’s testimony that Jolie sought

occasion to attack the appellant, I find it appropriate to moderate the weight and
credit assigned to Jolie’s extravagant claims of work done.

I accept the

appellant’s perception that Jolie really had little to no substantive contribution to
the SES application package; such was her recollection after almost two years had
passed since the application was created. Nevertheless, Jolie described herself as

 13
the indispensable, tireless wordsmith, while the appellant came to view her as an
intrusive, hyper-sensitive distraction to which she must give some lip-service or
risk the consequences of committing some imagined offense. Indeed, this appeal
and the investigation that preceded it appear to validate that concern—that it was
an outgrowth of some offense felt by Jolie that induced her to become a
“whistleblower.” Accordingly, I find that the agency has failed to show knowing
deceit or falsity in the appellant’s statement that minimized the extent of Jolie’s
assistance on the SES application.

Charge 2, Specification C is NOT

SUSTAINED.
The agency did not present preponderant evidence to support Specification D of
the lack of candor charge.
The agency presented the following allegations in the proposal notice under
specification D of the second charge:
Specification D: You displayed a lack of candor on February
17,2016, during you sworn OPR-IA interview, when you stated that
you did not know if assisting you on your SES promotion package
interfered with Shelton Jolie's official work.
AF Vol. 1, Tab 6, p. 138.
Based on the evidence already reviewed, I credit the appellant’s testimony
that she did not know and was not told that Jolie’s work on the SES application
interfered with her official duties—neither by Legus nor by Jolie herself. I credit
the appellant’s testimony that she instructed both Jolie and Mendez to only use
personal time on the application.

Moreover, I discount Jolie’s overwrought

descriptions of exclusive, self-sacrificing consecration to the appellant’s cause.
Jolie’s subjective choice to wholly commit virtually every waking minute to the
appellant’s application was, I find quite understandably, unknown to the
appellant.
Again, with Specification D, I find no inconsistency with the appellant’s
statement that she did not know if Jolie’s assistance with the appellant’s SES
package interfered with Jolie’s official work. Accordingly, I find the agency has

 14
not presented preponderant evidence to support the attribution of that knowledge
to the appellant. Specification D is NOT SUSTAINED.

I find, therefore, that

Charge 2, in its entirety is NOT SUSTAINED. 2

The penalty of removal must be mitigated.
An adverse action, such as removal, may be taken by an agency only for
such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a). In
other words, there must be a clear and direct relationship between the articulated
grounds for an adverse action and either the employee’s ability to accomplish her
duties satisfactorily or some other legitimate government interest. Valenzuela v.
Department of the Army, 107 M.S.P.R. 549, ¶ 14 (2007).
The evidence reflects that the appellant’s misconduct arose from her status
as a supervisor in the U.S. Marshals Service. Her position placed her over the
official duties and responsibilities of both Jolie and Mendez. Her status as a
supervisor and also as a Federal employee imposed an obligation on her to
comply with the ethical restrictions on her authority. The violation sustained,
misuse of her position, arose from her official appointment and her official
relationship with her subordinate employees.

Accordingly, I find a clear and

direct relationship between the agency’s articulated grounds for the adverse
action and the appellant’s ability to accomplish her duties as well as other
legitimate government interests.
In assessing whether a particular penalty promotes the efficiency of the
service, however, it must appear that the penalty takes reasonable account of all
relevant mitigating factors in a particular case, referred to as the Douglas factors.

2

In her prehearing submissions, the appellant raised the affirmative defense of a lack of
due process relative to Charge 2, lack of candor, claiming that the agency failed to
provide adequate notice of the “words, language, or phrases allegedly provided by Ms.
Jolie.” AF Vol. 3, Tab 17, p. 14. In light of my findings that the charge is not
sustained, I find that additional analysis of the due process claim related to the lack of
candor is unnecessary.

 15
See Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 299 (1981).

If the

agency’s penalty exceeds the bounds of reasonableness, the Board will mitigate it
to the maximum reasonable penalty
Cheryl Jacobs testified that she was the deciding official in the appellant’s
removal decision. She related that she reviewed the supporting file, including the
investigation. She received the appellant’s written response and also her oral
reply from her attorney.
Jacobs stated that she found the offense serious because the appellant had
been the Deputy Assistant Director for Judicial Security. Jacobs noted that the
appellant had no prior disciplinary record. She commented that after the proposal
notice, but before the issued decision of removal, the appellant had received an
oral admonishment.

She said that the intervening discipline was not an

aggravating factor, but it did show a pattern of misconduct.
Jacobs related that the appellant had received an Outstanding performance
appraisal, although it related to her time after being appointed to the SES
position.
Jacobs noted that the agency’s range of penalties for misuse of position is a
reprimand to a 7-day suspension.

She commented that, had the misconduct

involved only the misuse of position, she would not have imposed removal. She
concluded, however, that the lack of candor charge revealed that the agency could
not rely on the appellant to perform her duties with integrity and, therefore,
removal was the proper penalty.
Jacobs indicated that she did not think rehabilitation was possible because
she found the appellant displayed no remorse for her behavior. She recalled that
the appellant characterized the whole circumstance as a misunderstanding.
Jacobs remembered that the appellant claimed there was no policy in place. She
said that the appellant failed to see how it was inappropriate for her to use
subordinates work to get her a promotion.

 16
Based on the evidence as a whole, including the deciding official’s
testimony about what she considered before making her decision, I find that she
properly considered the Douglas factors.

Nevertheless, when not all of the

charges are sustained, as in the present appeal, the Board will consider carefully
whether the sustained charge merited the penalty imposed by the agency.
Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 308 (1981). If fewer than
all of the charges are sustained and the agency has not indicated in either its final
decision or in proceedings before the Board that it desires that a lesser penalty be
imposed on fewer charges, the Board may mitigate the agency’s penalty to the
maximum reasonable penalty. Lachance v. Devall, 178 F.3d 1246, 1260 (Fed.
Cir. 1999).
In this appeal, the deciding official conceded in her hearing testimony that
the first charge, standing alone, would not warrant the penalty of removal. She
specified, in fact, that the maximum penalty in the agency’s Table of Penalties
was a 7-day suspension for a first offense. See AF Vol. 2, Tab 9, p. 37 (Section
11, row m, misuse of position/office).

Accordingly, I find that the agency’s

penalty of removal must be mitigated to a 7-day suspension.
DECISION
The agency’s action is MITIGATED.
ORDER
I ORDER the agency to cancel the removal and substitute in its place a
seven -day suspension without pay. This action must be accomplished no later
than 20 calendar days after the date this initial decision becomes final.
I ORDER the agency to pay appellant by check or through electronic funds
transfer for the appropriate amount of back pay, with interest and to adjust
benefits with appropriate credits and deductions in accordance with the Office of
Personnel Management's regulations no later than 60 calendar days after the date
this initial decision becomes final. I ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good

 17
faith with the agency's efforts to compute the amount of back pay and benefits
due and to provide all necessary information requested by the agency to help it
comply.
If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay due, I ORDER the
agency to pay appellant by check or through electronic funds transfer for the
undisputed amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date this initial
decision becomes final. Appellant may then file a petition for enforcement with
this office to resolve the disputed amount.
I ORDER the agency to inform appellant in writing of all actions taken to
comply with the Board's Order and the date on which it believes it has fully
complied.

If not notified, appellant must ask the agency about its efforts to

comply before filing a petition for enforcement with this office.
For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance
Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation
necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision
are attached. I ORDER the agency to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all
documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the
Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be
made within the 60-day period set forth above.
INTERIM RELIEF
If a petition for review is filed by either party, I ORDER the agency to
provide

interim

relief

to

the

appellant

in

accordance

with

5 U.S.C.

§ 7701(b)(2)(A). The relief shall be effective as of the date of this decision and
will remain in effect until the decision of the Board becomes final.
As part of interim relief, I ORDER the agency to effect the appellant’s
appointment to the position of Criminal Investigator, GS-1811-15. The appellant
shall receive the pay and benefits of this position while any petition for review is

 18
pending, even if the agency determines that the appellant’s return to or presence
in the workplace would be unduly disruptive.
Any petition for review or cross petition for review filed by the agency
must be accompanied by a certification that the agency has complied with the
interim relief order, either by providing the required interim relief or by
satisfying the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(2)(A)(ii) and (B).

If the

appellant challenges this certification, the Board will issue an order affording the
agency the opportunity to submit evidence of its compliance.

If an agency

petition or cross petition for review does not include this certification, or if the
agency does not provide evidence of compliance in response to the Board’s order,
the Board may dismiss the agency’s petition or cross petition for review on that
basis.

FOR THE BOARD:

________/S/______________________
David A. Thayer
Administrative Judge
ENFORCEMENT

If, after the agency has informed you that it has fully complied with this
decision, you believe that there has not been full compliance, you may ask the
Board to enforce its decision by filing a petition for enforcement with this office,
describing specifically the reasons why you believe there is noncompliance.
Your petition must include the date and results of any communications regarding
compliance, and a statement showing that a copy of the petition was either mailed
or hand-delivered to the agency.
Any petition for enforcement must be filed no more than 30 days after the
date of service of the agency’s notice that it has complied with the decision. If
you believe that your petition is filed late, you should include a statement and
evidence showing good cause for the delay and a request for an extension of time
for filing.

 19
NOTICE TO APPELLANT
This initial decision will become final on May 1, 2017, unless a petition
for review is filed by that date. This is an important date because it is usually the
last day on which you can file a petition for review with the Board. However, if
you prove that you received this initial decision more than 5 days after the date of
issuance, you may file a petition for review within 30 days after the date you
actually receive the initial decision. If you are represented, the 30-day period
begins to run upon either your receipt of the initial decision or its receipt by your
representative, whichever comes first. You must establish the date on which you
or your representative received it. The date on which the initial decision becomes
final also controls when you can file a petition for review with the Court of
Appeals.

The paragraphs that follow tell you how and when to file with the

Board or the federal court. These instructions are important because if you wish
to file a petition, you must file it within the proper time period.
BOARD REVIEW
You may request Board review of this initial decision by filing a petition
for review.
If the other party has already filed a timely petition for review, you may
file a cross petition for review. Your petition or cross petition for review must
state your objections to the initial decision, supported by references to applicable
laws, regulations, and the record. You must file it with:
The Clerk of the Board
Merit Systems Protection Board
1615 M Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20419
A petition or cross petition for review may be filed by mail, facsimile (fax),
personal or commercial delivery, or electronic filing. A petition submitted by
electronic filing must comply with the requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14, and

 20
may

only

be

accomplished

at

the

Board's

e-Appeal

website

(https://e-appeal.mspb.gov).
NOTICE OF LACK OF QUORUM
The Merit Systems Protection Board ordinarily is composed of three
members, 5 U.S.C. § 1201, but currently only one member is in place. Because a
majority vote of the Board is required to decide a case, see 5 C.F.R. § 1200.3(a),
(e), the Board is unable to issue decisions on petitions for review filed with it at
this time. See 5 U.S.C. § 1203. Thus, while parties may continue to file petitions
for review during this period, no decisions will be issued until at least one
additional member is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
The lack of a quorum does not serve to extend the time limit for filing a petition
or cross petition. Any party who files such a petition must comply with the time
limits specified herein.
For alternative review options, please consult the section below titled
“Notice to the Appellant Regarding Your Further Review Rights,” which sets
forth other review options.
Criteria for Granting a Petition or Cross Petition for Review
Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115, the Board normally will consider only
issues raised in a timely filed petition or cross petition for review. Situations in
which the Board may grant a petition or cross petition for review include, but are
not limited to, a showing that:
(a) The initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact. (1)
Any alleged factual error must be material, meaning of sufficient weight to
warrant an outcome different from that of the initial decision. (2) A petitioner
who alleges that the judge made erroneous findings of material fact must explain
why the challenged factual determination is incorrect and identify specific
evidence in the record that demonstrates the error. In reviewing a claim of an
erroneous finding of fact, the Board will give deference to an administrative

 21
judge’s credibility determinations when they are based, explicitly or implicitly,
on the observation of the demeanor of witnesses testifying at a hearing.
(b) The initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or
regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case. The
petitioner must explain how the error affected the outcome of the case.
(c) The judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial
decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of
discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case.
(d) New and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite
the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. To
constitute new evidence, the information contained in the documents, not just the
documents themselves, must have been unavailable despite due diligence when
the record closed.
As stated in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(h), a petition for review, a cross petition
for review, or a response to a petition for review, whether computer generated,
typed, or handwritten, is limited to 30 pages or 7500 words, whichever is less. A
reply to a response to a petition for review is limited to 15 pages or 3750 words,
whichever is less. Computer generated and typed pleadings must use no less than
12 point typeface and 1-inch margins and must be double spaced and only use one
side of a page. The length limitation is exclusive of any table of contents, table of
authorities, attachments, and certificate of service. A request for leave to file a
pleading that exceeds the limitations prescribed in this paragraph must be
received by the Clerk of the Board at least 3 days before the filing deadline. Such
requests must give the reasons for a waiver as well as the desired length of the
pleading and are granted only in exceptional circumstances. The page and word
limits set forth above are maximum limits. Parties are not expected or required to
submit pleadings of the maximum length. Typically, a well-written petition for
review is between 5 and 10 pages long.

 22
If you file a petition or cross petition for review, the Board will obtain the
record in your case from the administrative judge and you should not submit
anything to the Board that is already part of the record. A petition for review
must be filed with the Clerk of the Board no later than the date this initial
decision becomes final, or if this initial decision is received by you or your
representative more than 5 days after the date of issuance, 30 days after the date
you or your representative actually received the initial decision, whichever was
first. If you claim that you and your representative both received this decision
more than 5 days after its issuance, you have the burden to prove to the Board the
earlier date of receipt. You must also show that any delay in receiving the initial
decision was not due to the deliberate evasion of receipt. You may meet your
burden by filing evidence and argument, sworn or under penalty of perjury (see 5
C.F.R. Part 1201, Appendix 4) to support your claim. The date of filing by mail
is determined by the postmark date. The date of filing by fax or by electronic
filing is the date of submission. The date of filing by personal delivery is the
date on which the Board receives the document. The date of filing by commercial
delivery is the date the document was delivered to the commercial delivery
service. Your petition may be rejected and returned to you if you fail to provide
a statement of how you served your petition on the other party. See 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.4(j). If the petition is filed electronically, the online process itself will
serve the petition on other e-filers. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.14(j)(1).
A cross petition for review must be filed within 25 days after the date of
service of the petition for review.
NOTICE TO AGENCY/INTERVENOR
The agency or intervenor may file a petition for review of this initial
decision in accordance with the Board's regulations.

 23
NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to
the court at the following address:
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20439
The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days
after the date this initial decision becomes final. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A)
(as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time.
The court has held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this
statutory deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be
dismissed. See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed.
Cir. 1991).
If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to
court, you should refer to the federal law that gives you this right. It is found in
Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff.
Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the United
States

Code,

at

our

website,

http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode/htm.

Additional information is available at the court's website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov.
Of particular relevance is the court's "Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and
Appellants," which is contained within the court's Rules of Practice, and Forms 5,
6, and 11.
If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your court
appeal, that is, representation at no cost to you, the Federal Circuit Bar
Association may be able to assist you in finding an attorney. To find out more,
please click on this link or paste it into the address bar on your browser:

 24
https://fedcirbar.org/Pro-Bono-Scholarships/Government-Employees-ProBono/Overview-FAQ
The Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services provided
by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a
given case.

 DFAS CHECKLIST
INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DFAS IN
ORDER TO PROCESS PAYMENTS AGREED
UPON IN SETTLEMENT CASES OR AS
ORDERED BY THE MERIT SYSTEMS
PROTECTION BOARD
AS CHECKLIST: INFORMATION REQUIRED BY IN ORDER TO PROCESS PAYMENTS AGREED UPON IN SETTLEMENT
CASES

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OFFICE MUST NOTIFY CIVILIAN PAYROLL
OFFICE VIA COMMAND LETTER WITH THE FOLLOWING:
1. Statement if Unemployment Benefits are to be deducted, with dollar amount, address
and POC to send.
2. Statement that employee was counseled concerning Health Benefits and TSP and the
election forms if necessary.
3. Statement concerning entitlement to overtime, night differential, shift premium,
Sunday Premium, etc, with number of hours and dates for each entitlement.
4. If Back Pay Settlement was prior to conversion to DCPS (Defense Civilian Pay
System), a statement certifying any lump sum payment with number of hours and
amount paid and/or any severance pay that was paid with dollar amount.
5. Statement if interest is payable with beginning date of accrual.
6. Corrected Time and Attendance if applicable.

ATTACHMENTS TO THE LETTER SHOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Copy of Settlement Agreement and/or the MSPB Order.
2. Corrected or cancelled SF 50's.
3. Election forms for Health Benefits and/or TSP if applicable.
4. Statement certified to be accurate by the employee which includes:
a. Outside earnings with copies of W2's or statement from employer.
b. Statement that employee was ready, willing and able to work during the period.
c. Statement of erroneous payments employee received such as; lump sum leave, severance
pay, VERA/VSIP, retirement annuity payments (if applicable) and if employee withdrew
Retirement Funds.
5. If employee was unable to work during any or part of the period involved, certification of the
type of leave to be charged and number of hours.

 NATIONAL FINANCE CENTER CHECKLIST FOR BACK PAY CASES
Below is the information/documentation required by National Finance Center to process
payments/adjustments agreed on in Back Pay Cases (settlements, restorations) or as
ordered by the Merit Systems Protection Board, EEOC, and courts.
1. Initiate and submit AD-343 (Payroll/Action Request) with clear and concise
information describing what to do in accordance with decision.
2. The following information must be included on AD-343 for Restoration:
a. Employee name and social security number.
b. Detailed explanation of request.
c. Valid agency accounting.
d. Authorized signature (Table 63)
e. If interest is to be included.
f. Check mailing address.
g. Indicate if case is prior to conversion. Computations must be attached.
h. Indicate the amount of Severance and Lump Sum Annual Leave Payment to
be collected. (if applicable)

Attachments to AD-343
1. Provide pay entitlement to include Overtime, Night Differential, Shift Premium, Sunday
Premium, etc. with number of hours and dates for each entitlement. (if applicable)
2. Copies of SF-50's (Personnel Actions) or list of salary adjustments/changes and
amounts.
3. Outside earnings documentation statement from agency.
4. If employee received retirement annuity or unemployment, provide amount and address
to return monies.
5. Provide forms for FEGLI, FEHBA, or TSP deductions. (if applicable)
6. If employee was unable to work during any or part of the period involved, certification of
the type of leave to be charged and number of hours.
7. If employee retires at end of Restoration Period, provide hours of Lump Sum Annual
Leave to be paid.
NOTE: If prior to conversion, agency must attach Computation Worksheet by Pay
Period and required data in 1-7 above.

The following information must be included on AD-343 for Settlement Cases: (Lump
Sum Payment, Correction to Promotion, Wage Grade Increase, FLSA, etc.)
a. Must provide same data as in 2, a-g above.
b. Prior to conversion computation must be provided.
c. Lump Sum amount of Settlement, and if taxable or non-taxable.

If you have any questions or require clarification on the above, please contact NFC’s
Payroll/Personnel Operations at 504-255-4630.

 Exhibit 

Wo'd Io, Jason (USMS)

 

 

 
 
  
   

 

From: Auerbach, Gerald (USMS)

Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:34 PM

To: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)

Cc: Anderson, David Internal Affairs 
OPR Complaints; Federa Managers
@judiciary?rep.senate.gov; Dickinson, Lisa
(OIG)

Subject: Re: Reporting Misconduct

I am out today. Thank you for your input. I will review the materials further. Have a nice weekend and
hoHday.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 16, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Wojdylo, Jason wrote:

Good Afternoon -

I very much appreciate your response. I pray your ?review? concludes
soon. After all, the Congressional investigation began in early 2015, and the
Agency had the draft OIG report by at least December 2017, or 11 months ago.

share with you the attached email from a former senior agency
official. Handwritten notes appear to have identified me as the source of
protected disclosures involving what the OIG detailed in its Report were: 1)
Violations of the Standards of Ethical Conduct; 2) prohibited personnel actions;
3) lack of candor; 4) a failure to exercise reasonable care in investigating the
allegations and crafting the draft response to Congress; and, 5) other troubling
conduct. It seems the same senior agency official may have been suggesting a
?reassignment? was in order. It is abundantly clear doing so, of course, would
very likely have constituted a prohibited personnel practice. If his notes, he
wisely didn?t follow through on what may have been his initial thoughts. That
said, it is most troublesome that may have been his attitude at the time.

Fundamentally, it is my hope?and that of many of my colleagues?that
the USMS has begun to recognize the value of whistleblowers and that the term
is no longer viewed as a dirty word at the USMS. This week, a distinguished
colleague of ours shared with me an article published in the Harvard Business
Review that reminds us all that it takes courage to call attention to ?internal
misdeeds,? particularly at the top of an organization where the tone is set for
expectations of the rank and file. We heard that last week at the USMS National
Management Conference.

I continue to be optimistic that someday soon the USMS will establish the
standard set at the FBI (second attachment). On behalf of all of those who
promote accountability in government I respectfully ask for your leadership in

achieving this vision so these employees are recognized as “a sign of health, not 
illness.”  Thank you. 
  
Jason R. Wojdylo 
Acting Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal 
Northern District of Illinois 
U.S. Marshals Service 
Chicago, Illinois  60604 
 – office 
 – mobile 
        
  
From: Auerbach, Gerald (USMS)  
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 2:46 PM 
To: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS) 
 
Cc: Anderson, David (USMS) 
; Internal Affairs (USMS) 
; 
, John (USMS) 
; OPR Complaints 
; 
, 
 (OIG) 
; Federal Managers Assoc.(USMS) 
; 
@judiciary‐rep.senate.gov' 
; Dickinson, 
Lisa (USMS) 
 
Subject: RE: Reporting Misconduct 
  
Acting Chief Deputy‐ thank you for your email. We are reviewing the OGC practice 
regarding reporting allegations of misconduct arising in  lawsuits, tort claims, 
grievances, EEO complaints, ADRs, etc., received by this office. We are already in the 
process of contacting other DOJ OGCs to determine their practices inasmuch as there is 
no DOJ guidance. The practice here has been not to routinely refer all tort 
claims,  lawsuit, and grievance  allegations of misconduct  for OPR/OIG 
investigation.  USMS policy does not provide for reporting allegations of misconduct for 
investigation to USM/OGC. Rather, the report is to made to OPR. Our review of this 
matter is ongoing.  
  
From: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)  
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 3:01 PM 
To: Auerbach, Gerald (USMS) 
 
Cc: Anderson, David (USMS) 
; Internal Affairs (USMS) 
; 
, 
(USMS) 
; OPR Complaints 
, 
 (OIG) 
; 
; Federal Managers Assoc.(USMS) 
; 
 
@judiciary‐rep.senate.gov' 
Subject: Reporting Misconduct 
  
Good Afternoon Gerry – 
  

            I recently had an opportunity to read the Agency’s response to the draft 
OIG report entitled, “A Review of Allegations of Improper Hiring Practices in the 
United States Marshals Service and Related Matters” (my true name was 
mentioned therein).  I was particularly struck by the section, “Comments of 
USMS Office of General Counsel.”   
  
2

 









Under 1. it reads, “The USMS Office of General Counsel (OGC) 
is not the appropriate office in the USMS to report allegations 
of misconduct for investigation to.  The OGC does not conduct 
misconduct investigations.  An employee with knowledge of 
alleged misconduct must report the information to his or her 
supervisor for reporting to the USMS Office of Professional 
Responsibility.”   
Under 2. it reads, “As a practice, every lawsuit, tort claim, and 
employee complaint allegation presented to the USMS OGC is 
not forwarded or reported to USMS OPR.  The proper 
procedure is for the employee to report to his supervisor for 
reporting to USMS OPR as stated above.”   
Under 3. it reads, “OGC was not aware, nor would it have 
been aware, whether grievant Wojdylo had in fact forwarded 
his allegations of quid pro quo to USMS OPR since USMS OPR 
does not routinely disclose what allegations are made to 
it.  The reasonable expectation would be that Mr. Wojdylo had 
done so since he was very familiar with the USMS OPR filing 
process.”  
Under 5. it reads, “While General Counsel (GC) Gerald 
Auerbach believes that grievant Wojdylo’s allegation of quid 
pro quo should have been reported to the USMS OPR, 
Wojdylo was responsible for reporting the allegations to his 
supervisor or reporting it to the USMS OPR.”  It goes onto say, 
“Mr. Wojdylo was very well versed in OPR reporting and knew 
the process intimately.”   
Under 8. it reads, “Had anyone referred the matter to USMS 
OPR at some point from 2011 forward, more may have been 
known and the Congressional response could have perhaps 
been different.” 

  
            I bring to your attention the attachments, the second from the USMS 
Ethics Officer―an OGC a orney―dating back to February 2012, that explicitly 
states OGC is, in fact, a repository for allegations of misconduct.  Moreover, in 
June 2014 (third attachment), a subordinate employee was told by OGC, “OGC 
attorneys have the same obligation to report alleged misconduct as any other 
USMS employees.”  Also in June 2014, a USMS OPR official asserts, “To be sure, 
all USMS employees, to include OGC attorneys, have a duty to report employee 
misconduct to the Office of the Inspector General and/or the Office of Inspection 
‐ Internal Affairs.”  It has more recently come to my attention that OGC may have 
directed the Office of the Ombuds to report all allegations of misconduct to 
OPR.  If true, the USMS Code of Professional Responsibility applies to all 
employees, regardless of assignment.  Thus, all of this information appears to be 
contrary to the Agency’s response to the OIG in January 2018 (i.e., others within 
the Agency, to include the USMS Ethics Officer and OPR, affirmatively take a 
different position). 
  
            It seems the OIG may have rejected each of the responses by OGC in its 
final report of September 20, 2018.  Given OPR’s response of September 28, 
3

 2018, to the subordinate employee remains unanswered, is there an opportunity 
to better understand OGC’s reporting obligation(s) of non‐frivolous allegations of 
misconduct to OPR in light of more than six years of conflicting information from 
what was reported to the OIG earlier this year?   
  
I am also particularly interested in understanding how, according OIG’s 
final report, Lisa Dickinson, then and now second in command at OGC, found it 
appropriate to forward my protected disclosures to Kim Beal on Monday March 
23, 2015, or four days after Chairman Grassley’s letter (at page 80, “On Monday, 
March 23, Dickinson forwarded to Beal the employee’s February 20, 2014, email 
to Zimmermann.”), yet OGC believes it is absolved from reporting allegations of 
misconduct to OPR?  After all, Beal was known to Dickinson at the time to be a 
subject of the Congressional investigation.  It goes without saying greater 
importance appears to have been placed upon the Dickinson to Beal exchange 
than was sharing with the Department all known information so it may timely 
respond to Congress accurately (i.e., according to the OIG’s final report Dickinson 
forwarded to Beal my protected disclosures on March 23, three days before the 
Department’s March 26 response to Congress; at page ii, “The Department 
issued a letter to Senator Grassley on March 26, 2015, that contained 
information that was plainly inconsistent with representations made in an email 
communication written by one of the individuals whose conduct was the subject 
of Senator Grassley’s inquiry.”). 
  
The OIG concluded William Snelson lacked candor in his responses (at 
page 48, “We did not find credible Snelson’s statements that he was unable to 
recall key events in Palmer’s hire or actions that he clearly took, and therefore 
believe his testimony to the OIG lacked candor”).  Similarly, based on the totality 
of the aforementioned information does it raise legitimate questions about the 
forthrightness of the response(s) by OGC officials to the OIG and Congress, as 
well?  Candidly, I find the attempt to deflect responsibility to me to be quite 
troublesome. 
  
            I look forward to hearing back from you.  Thank you. 
  
Jason R. Wojdylo 
Acting Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal 
Northern District of Illinois 
U.S. Marshals Service 
Chicago, Illinois  60604 
 – office 
 – mobile 
  
  
P.S. – I have considered your advice and out of an abundance of caution copied 
my supervisor, OPR, OIG, and Congress to cover any reporting requirements. 
<Musel email.pdf>
<Chairman Grassely_Comey.pdf>

4

 U.S. Department of Justice

United States Marshals Service

 

O?ice of the Director

 

Washington, D. C. 20530-1000

January 30, 2018
MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Horowitz
Inspector General .
FROM: David J. Anderson a. June'?
Acting Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Response to Draft Report Entitled Review of

Allegations of Improper Hiring Practices in the United States
Marshals Service and Related Matters.?

This is response to your Memorandum dated December 20, 2017 to Deputy Director
David L. Harlow on this subject. Your Memorandum provided a copy of the dra? Of?ce of
inspector General (016) Report on the above-captioned subject and requested the United States
Marshals Service (USMS) to comment on the dra? Report, including whether there are any
factual inconsistences, and also requested a sensitivity review and the USMS views on whether
information in the Report is inappropriate for public release.

As you know, David Harlow retired from the USMS on January 3, 2018, and the
undersigned was designated by the Deputy Attorney General as the Acting Deputy Director
effective January 4, 2018. In my role as Acting Deputy Director, I am committed to assuring the
best possible personnel, administrative, and operational practices for the USMS, learning from
the past and seeking to use those lessons in the future. In particular, I desire that the hiring
practices of the USMS be fair and impartial and above reproach at all times.

I have thoroughly reviewed the draft Report. In the draft Report, 016 concluded that the
hiring of a contractor employee in January 2012 was improper as an unfair preference, and that
the hiring of an administrative employee in August 2010 also involved an unfair preference. The
010 also concluded that there was no illegal quid pro quo in connection with the January 2012
contractor employee hiring, that there was no illegal quid pro quo in connection with the August
2010 administrative hiring, and that there was no quid pro quo in connection with the promotion
of Kimberly Beal to Assistant Director for Asset Forfeiture. In addition, 010 concluded that
there was no violation of ?internal controls? by allowing an administrative employee to manage a
program that was not under the control of her husband who supervised another division, and that
the reassignment of that same administrative employee to another division after her husband was
elevated to be within her chain of command did not involve any improper preferential treatment.

Finally, the OIG found that an inaccuracy in a Congressional response was due to a ?awed
process, and speci?c failures of the retired USMS Director and a retired Assistant Director.

I have noted that the only speci?c recommendhon made in the draft Report, at page 48,
is for the USMS to review former Associate Director for Operations (ADO) William Snelson?s
conduct in connection with the hiring of an administrative employee in August 2010 for
disciplinary or administrative action. As an update for your of?ce, ADO Snelson retired from
the USMS on December 31, 2017, and is no longer a USMS employee. Inasmuch as referrals of
misconduct ?ndings were not made against the retired USMS Director and a retired USMS
Assistant Director due to their separation from the federal government, we would expect the
same action would follow with respect to retired ADO Snelson.

The ?ndings of improper preferential treatment are taken very seriously and are a very
important concern as the USMS moves forward. We believe that proper hiring practices are
crucial to the best interests of the USMS, the Department of Justice and the public interest.
While the Report details two speci?c hiring violations, there does not appear to be evidence of a
pattern or continuing violations of improper hiring in the Report. Nonetheless, I am committed
to emphasizing the need for fair and impartial hiring practices in the USMS.

With respect to your request for a sensitivity and public release review, as well as a
review of factual inaccuracies, the following is provided.

?en?itivig ReviewZMIic 

While the draft Report does not appear to include any law enforcement sensitive
information, we do believe that public release of the Report would potentially violate legal
privacy protections. While we recognize that this draft Report has been categorized as an
Oversight and Review Report, as opposed to a Misconduct Investigation Report, the draft Report
does not contain any programmatic recommendations to the agency, and no recommendations at
all other than disciplinary consideration for ADO Snelson, which is now moot. Instead, the draft
Report deals with discrete and speci?c allegations of misconduct regarding preferential treatment
in employment. Allegations are speci?cally lodged against four retired agency employees. The
draft Report ?nds violations in two instances, involving three of the retired employees. The
referrals of misconduct ?ndings regarding these allegations would have led to disciplinary
consideration. Thus, by all appearances, this is a misconduct investigation. The OIG website
provides, ?Misconduct Investigation Reports are only published in summary form without names
being used." The OIG website also notes that for a Misconduct Investigation the subject is
provided an opportunity to review the Report and summary for comment by the subject
employee. In this case, the subject employees were provided an opportunity to review the draft
Report and comment to the OIG. Thus, by all appearances, the draft Report is a Misconduct
Investigation.

Moreover, it appears that public release of the Report may violate the Privacy Act of
1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. As you know, under the Privacy Act, OIG has published a system of
records notice, in the Federal Register, 72 FR 36725 (July 5, 2007), describing
the ?Of?ce of Inspector General Investigative Records" Privacy Act system of records. The
records included in the system of records include investigative reports on former Department of
Justice employees subject to misconduct investigations. This draft Report seems to ?t squarely
within the category of records described by this system of records since it deals speci?cally with
alleged misconduct violations by the four former USMS employees.

The disclosure of records from a system of records is governed by 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of

the Privacy Act. As to public release, the applicable provision is ?routine use.? 5 U.S.C.
55mm). The routine uses for the JustieelOlG-OOI system of records are listed in the system
notice cited above. As for public release, a routine use is allowed for disclosure pursuant to 28
CPR. 50.2 when it is determined that release would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy. See 72 FR 36725, at (K). 28 CPR. 50.2 provides for public release of
certain information in criminal and civil cases. it does not deal with administrative investigative
reports.

Accordingly, there is reason to believe that public release of the Report, which deals
exclusively with misconduct allegations, would violate the Privacy Act of 1974. The USMS is
not the pre-eminent Privacy Act expert in the Department of ustice, but we suggests that 01G
consult with the Of?ce of Privacy and Civil Liberties before any public release of this Report is
made.

Factual steamy E91 Legal Review

The USMS understands that the draft Report has been made available to former Director
Stacie Hylton, former Associate Director for Operations William Snelson, former Assistant
Director for Asset Forfeiture Kimberly Bea], and former Acting U.S. Marshal David Sligh. We
understand they have been provided the opportunity to assert any factual inaccluacies they may
contend are present. Thus, the USMS will defer to their individual responses on factual
inaccuracies as to any facts or conclusions related to them. As for the others mentioned in the
dra? Report, including former Associate Director for Administration David Muse] (retired
effective December 31, 2017), Of?ce of Congressional Affairs Chief William Delaney, and the
USMS Of?ce of General Counsel, speci?c comments from them are included in the Attachment
at the end of this response. Of course, in the absence of transcripts of interviews conducted by
016 and review of documents collected by OIG, any of these comments are based on personal
recollection and the limited documents that each person may have.

Notwithstanding, we believe there are legal issues which were not considered by 016
relevant to this draft Report which should be considered. In particular, with respect to the legal
conclusion in Chapter Two regarding the ?nding that former Director Hylton improperly
urecommended? Donald Lenzie for a contractor employee position, the 016 fails to consider the
signi?cance of 5 C.F.R. which states in part, that an employee:

?may sign a letter of recommendation using his of?cial title only in response to a request
for an employment recommendation or character reference based upon personal
knowledge of the ability or character of an individual with whom he has dealt in the
course of Federal employment or whom he is recommending for Federal employmen 

This regulatory language has no express limitation on employee recommendations for persons
seeking employment in the reconunending employee?s agency or even for positions under the
reconunending person?s supervision. This regulation would appear to speci?cally apply to any
recommendation made by former Director Hylton for Donald Lenzie, who was seeking federal
employment and who was well quali?ed'

In addition, the Of?ce of Government Ethics (06E) opined on this subject in DOW-023

 

in addition, the nor Of?ce of Legal Counsel speci?cally approved a HUD program allowing for monetary awards
to its employees for recommending potential candidates, including ?iends. to ?ll certain jobs. 13 OLC 277, 1939
WI. 595846 (August 17. 1989}. Under the award pray-am. recommendations were allowed for positions within the
recommending employee?s agency, without any mentioned exclusion for positions under the reconunending
employee's supervision.

(August 1, 2007) regarding the ?Misuse of Federal Position to Help Another Person Get a Job.?
The advice dealt with employment recommendations by federal employees for others" private
employment based on their work with the Federal government, but analyzed the issue under the
private gain standard. The OGE recognized that there was no ?bright line? and set out several
factors to consider. The fact that Lenzie had already applied for the position before be contacted
former Director Hylton, that Lenzie had substantial federal experience of which Hylton was
aware, and that he was well quali?ed for the positions are favorable factors. Speci?cally, OGE
stated that:

An employment contact made on behalf of a current or former Federal Government
colleague or subordinate may appear to be akin to a written recommendation permitted
by section In such cases, the employee would be able to comment based on
personal knowledge how and why he believes the Federal colleague or subordinate would
make a valuable contribution to the prospective employer.

Id at p. 6.

Thus the issue of federal employees making employment recommendations of others for
federal employment has been subject to differing analyses. At minimum, the legality of
recommendation of candidates for federal employment based on an employee?s knowledge of the
applicant?s speci?c skills and experience, even within the recommending employee?s own
agency or under the recommender?s supervision, was not clear in 2011 when the Lenzie matter
occurred. Not until February 2015, when the 010 issued Report 15-04 ?nding that a
recommendation for federal employment by a federal employee was in violation of C.F.R. 
2635.702, was the 016 on record in this regard to the best of our knowledge. Nor has OGE ever
forbidden such recommendations to our knowledge. We believe this should be taken into
consideration.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft Report.

Attachment

MM

Comments of former Associate Director for Adminimtign David Musel

I. Page 24, second full paragraph: ?The interview panel was chaired by the AD for the Witness
Security Division, and included . . should read, ?The interview panel was chaired by the
Associate Director for Administration, and included . . 

2. Page 73, ?rst full paragraph, ?rst sentence is incomplete . . . ?email and told him that she
found the record ?further review,? and Delaney . . There appears to be a missing word after
?record.?

3. Beginning page 79: Substantively, the 010 is incorrect in their characterization of actions
taken by the Agency regarding inaccurate response to Congressional inquiries. I
speci?cally recall asking relevant parties of the allegation (namely Director Hylton and AD
Real) to search their records for email communications. I also speci?cally recall telling Director
Hylton she needed to search her ?personal? computer. I was in her of?ce when she conducted a
search on her of?ce computer. I also asked her to search her computer at home. During that
visit, no additional records were discovered on her o?ice computer.

4. I also speci?cally recall that I knew that it was impossible to know with 100% certainty that
we had all relevant emails and that it was ajudgment call on the level of con?dence that we had
the relevant information before releasing the letter to OLA.

5. Also, I did think to expand the search of records on/about the day we released the draft to
OLA because it occurred to me at that time that, although highly unlikely, other people in the
division have relevant records and that it was prudent to continue to seek information. It did
not occur to me earlier to ask for a division-wide search.

Comnts of Chief, Qf?ce 9f Conmssional Affairs William Delaney

1. The USMS Office of Congressional Affairs made a good faith effort to gather and analyze the
information made available to it in the seven day period of time set by Senator Grassley?s March
19, 2015 letter, and the Department?s response on March 26, 201 S. We accept and appreciate the
016?s suggestion that, despite unrealistic demands for responses in short periods of time, we
should take appropriate care and caution to ensure we provide accurate responses to complex
oversight allegations.

Commen of USMS Of?ce of General ounsel

l. The USMS Of?ce of General Counsel (OGC) is not the appropriate of?ce in the USMS to
report allegations of misconduct for investigation to. The OGC does not conduct misconduct
investigations. An employee with knowledge of alleged misconduct must report the information
to his or her supervisor for reporting to the USMS Of?ce of Professional Responsibility. See
USMS Policy Directive 

2. The USMS OGC receives many allegations of employee misconduct in connection with
lawsuits, tort claims, employee complaints, among others. The USMS OGC has no personal
knowledge related to these allegations. As a practice, every lawsuit, tort claim, and employee
complaint allegation presented to the USMS OGC is not forwarded or reported to USMS OPR.
The proper procedure is for the employee to report to his supervisor for reporting to USMS OPR

as stated above.

3. In connection with the 2013 Alternative Di ute Resolution (ADR), grievant Wojdylo
presented three issues to Attomeyd none of which were related to the ADR subject
matter. One involved the LGBT Recognition Day, one involved a bowling party, and one
involved Mr. Lenzie. Although grievant received no reply from USMS OGC on these matters,
the only issue he raised with the Associate Director for Administration in February 2014 was the
LGBT Recognition Day issue. OGC was not aware, nor would it have been aware, whether
grievant Wojdylo had in fact forwarded his allegations of quid pro quo to USMS OPR since
USMS OPR does not routinely disclose what allegations are made to it. The reasonable
expectation would be that Mr. Wojdylo had done so since he was very familiar with the USMS
OPR ?ling process.

4. USMS OGC had no knowledge whether former USMS Director Hylton had recommended
Mr. Lenzie or not. She indicated that she had not. Nor would USMS OGC have had any reason
to believe that Assistant Director Bea] received a promotion as a quid pro quo (which 016 has
concluded was not the case).

5. While General Counsel (GC) Gerald Auerbach believes that grievant Wojdylo?s allegations of
quid pro quo should have been reported to the USMS OPR, Wojdylo was responsible for
reporting the allegations to his supervisor or reporting it to the USMS OPR. The events occurred
in 20] and grievant Wojdylo did not even raise it until December 2013, and then only in his
own ADR. Mr. Wojdylo was very well versed in OPR reporting and knew the process

intimately.

6. Contrary to the draft Report?s summary, at page 76, there was no reason for the OGC to
suggest that the Congressional response be amended to re?ect that OGC had learned of the quid
pro quo allegations before the Senator Grassley letter of March 19, 2015. Since OGC had no
basis for believing the validity of the quid pro quo allegation (which 016 has now concluded
was not valid), it is unclear how the prior ?ling of the same untrue allegation would be relevant
to the Congressional response.

7. Contrary to the draft Report?s inference on page 81, second paragraph, when Senator
Grassley's March 19, 2015, letter was responded to, the quid pro quo allegation was on record
and there was no reason for USMS DOC to report anything to USMS OPR in March 2015.

8. Although it is implied that the USMS OGC's ?failure" to report the quid pro quo allegations
attributed to the error in the Congressional response of March 26, 2015, there is no basis for that
implication other than mere conjecture. Had anyone referred the matter to USMS OPR at some
point from 20] 1 forward, more may have been known and the Congressional response could
have perhaps been different. The Congressional inquiry itself may not have been necessary at
all. But, even if a USMS OPR investigation had been commenced, there is no way of telling
what information would have been obtained or when. Since history cannot be recreated, 
supposition is pure speculation. In fact, the Congressional response was apparently based on
misunderstanding or differing views on the de?nition of the term ?recommendation," and was
immediately addressed upon discovery of the issue.

Musel, David (USMS)

 

,om: Beal, Kim (USMS) 3 

Sent: Tuesday, April 21. 2015 7:35 AM it,
To: Musel, David (USMS) .
Cc ?<usms)

Subject: Re: Other Than

Assigned to Asset Management and_ - reports to - specifically International 5 i

Operations.

Regional Program Managers - reports to Jason Wojdylo -





1vacancy 

Brett- - reports to Tim

Total - 9.

  
  

.ent from my iPad

on Apr 21, 2015, at 7:18 (umsi? wrote;

We have 8 deputies in total assigned to AFD. The 2 you list, plus 5 regional managers (1 is currently
vacant):

-lW/Wa)

NY)
I (S/m


And Assigned to HQS.

 
    

From: Musel, David (USMS)
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 07:07 AM

To: Beal, Kim (USMS)
Subject: Other Than

Other than the AFFIs in the districts, how many 1811?s in 

Jason
TJ

Anyone else?

Con?rm that the AFFIs are assigned to district chain-of-command??

 

David F. Muse], J.D.

Associate Director for Administration

Unlted States Marshals Service
Direct

/O=USMS/OU=NORTH/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JWOJDYLO
Subject:

FW: Compliance with Standards Against Nepotism and Conflicts of Interest

 
From:
,
USMS)
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 7:05 PM
To: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Subject: Fw: Compliance with Standards Against Nepotism and Conflicts of Interest

From:
,
(USMS)
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 03:49 PM
To:
,
(USMS)
Cc:
,
(USMS)
Subject: RE: Compliance with Standards Against Nepotism and Conflicts of Interest

I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
1) If your first paragraph refers to nepotism violations, we may or may not refer to OSC. OII investigates
such matters and management may take action against an employee if the facts support the
charge(s). Any employee may refer an allegation of misconduct within the scope of OSC, to OSC.
2) Nepotism, by definition, does not involve contract employees. The statute applies to federal employees
being involved in the hiring of relatives (of a certain family relationship) into federal service. Aside from
nepotism, it may not be appropriate for a federal employee to be involved with the hiring of a relative by
a contract company to perform work in the USMS. The process is not supposed to work you describe
it. A USMS employee should not be telling a contract company who to hire to fill a USMS need under
the contract. A USMS employee may pass along the resume of anyone to the contract company to
consider for hiring, but generally positions should not filled at the contract company with specific
persons USMS employees “designate” or choose. Friends of USMS employees may apply for, and
accept a position with the contract company as long as there is a need, and they qualify for the position.
Once on board, such contract employees should fulfill functions that are contained in the SOW,
etc. While I understand you are saying this may not always be the case, it is also true that oftentimes
what USMS employees hear about a matter is not complete or accurate.
3) Finally, as you know, allegations of misconduct by USMS employees in contracts, hiring, etc., should
be brought to the attention of supervisors, OII, OGC, or OIG.
Thanks,

From:
,
(USMS)
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:58 PM
To:
,
(USMS)
Cc:
,
(USMS)
Subject: Re: Compliance with Standards Against Nepotism and Conflicts of Interest

 
Ok I will standby.  
 
Can I least get one of you to answer my first question ‐ basically a yes or no question.  
1

  
Thanks.  
 
 
Sent from Blackberry device
From:
,
(USMS)
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 01:15 PM
To:
,
(USMS)
Cc:
,
(USMS)
Subject: RE: Compliance with Standards Against Nepotism and Conflicts of Interest

As soon as I can. I have a queue, and questions to answer in the order I receive them as soon as I am able….
Thanks,

From:
,
(USMS)
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:01 PM
To:
,
(USMS)
Cc:
,
(USMS)
Subject: RE: Compliance with Standards Against Nepotism and Conflicts of Interest

 
, 
 
Any idea on when you might be able to answer my questions? 
 

 
  
Assistant Chief Inspector 
Asset Forfeiture Division 
 – office 
 – mobile 
 
From:
,
USMS)
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:15 PM
To:
,
(USMS)
Cc:
,
(USMS)
Subject: RE: Compliance with Standards Against Nepotism and Conflicts of Interest

 
Luis,   
 
Happy New Year to you also!  Hope your holidays were great.  I’m copying 
 
 on this so that he may 
weigh in.  You raise interesting questions and I would prefer that you get the correct response from OGC.   
 
Hope this finds you well. 
 

 
 
From:
(USMS)
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 3:14 PM
To:
(USMS)
Subject: FW: Compliance with Standards Against Nepotism and Conflicts of Interest
2

  
Hi 
, 
 
Happy New Year. 
 
Reference the email and attachment can you tell me if the agency forwards violations of Title 5 to the Office of Special 
Counsel for further investigation when they are discovered or are the violations handled internally?  As you know there 
have been several violations in the past few years and to the normal employee little to nothing is ever done to hold the 
public official/employee accountable.  
 
Also, does Title 5 include contract employees?  Example;  a senior manager who has jurisdiction over another manager 
recommends a person/friend for a high level (well paid)contractor position.  The manager who has the vacancy wants to 
stay in the good graces of the senior manager.  The manager knows promotions will be coming up in the near future and 
does not want to do anything to hurt their chances so they hire the person that was recommended by the senior 
manager.   There is no doubt that the only reason the person was hired for the contractor position was because of their 
relationship with the senior manager and the perceived notion that if the recommended person was not hired, the 
manager would not be considered for future promotions.   
 
Thanks for your help,  
 

 
  
Assistant Chief Inspector 
Asset Forfeiture Division 
 – office 
 – mobile 
 
From: Administrative Notices (USMS)
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 10:44 AM
To: USMS-ALL
Cc:
,
(USMS);
,
(USMS);
,
(USMS);
(USMS)
Subject: Compliance with Standards Against Nepotism and Conflicts of Interest

,

(USMS);

,

 

POC:

(HRD);

Memorandum dated January 5, 2012, from the Deputy Director regarding the requirement to comply
with standards against nepotism and conflicts of interest.

3

 Wo'ldylo, Jason (USMS)
From: -, 

Sent: Frida Se tember 28, 2018 2:02 PM

 
 
   
 

To: (USMS)
Cc: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Subject: RE: Memorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy

Attorney General

Thank you -, I appreciate your office reviewing this matter. I hope you have a great weekend as well.

Assistant Chief Inspector
US. Marshals Service

(direct)
(mobile)

Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 12:49 PM
To: (USMS)

Cc: (USMS) ,Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Subject: RE: Memorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General

 
  

  
    

 

Good afternoon. and sorry for the delay in responding. OPR is reviewing this matter and will get
back to you as soon as possible. Thank you and have a great weekend,

  

From: 

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 4:13 PM

To: (USMS)
Cc: I (USMS) ,Wojdylo, Jason 

Subject: FW: Memorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General

Acting AD-,

I ask that you please read in its entirety the below email thread that initiated on June 17, 2014 based
on the ?Memorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General? that was sent out
by the Department ofJustice on April 11, 2014 (see attached memo). I also ask that you read the below
excerpt taken from the recent DOJ OIG Report, Review of Allegations of Improper Hiring Practices in
the United States Marshals Service and Related Matters? dated September 2018.

According to the USMS, it is not practice or responsibility to refer to OPR allegations of
misconduct it learns through tort claims, lawsuits, and employee complaints, and OGC is not
informed

by OPR of what complaints it receives. The USMS also stated in its comments that because OGC
had no basisfor believing the validity of the quid pro quo allegation, ?it is unclear how the filing
of the same untrue allegation would be relevant to the Congressional response.?

Please note your email response to me dated June 18, 2014 where you state, “To be sure, all USMS 
employees, to include OGC attorneys, have a duty to report employee misconduct to the Office of the 
Inspector General and/or the Office of Inspection‐ Internal Affairs.” directly conflicts with what the 
agency stated to the OIG.  I find this troubling because 
, the USMS Ethic Officer who is 
also an Assistant General Counsel, reviewed your email and provided me additional clarification on June 
26, 2014 by stating, “OGC attorneys have the same obligation to report alleged misconduct as any other 
USMS employees”.      
 
I believe OPR should, in conjunction with the Office of Professional Responsibility for the Department of 
Justice, work to immediately establish guidance and oversight for the attorneys assigned to the OGC.  It 
is my understanding all USMS employees, including those in OGC, must annually acknowledge the USMS 
Code of Professional Responsibility.  When OGC personnel do no report/refer to OPR allegations of 
misconduct it learns through tort claims, lawsuits, and employee complaints (as stated to the DOJ OIG) 
they violate the USMS Standards for the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be subject 
disciplinary action.             
 
I would also like to point out the second statement of the excerpt directly conflicts with agency 
practice.  The USMS also stated in its comments that because OGC had no basis for believing the validity 
of the quid pro quo allegation, “it is unclear how the filing of the same untrue allegation would be 
relevant to the Congressional response.” The USMS has taken the stance that OPR allegations are true 
until proven otherwise.  This agency perspective is the very reason individuals who are the subject of an 
OPR investigation are not allowed to promote through the merit promotion process.  It’s only after an 
employee is exonerated through the OPR investigation or the discipline process (which could take years) 
are they able to be considered for promotion.     
 
Thank you for your time.  If your office needs any assistance in finding a solution to these matters, I 
would be happy to participate in drafting up guidance and/or working with DOJ/OPR and others to 
implement immediate corrective action.  If you have any questions or need any additional information 
please let me know.   
 
Respectfully, 
 
 
 

Assistant Chief Inspector 
U.S. Marshals Service 
 (direct)  
 (mobile) 
 
I have copied 
 
 as the agency Ombudsman and Chief Jason Wojdylo as the Law Enforcement 
Representative to the Federal Managers Association.   
 
 
 
From: 
, 
 (USMS)  
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:01 AM 
To: 
, 
(USMS) 
 
Cc: 
, 
(USMS) 
 
Subject: RE: Memorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General 
 
Luis, 
 
2

 You may ask whoever you like for clarification.
As I think both .and have been saying to you, OGC attorneys have the same obligation to report
alleged misconduct as any other USMS employees, unless there is an attorney-client relationship with a

USMS employee and pursuant to the attorney?s professional responsibility obligations.

Thanks

Fromm, (USMS)
Sent: nes ay, une 25, 2014 5:08 PM

To: (USMS)
Cc: (USMS)
SubJe emorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General

I?m sorry, but I am not at all clear on what you wrote.

  
  
 
     
  
 

I am trying to understand obligation to report violations and/or alleged violations of law, policy,
code of conduct and/or ethical violations to the Office of Inspection as per the last paragraph of the
Whistleblowing Training Memo from DAG, dated April, 10, 2014. Per the below email string between
Chief- and myself, you can see where I need clarification which I may not have explained
clearly in my email to you.

I know you may be swamped in preparing for the training so If you like, I can ask for
clarification on requirements and their interpretation of how attorney client privilege can be used
with regard to not reporting violations and or misconduct. Let me know.

Thank you,

Assistant Chief Inspector
U.S. Marshals Service

(direct)
(mobile)
From:!, a (USMS)
Sent: ues ay, June 2014 1:48 PM
Cc: (USMS)
Subje emorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General



OGC attorneys generally represent the ?agency? and its management. However, when any one of us is
assigned to a civil litigation case where one or more of its employees is being sued in a personal capacity
(and representation is approved), then we join the defense with the AUSA assigned to the case. At
that point, we are like the AUSA: we have an attorney-client relationship with the defendant(s). When
OGC is representing the agency and its managers in FTCA (and likely in MSPB or EEOC) cases, OGC
attorneys have a client confidentiality obligation to those who represent the agency (similar to the
concept of the corporate ?control group?) although the scope of the principle is less clear than in the
context of personal capacity representation of government employees. In the context of official

 

 

    
    
 

3

representation, the question of who is the client, which employees represent the ?agency,? and who is
entitled to claim the privilege is murkier. These decisions are made by government attorneys in
accordance with their professional responsibility obligations as described in the jurisdiction(s) in which
they are licensed to practice law.

Does the above clarify the matter for you? I am also attaching a generally applicable written by OIP, 
on the subject.

Thanks,

Fromm, (USMS)
Sent: ur ay, une 014 3:21 PM

To: (USMS)
Subje emorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General

  
    
    
    

-- let me know if you have any questions.
From:H, (USMS)
Sent: ur ay, une 19, 2014 11:57 AM

To: (USMS)
Cc: (USMS)
SubJe emorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General

  
  
    
   

H.-,

was going to wait for the AFFI orientation to bring up the below question but thought we would be too
busy. Thank you for your assistance.

As per the below email thread between myself and Chief-, can you explain the

following statement more so that I am completely clear ?The attorney-client privilege attaches to
employee-attorney communication only if the employee was scoped for representative purposes." In
the initial email Chief- states, attorneys represent the agency, not individual
employees? but then states there is an exception when OGC scopes an employee for representation
purposes pursuant to civil litigation and occasionally grievance procedures.

My concern (and where I am confused a bit) is with the grievance portion of the last statement. Isn?t the
purpose of a grievance to correct dissatisfaction with certain qualifying issues, violations or
problems/actions between agency (management) and an employee? Why would OGC represent an
employee (manager) responsible for an employee grievance action and invoke attorney client

privilege? It seems contrary to the grievance process. The grievance procedures policy states under
responsibilities that, ?Management officials and supervisors are required to recognize and correct the
courses of legitimate grievances and make efforts to adjust employee complaints informally whenever
possible.? If OGC scopes an employee/manager which requires them to invoke attorney-client privilege
then that employee?s (manager?s) actions can be considered almost immune from an investigation
conducted by Internal Affairs because OGC is relieved of their reporting requirements. lack of
reporting in these instances is completely contrary to the DAG memo, grievance policy, and 
grievance guidance.

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Assistant Chief Inspector 
U.S. Marshals Service 
 (direct)  
 (mobile)  
 
From:
,
(USMS)
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:31 PM
To:
,
(USMS)
Subject: RE: Memorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General

 
You are welcome.  Good luck. 
 
From:
,
(USMS)
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:28 PM
To:
,
(USMS)
Subject: RE: Memorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General

 
A little bit.  
 
Thank you! 
 

 will be in Houston in a few weeks I will get him then. 

Assistant Chief Inspector 
U.S. Marshals Service 
 (direct)  
 (mobile)  
 
From:
,
(USMS)
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:22 PM
To:
,
(USMS);
,
(USMS);
,
(USMS)
Subject: RE: Memorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General

 
The attorney‐client privilege attaches to employee‐attorney communication only if the employee was 
scoped for representative purposes pursuant to civil litigation and occasionally grievance procedures 
(EEO complaints, ethical violations inquires would not qualify).  OGC ethics officer 
 can 
give you a more detailed explanation.   I hope this helps.   
 
From:
,
(USMS)
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:33 PM
To:
,
(USMS);
,
(USMS);
,
(USMS)
Subject: RE: Memorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General

 
Thank you Chief.  I greatly appreciate your response.  Can you provide me with additional information 
with regard to limited exemption that you reference in your response – see highlighted area, ie: What is 
the exemption? Where is it referenced in policy or law?  What is the agency or DOJ guidance available to 
employees, etc.   
 
Respectfully, 
 

Assistant Chief Inspector 
5

 U.S. Marshals Service

(direct)
(mobile)
Fromm, 
Sent' nes ay, une 2014 12: 44 PM
To: -, (USMS)
SubJe omrandum on hI eblower Training rom the Deputy Attorney General
Assistant Chief-,

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding OGC attorneys? duty to report misconduct. To be sure,
all USMS employees, to include OGC attorneys, have a duty to report employee misconduct to the Office
of the Inspector General and/or the Of?ce of Inspection- Internal Affairs. I am not aware of any
incident in which an OGC attorney attempted to circumvent the reporting requirement using the
attorney-client privilege. In fact, aside from a very limited exception involving litigation matters, OGC
attorneys represent the agency, not individual employees. Nevertheless, if you have evidence to the
contrary, IA would be interested in reviewing it.

  

 
 

With regard to Deputy Attorney General Cole's memorandum on Whistleblower complaints, the last
paragraph references misconduct alleged against department attorneys, including OGC

attorneys. When made aware of such complaints, IA coordinates with OPR to ensure attorney
complaints are properly addressed. Accordingly, it would be unnecessary for the Office of Inspection to
create ?oversight or agency guidance? as suggested.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns. Rest assured, IA takes allegations of misconduct seriously
and all allegations are processed according to established policies and procedures. Please do not
hesitate to contact me directly if you have questions or need additional information.

  
    

From:!, I (USMS)
Sent' ues ay, June 17, 2014 12:59 PM


uJe emoran muon Istleblower raining rom eDeputy Attorney General

Based on the last paragraph of this memo regarding Department attorney misconduct, is the Office of
Inspection creating some type of oversight or agency guidance that will ensure our agency?s OGC
attorneys immediately report violations and/or alleged violations of law, policy, ethics and

misconduct to your office that they learn about during the course of their duties while representing the
agency during grievance procedures, EEO complaints, ethical violations inquires etc.? Current and past
practice has been that OGC attorneys do not report all violations or alleged violations of law, policy,
ethics and misconduct that they learn about; instead, they used the attorney client privilege (agency as
the client) to circumvent their reporting obligations.

       

Respectfully,

Assistant Chief Inspector
U.S. Marshals Service

(direct)
(mobile)

 

 
From: The Deputy Attorney General [mailto:
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 4:08 PM
To: The Deputy Attorney General (JMD)
Subject: Memorandum on Whistleblower Training from the Deputy Attorney General

 
Please see attached memorandum on Whistleblower Training. 
 
 

7

 Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Full Judiciary Committee
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Time: 10:00 AM
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building 226
Presiding: Chairman Grassley
CEG: I have at least three questions I’d like to ask you. In your confirmation hearing you
expressed strong support for whistleblowers and the need for them to feel free to raise
their concerns up their chain of command. FBI policy encourages employees to report
wrongdoing to their supervisors. First question. Do you support legal protections for
FBI employees who follow FBI’s own policies and report wrongdoing to their
supervisors? If not, why not?
JBC:

I do, very much.

CEG: Okay. Under current law FBI agents have no legal protection for reporting wrongdoing
to their supervisors. Do you see any justification for not fixing that problem?
JBC:

I think it’s very, very important that we create the safe zones that all of our people need
to raise concerns that they might have. And, so that is not only the way I talk, it is the
way I walk at the FBI and I know we’re having conversations about, “is, are there
additional protections we can offer.” I think there might be sensible ways to do that. I
have some small concerns I want to make sure that we don’t create a system where, to get
too deep in the weeds here, an FBI agent or an FBI employee can report not just fraud,
waste and abuse, but can get whistleblower protection for reporting bad
management. That’s potentially a huge range of things. So, I want to be thoughtful
about what we’re considering whistleblowing as we do this, but I am open to try to
improve the way we approach it. As I’ve said, I have tried to really walk this talk by the
way I’ve acted, the people I’ve met with, the way I’ve given out awards in the FBI, and
so I will continue to work with you to try to improve that.

CEG: In regard to your last response, you said you try to “walk the talk” on this so why hasn’t
the FBI imposed discipline in any, of some cases that I’ve been investigating? What
message does it send to FBI employees when the FBI fails to hold retaliators accountable
for their actions? That will be my last question.
JBC:

Yeah, no, that’s a good question and a hard question. I believe we do work very hard to
try to hold retaliators accountable. Each case, the challenge of answering it in the
abstract level, each case has to be looked at individually. So, I do think that we work
very hard to try to hold people accountable. Now often, when people know we’re
coming for them, they’ll retire on us and leave government service, which is a
challenge. But, it is not just that enforcement that matters. It’s how do we act, how do
we conduct ourselves. And, I don’t want to brag on myself, but I will for a second. We
have annual Director’s Awards. And, at the end of the Director’s Awards this year I gave

 an award to recognize somebody for blowing the whistle on misconduct. And, I went
back to the podium and I said, “This matters.” The reason I’m saving this one for last is,
“This matters.” We’re an organization dedicated to finding the truth in American life, we
have to make sure we’re open to seeing the truth about ourselves. So look, we’re not
perfect and I think we can benefit from working with you to get better, but I believe we
have sent the message, “This matters.”
 

 Exhibit 


AW

 
 
  
 

The parties to this Settlement A reement A reement are the United States Marshals
?mm m?
Agreement is entered Into orever and globally resolve all of issues, complaints,
and/or grievances that have been brought or could have been brought by him as of the executed
date of this Agreement, to include but not be limited to. OffIce of Special Counsel (OSC)

Com laint No. and Equal Employment Opportunity case number

The terms of this Agreement are as follows:

I. -agrees to retire on or before_ 20 IS. - agrees to submit

herewith his a lication for voluntary retirement effective no later than
2018.? further agrees to cooperate fully In providing any additional
information or documentation that he USMS determines is necessai to iroeess his

  
 

voluntary retirement application in a timely and accurate manner. agrees that
all information and documentation that he submits pertaining to his retirement will
indicate_, 2018, or earlier, as the effective date of his retirement.

understands that the Of?ce of Personnel Management is the ?nal authority for
com utation of his retirement annuity. This paragraph is not to be construed as a waiver
to any right of review he may have by law concerning any Of?ce of
Personnel Management retirement determination.

2. - understands and agrees not to rescind his request for voluntary retirement
and any attempts to rescind his voluntary retirement request will be considered null and
void by the USMS and his voluntary retirement will nonetheless be effected.

3. Nothing in this Agreement shall operate to prevent_ from effecting his

retirement at any time earlier than?, 20l 8.

4. The sr-so in_ Of?cial Personnel File shall re?ect his departure as a
voluntary retirement. The USMS agrees to provide a neutral or better reference regarding
any employment inquiries. All personnel records are subject to the requirements of the
Privacy Act of I974.

5. In consideration. the USMS agrees to a lump sum payment of One Hundred and Eighty
Thousand dollars and no cents (S I 80,000.00) which is inclusive of any and all attorney
fees, damages, and/or any other monetary remedy has or could have sought
against the USMS as of the date of this Agreement. The Agenc will deposit the lump
sum payment via Electronic Fund Transfer into the account has designated for
purposes of salary payments. This sum is made without any deductions. in full
compromise of any and all claims. This sum is not in lieu of wages. The Agency will not
withhold any taxes of any kind from the sum. However, the Agenc will fIle a Form 1099
with the lntemal Revenue Service (IRS) and the determination of tax
liability, if any, is a matter solely between _and the IRS and/or state and local

 

tax authorities. Said payment will be made within thirty (30} days ofthe date ofthe ?nal
signature on this agreement.

6. The USMS agrees to provide ith his retirement credentials on or before his
retirement date of 2018. to include identi?cation which meets the

eligibility requirements of the Law Enforcement Of?cers Safety Act at l8 U.S.C. Section
926C.

The USMS agrees that upon retirement, the Agency will allow-to port his
cell phone number to a personal account.

8. _agrees to neither seek reinstatement asa 3  with the USMS. nor future
employment with the USMS as an'administrative employee, or as an onsite USMS
contract employee on its premises.

9. _hereby waives and forever releases any and all appeal rights, causes of
action, or liability claims ofany nature against the United States, Department ofJustice,
USMS and its of?cers and employees in their individual andfor of?cial capacities, which
he either raised or could have raised prior to the date of this Agreement, including, but
not limited to, any appeal or claims to the Merit Systems Protection Board, complaint to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, grievance. arbitration, any other
administrative body. or any court regarding the issues related to his OSC complaint -

-. Equal Employment Opportunity case number?.and any other

employment matter brought lay-occurring prior to the Agreement date.

10.- declares that he has read and reviewed this Agreement. is aware of his right to
consult with counsel. and fully understands the terms of such Agreement and that he
voluntarily accepts it for purposes ofmaking a full and ?nal compromise ofall claims of
any nature which he may have in connection with his employment with the Agency.
including but not limited to. OSC complaint number_, Equal Employment

Opportunity case number and anyr'all outstanding issues and claims of
any nature by .

11. The provisions in this A reement are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with
or otherwise alteriobligations, rights. or liabilities created by existing statute of
Executive order relating to l) classi?ed information, communications to Congress
(3) the reporting to an inspector General of a violation of any law. rule, or regulation, or
mismanagement. a gross waste of funds. an abuse of authority, or a substantial and
speci?c danger to public health or safety. or any other whistleblower protection. The
de?nitions, requirements. obligations, rights. sanctions, and liabilities created by
controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this
Agreement and arecontrolling.

12. This Settlement Agreement does not constiture an admission of fault. error, or
wrongdoing by any party.

 

13. The parties agree that the terms of this Agreement constitute the entire Agreement
between the parties and that no other promises or representations, either express or
implied, have been made orso Light to induce acceptance of this Agreement.

l4.Notice of Rights Under the A Discrimination in Employment and Older Worker's
Bene?t Protections Acc? acknowledges that he is over the age of 40 and is
covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA and the Older Worker's
Bene?t Protection Act (OWBPA), Public Law 101-433. knowingly and
voluntarily waives any rights or protections under the ADEA that he has or could have
asserted to and including the effective date of this Agreement. Under the ADEA and
acknowledges that he was advised to consult and confer with legal
counsel prior to executin this a reement and has had the opportunity to do so. Moreover,
the Agency offered ?atwenty-one (21 calendar days within which to consider
the terms of this Settlement Agreement- understands and a rees that he is waiving
his rights to consider this Agreement for the full 21 days.* hereby
acknowledges and agrees that this waiver is knowing, intentional, voluntary and is not
induced by the Agency through fraud, misrepresentation or duress or by any threat to
withdraw or alter the offer prior to the expiration of the 2 1 day time period and that the
Agency does not provide different terms to employees who sign a release prior to the
expiration of the 2 1 -day consideration period.

15- has seven (7) dais from the date thisdocument is signed by him to rescind

this Agreement. In the event elects' rescission, then this Agreement and all
of its terms are null and void. In order to effectively rescind and revoke this Agreement,
must notify the Agency in writing of his decision to rescind no later than
seven days from the date he signed this agreement. The Notice of Rescission must be
postmarked no later than the seventh day followmg the date of his signature and mailed

to Gerald M. Auerbach, General Counsel, USMS, CG-3 15th Floor Washin ton DC
20530-0001, faxed to_ or emailed to .If
mailed, said Notice shall be postmarked no later than 7 days following execution

of the Agreement. In the event that elects to rescind this Agreement, then this
Agreement and all of its terms are null and void.

 

 

  
   

16.Thepartiesagree that should any provisionol?this Agreement bedetermined?by any court
or legal body to be illegal or invalid, the validity of the remaining parts, terms, and
provisions shall not be affected thereby, and the illegal orinvalid part, term or provision
shall be deemed not to be part of the Agreement; however, all other provisions shall
remain bindingonthe Parties.

1 7. By signature hereto! re resents that this Agreement is entered into freely,
voluntarily, and with a scan mind represents that this Agreement was not

based upon duress, coercion, or misrepresentation of any kind.

 

18-hascarefully considered the altemativesavailableto himandthe
consequences ofhisdec ision to enter into this Agreement.

 

19. The terms ol?this Agreement comprise the entire Agreement between the parties. Any
modi?cation tothis Agreement must be in writing and signed by the parties.

20.This Agreement will be effective immediately upon the latest date that all parties sign this
Agreement.

Ill )9

Date

   

  

?Mid

GEralevA?u?erbacF 
General Counsel
United States Marshals Service

Floor CS-3. Washin Iton D.C. 20530-000l



Date

Exhibit 

United States Marshals Service – FMA Chapter 373
fma.usmarshals@gmail.com
February 26, 2018 
 
 
 
Mr. David J. Anderson 
Acting Deputy Director 
Office of the Director 
U.S. Marshals Service 
Washington, D.C.  20530‐0001 
 
 
SUBJECT:  Staffing at the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) 
 
Dear Acting Deputy Director Anderson: 
  
 
Last year the USMS Federal Manager’s Association (FMA) engaged with the former 
Acting Director/Deputy Director to address human capital resources in our District offices.  
We issued two letters, one on March 24, 2017,1 and another on April 11,2 raising concerns 
with “the unsustainable depletion of staff in Districts compared with what appears to be 
disproportional growth of Headquarters.”  Then in July, we wrote two DOJ budget officials 
within the Justice Management Division about staffing at the USMS. 
 
Our efforts appear to have made some difference: 
 
 A May 4 letter from the former Acting Director/Deputy Director to the 
USMS FMA demonstrated a different course on what was progressing 
down an alarming path to exclusively and unfairly promote 68 criminal 
investigators assigned to IOD’s Regional Fugitive Task Forces (RFTFs) 
through an accretion of duties exercise.  Following our letters, Mr. Harlow 
instead changed direction and committed to announcing the positions “on 
a future career board with the resulting selections made in accordance 
with merit promotion principles.”3 
 
 
                                                            
1 Letter to David L. Harlow, Acting Director, from Dave Barnes, President, and Jason R. Wojdylo, Vice‐
President for Law Enforcement Operations, USMS FMA, Subject:  Merit Promotion in the U.S. Marshals Service 
(USMS), dated March 24, 2017 
2 Letter to David L. Harlow, Acting Director, from Dave Barnes, President, and Jason R. Wojdylo, Vice‐
President for Law Enforcement Operations, USMS FMA, Subject:  Merit Promotion in the U.S. Marshals Service 
(USMS) – Part 2, dated April 11, 2017 
3 Letter from David L. Harlow, Acting Director, to David Barnes, President, USMS FMA, dated May 4, 2017 

1   S t a f f i n g   a t   t h e   U . S .   M a r s h a l s   S e r v i c e   ( U S M S )  

 

 

 

DOJ recently published an FY 2019 restructuring initiative that calls for 
administrative savings at the USMS by “propos[ing] to reduce 
headquarters positions to refocus positions toward agent field operations.  
The request includes a –$2.6 million reduction and a non‐agent reduction 
of –15 positions” for Headquarters.4 

We understand you are committed to promptly addressing the staffing needs in our 
District offices.  This change from former agency executives, of course, is welcome news. 
 
Despite no less than nine separate attempts throughout 2017 with the former 
Acting Director/Deputy Director who rebuffed our invitations to come together,5 we also 
appreciate your recent offer to meet with us on excepted service hiring authority for the 
USMS.  We do not want to lose precious time in sharing additional recommendations on 
staffing in advance of scheduling the meeting.  Therefore, we also offer these proposals for 
your review and careful consideration to sooner address the more urgent human capital 
resource needs in our District offices, to include spring Career Board staffing decisions: 
 
1. Issue an immediate moratorium on hiring at the Headquarters level until, if 
ever, a staffing model is published that is comparably applicable to both 
Districts and Divisions and Staff Offices (i.e., Districts have long been subject 
to a District Staffing Model where no such model exists for Headquarters).  
Without further delay balance the scales to increase the staffing percentage 
for Districts from 76% to 88% (+12 points) and decrease the percentage for 
Headquarters from 100% to 88% (–12%).  Include contractors, exclusive of 
Court Security Officers, within these percentages across the entire 
workforce.6 
 
In July 2017, the USMS Chief Financial Officer and then‐Assistant Director for 
Human Resources (now Acting Associate Director for Administration) both 
informed the USMS FMA neither FSD, nor HRD monitor/track the number of 
contractors at the USMS.7  Skeptical of these assertions, we later learned 
through further inquiry that Headquarters contractor information appears to 
be maintained in the Contractor Workforce Information Exchange (C‐WISE).  
It is available on the USMS Executive Portal, and “enables Divisions and Staff 
Offices to track their contractors by name, office, cost, and period of 
performance.”  A recent screenshot shared with us reflects more than 700 
contractors assigned to Divisions and Staff Offices.  We would be interested in 
a comparison of the number assigned to our 94 Districts and 218 sub‐offices. 
                                                            
4 https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/file/1034726/download  

5 Letter to William Delaney, Chief, Office of Congressional Affairs, from Dave Barnes, President, USMS FMA, 
dated December 8, 2017 
6 The District Staffing Model counts contractor employees against a District’s staffing level, yet no such 
formula exists for Headquarter Division and Staff Offices 
7 Email between Jason Wojdylo, Vice‐President for Law Enforcement Operations, USMS FMA, Katherine 
Mohan, Assistant Director, Human Resources Division, USMS, and Holley O’Brien, Chief Information Officer, 
USMS, dated July 24 & 28, 2017 

2   S t a f f i n g   a t   t h e   U . S .   M a r s h a l s   S e r v i c e   ( U S M S )  

 

 2. Develop a committee of District and Headquarters senior managers to 
partner with the USMS FMA to study staffing decisions.  Determinations 
should not rest exclusively with Headquarters officials, but should also 
include equal representation from the Districts.  We envision a single 
committee for what was the District Allocation Working Group (DAWG) and 
the Program and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC), both that were 
abolished in 2011 under a former Director whose policies sometimes raised 
questions of dividing over unifying the workforce. 
 
In April 2017, the USMS FMA obtained data from HRD that gave us the 
information to conduct a 14‐year analysis of human capital resource 
distribution at the USMS.  Thereafter, a United States Marshal represented 
eleven Districts in making an appeal to the Acting Director/Deputy Director 
on the urgency to address the depletion of staffing across all Districts.8  
Instead, despite our obtaining the data from HRD, the Acting Director/ 
Deputy Director suggested “misperceptions in [the] representations.”  The 
efforts by dozens of managers across eleven Districts proved futile. 
 
3. Establish a clearly‐defined line of authority for Headquarters employees 
scattered about the country with shared reporting requirements up through 
the Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal and United States Marshal.  Reassign a 
significant number of Division and Staff Office employees assigned to cities 
throughout the field, instead to Districts, starting with the RFTFs;9  
 

4. Modify Policy Directive 10.23, Special Assignments, requiring Divisions and 
Staff Offices to also support Headquarters‐generated special assignments at 
the same ratio as required by Districts; and, equally important, 
 
5. Implement the recommendations of the District Administrative Structure 
Study, as issued by the former Deputy Director on January 3, 2018.10  
Without further delay assign and timely announce a GS‐0341‐14 
Administrative Officer to each District with a GS‐1811‐15 Chief Deputy U.S. 
Marshal to uphold the principle that “equal pay should be provided for work 
of equal value.”11  There has long been a call to bring these administrative 
mangers in line with their peers in other federal law enforcement agencies in 
the same geographic areas,12 as well as in Divisions and Staff Offices.13 

                                                            
8 Email between David P. Gonzales, U.S. Marshal, District of Arizona, and David Harlow, Deputy Director, 
dated June 17, 2017 
9 This model has long worked in the Pacific Northwest and was the original model of the Florida Caribbean 
RFTF.  
10 http://intranet.usms.doj.gov/Correspondence/04‐010318‐01.pdf   
11 5 U.S.C. § 2301 
12 As one of many examples:  https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/490645700  
13 Appendix A, Table of USMS administrative announcements through OPM’s USAJobs since December 24, 
2014, reflecting 293 announcements for Districts, while 434 for Divisions and Staff Offices 

3   S t a f f i n g   a t   t h e   U . S .   M a r s h a l s   S e r v i c e   ( U S M S )  

 

 For example, it defies logic that the Administrative Officer in the Middle 
District of Florida who reports to the office each day in Tampa is a GS‐13, yet 
HRD’s Accountability and Strategic Planning Manager works full‐time from 
home in Orlando as a GS‐14.  It is simply not right that the Administrative 
Officer in Northern District of Ohio is a GS‐13, yet TOD has an Electronics 
Technician assigned in the very same Cleveland office as a GS‐14.  It raises 
questions how the Administrative Officers in each of the Southern District of 
Texas, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District of California, D.C. District 
Court and Superior Court, and the Northern District of Florida are GS‐13s, all 
with responsibility for supporting hundreds of employees, as well as equally 
complex work, yet last month ITD announced Supervisory Information 
Technology Specialists as GS‐14s in Houston and Brownsville, Chicago, 
Sacramento, Washington, D.C., and Pensacola.14 

 
 
It is disappointing that former USMS executives often ignored sound staffing 
decisions for our District offices.  We are encouraged, however, you are taking steps to 
closely examine human capital resources at the USMS.  It appears DOJ is as well. 
 
We look forward to working with you and further discussing these topics in greater 
detail as a follow‐on to our upcoming meeting on excepted service hiring authority.  In the 
meantime, we urge you to carefully consider each proposal we have raised on behalf of 
many managers across the USMS.  A good starting point will be the staffing decisions for 
the upcoming spring Career Board. 
 
We know you will continue to display the leadership needed to restore confidence 
across the entire workforce in our Senior Staff by providing our Districts with the human 
capital resources to safely carry out our important mission.  We thank you for taking a 
different and more constructive approach to unite our dedicated employees. 
 
With warm regards, 

 
 
cc: 
 
 
 
 

Dave Barnes 

 

 

 

Jason R. Wojdylo 

Dave Barnes   
President 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

Jason R. Wojdylo 
Vice‐President for 
         Law Enforcement Operations 

Jolene A. Lauria 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General / Controller 
Justice Management Division 
 
 
U.S. Department of Justice   
 
 

 
 
 
 

Andrew Deserto 
Acting Chief of District Affairs 
Office of the Director 
U.S. Marshals Service 

                                                            
14 https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/488248200#  

4   S t a f f i n g   a t   t h e   U . S .   M a r s h a l s   S e r v i c e   ( U S M S )  

 

 Appendix A

USMS Administrative Position Announcements*
Districts vs. HQ Offices
December 24, 2014 ‐ February 25, 2018
GS‐13
GS‐14
GS‐15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

District
S/NY
D/NV
W/VA
W/TX
N/TX
E/TN
E/MO
Various
Various
S/TX
W/OK
E/MI
D/AZ
S/TX
S/TX
S/TX
N/OH
D/AZ
S/TX
S/IN
D/PR
Various
D/NM
D/NM
Various
Various
C/IL
E/CA
W/PA
E/CA
D/ND
D/SD
E/TN
W/OK
N/TX
S/IN
M/PA
W/VA
D/SD
N/OH
S/TX
W/KY
Various

Position
Criminal Program Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Budget Analyst
Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
Operations Support Specialist
Purchasing Agent
Administrative Officer
Operations Support Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Administrative Officer
Criminal Program Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Physical Security Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Property Management Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Financial Specialist
Administrative Support Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Criminal Program Specialist
Administrative Support Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Property Management Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Administrative Officer
Purchasing Agent
Financial Specialist
Financial Specialist
Financial Specialist
Administrative Officer
Seizure and Forfeiture Specialist
District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
Investigative Research Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Criminal Program Specialist
District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
Administrative Support Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant

Series/Grade
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0560‐09
GS‐0301‐11
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐1105‐08
GS‐0341‐12/13
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0341‐12/13
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0080‐12
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐1101‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐1101‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0341‐12/13
GS‐1105‐08
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0341‐12/13
GS‐1101‐09
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0343‐11/12
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐06

Date
1/5/2015
1/5/2015
1/8/2015
1/9/2015
1/9/2015
1/12/2015
1/15/2015
1/16/2015
1/26/2015
1/26/2015
1/26/2015
1/26/2015
1/26/2015
1/27/2015
1/27/2015
1/28/2015
1/6/2015
2/9/2015
2/9/2015
2/16/2015
2/19/2015
2/26/2015
2/26/2015
2/26/2015
3/2/2105
3/5/2015
3/5/2015
3/6/2015
3/6/2015
3/16/2015
3/18/2015
3/18/2015
3/18/2015
3/20/2015
3/23/2015
3/25/2015
3/27/2015
3/30/2015
4/1/2015
4/13/2015
5/1/2015
5/4/2015
5/4/2015

HQ
FSD
HRD
AFD
IOD
ITD
ITD
ADA
HRD
IOD
IOD
ITD
JPATS
IOD
TOD
ITD
JPATS
AFD
IOD
TOD
JSD
HRD
POD
TOD
TOD
FSD
IOD
TOD
IOD
JSD
ITD
IOD
IOD
ADA
AFD
MSD
FSD
JSD
JPATS
JPATS
JPATS
MSD
JSD
IOD

Position
Budget Analyst
HR Specialist
Training Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory IT Specialist
Supervisory IT Specialist
Supervisory Operations Research Specialist
Human Resource Specialist
Statistician
Business Process Engineer/MPA
IT Specialist
Quality Assurance Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Public Safety Communications Specialist x 2
Executive Assistant
Aviation Enforcement Officer
Supervisory Property Management Specialist
Information Management Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Budget Analyst
Occupational Health Nurse
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Budget Analyst
Statistician
Management & Program Analyst
Statistician
Contract Specialist
IT Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Contract Specialist
Intelligence Research Specialist
Emergency Medical Technician
Emergency Medical Technician
Emergency Medical Technician
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Intelligence Research Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst

          *  (Source:  OPM's USAJobs)
Series/Grade
Date
GS‐0560‐09/11/12/13 12/24/2014
GS‐0201‐09/11/12
1/12/2015
GS‐1712‐12/13
1/21/2015
GS‐0343‐15
1/22/2015
GS‐2210‐15
1/22/2015
GS‐2210‐15
2/3/2015
2/11/2015
GS‐1515‐14
GS‐0201‐13
2/23/2015
2/24/2015
GS‐1530‐14
2/24/2015
GS‐0343‐14
2/24/2015
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐1910‐11/12
3/2/2015
GS‐0343‐11/12
3/17/2015
GS‐0301‐07/09
3/17/2015
GS‐0301‐13
3/18/2015
GS‐1801‐07/09
3/19/2015
3/23/2015
GS‐1101‐14
GS‐0301‐11/12
3/23/2015
GS‐0343‐13
3/25/2015
GS‐0560‐09/11 
3/31/2015
GS‐0610‐13
4/1/2015
GS‐0343‐13
4/7/2015
GS‐0343‐13
4/13/2015
GS‐0343‐13
4/17/2015
GS‐0560‐13
4/20/2015
4/24/2015
GS‐1530‐14
4/27/2015
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐1530‐13
4/29/2015
GS‐1102‐12/13
4/30/2015
GS‐2210‐13
5/8/2015
GS‐0343‐13
5/7/2015
GS‐0343‐13
5/7/2015
GS‐0343‐12/13
5/11/2015
GS‐0343‐15
5/15/2015
GS‐0343‐09/11
5/19/2015
GS‐1102‐11/12
5/19/2015
GS‐9132‐13
5/20/2015
5/20/2015
GS‐0640‐05/06
5/20/2015
GS‐0640‐05/06
GS‐0640‐05/06
5/20/2015
5/21/2015
GS‐0343‐9/11/12/13
5/22/2015
GS‐0132‐14
GS‐0343‐14
5/22/2015

 44 E/TX Operations Support Specialist
45 W/MI Criminal Program Specialist
46 S/TX Lead Administrative Support Assistant
47 Various Administrative Officer
48 DC/DC Program Analyst
49 N/GA District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
50 N/OH District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
51
N/IL Management & Program Analyst
52 D/AZ Operations Support Specialist
53 D/NJ Property Management Specialist
54 W/OK District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
55 D/AK District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
56 D/OR District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
57 D/MT Operations Support Specialist
58 E/WA Financial Specialist
59 E/WI Administrative Officer
60 N/MS Financial Specialist
61 S/TX Administrative Support Specialist
62 N/GA District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
63 E/KY Administrative Support Assistant
64 E/MI Criminal Program Specialist
65
GU Criminal Program Specialist
66 D/NV Investigative Research Specialist
67 W/VA Management & Program Analyst
68 D/AK Criminal Program Specialist
69
S/FL Administrative Support Assistant
70 S/CA Management & Program Analyst
71 D/NM District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
72 S/TX Operations Support Specialist
73 M/TN Financial Specialist
74 E/MO Investigative Research Specialist
75 W/MO Financial Specialist
76 E/NY Management & Program Analyst
77 S/TX Administrative Support Assistant
78 S/TX Lead Administrative Support Assistant
79 D/MT Administrative Support Assistant
80
S/FL Administrative Support Specialist
81 E/CA Management & Program Analyst
82 E/TX Operations Support Specialist
83 W/VA Management & Program Analyst
84 E/CA Financial Specialist
85 W/TX Investigative Research Specialist
86 S/TX Operations Support Specialist
87 W/TX Administrative Support Assistant
88 W/NC Criminal Program Specialist
89 D/KS Criminal Program Specialist
90 S/NY District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
91 E/MI Purchasing Agent
92 S/TX Property Management Specialist
93 S/TX Civil Process Specialist
94 W/WA Purchasing Agent

GS‐0301‐07/09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐08
GS‐0341‐11/12/13
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐1101‐11
GS‐0301‐12
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0501‐11
GS‐0341‐12/13
GS‐0501‐07/09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0343‐12
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0343‐11/12
GS‐0303‐06
GS‐0303‐08
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0301‐7/9
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0501‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0101‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐13
GS‐1105‐09
GS‐1101‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐1105‐09

5/7/2015
5/11/2015
5/11/2015
5/13/2015
5/20/2015
5/21/2015
5/21/2015
5/21/2015
5/26/2015
5/28/2015
5/29/2015
6/1/2015
6/1/2015
6/1/2015
6/2/2015
6/2/2015
6/2/2015
6/11/2015
6/16/2015
6/26/2015
7/6/2015
7/6/2015
7/13/2015
7/14/2015
7/15/2015
7/22/2015
7/27/2015
7/28/2015
8/6/2015
8/10/2015
8/11/2015
8/12/2015
8/13/2015
8/14/2015
8/14/2015
8/17/2015
8/17/2015
8/24/2015
8/24/2015
8/25/2015
9/1/2015
9/24/2015
9/29/2015
9/29/2015
9/29/2015
9/29/2015
9/29/2015
9/29/2015
9/29/2015
9/30/2015
9/30/3015

ADA
JSD
JSD
JSD
JSD
JSD
JSD
POD
POD
IOD
AFD
JSD
FSD
POD
TD
JSD
AFD
JPATS
POD
MSD
HRD
HRD
MSD
ITD
ITD
JPATS
JPATS
ITD
IOD
ITD
JPATS
IOD
ADA
IOD
MSD
TOD
JSD
IOD
IOD
ADA
IOD
POD
JPATS
JPATS
JPATS
ITD
ADA
IOD
IOD
AFD
IOD

Supervisory Chief Data Officer
Supervisory Physical Security Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Intelligence Research Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Intelligence Research Specialist
Auditor
Contract Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Training Technician
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Business Property Analyst
Airplane Pilot
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Facility & Space Management Specialist
Lead Human Resources Specialist
Supervisory Human Resources Specialist
Supervisory Facility & Space Management Specialist
Supervisory IT Specialist
IT Specialist
Supervisory Accountant
Supervisory Airplane Pilot
Information Technology Specialist
Supervisory Statistician 
Information Technology Specialist
Aircraft Dispatcher
Extradition Analyst
Supervisory Chief Data Officer
Behavioral Analyst
Printing Officer
Administrative Officer
Supervisory Intelligence Research Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Data Governance Program Manager
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Program Manager
Aviation Enforcement Officer
Parmedic
Lead Paramedic
Supervisory IT Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Behavioral Analyst
Business Property Analyst
Supervisory Statistician 

GS‐0301‐15
GS‐0080‐14
GS‐0343‐07/09/11
GS‐0343‐11/13
GS‐0343‐11/13
GS‐0343‐11/13
GS‐0132‐13
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0132‐14
GS‐0501‐13
GS‐1102‐9/11
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐1702‐12
GS‐0343‐15
GS‐1101‐12/13
GS‐2181‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0301‐14
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0201‐14
GS‐0301‐14
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐0510‐14
GS‐2181‐14
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐1530‐14
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐2151‐08
GS‐0301‐13
GS‐0301‐15
GS‐0101‐13
GS‐1654‐14
GS‐0341‐13
GS‐0132‐14
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0301‐15
GS‐0343‐15
GS‐0340‐15
GS‐1801‐09
GS‐0640‐07
GS‐0640‐08
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐0343‐15
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0101‐13
GS‐1101‐12/13
GS‐1530‐14

5/26/2015
5/26/2015
5/27/2015
5/28/2015
5/28/2015
5/28/2015
6/1/2015
6/3/2015
6/3/2015
6/3/2015
6/4/2015
6/4/2015
6/17/2015
6/22/2015
7/1/2015
7/6/2015
7/8/2015
7/13/2015
7/14/2015
7/15/2015
7/16/2015
7/16/2015
7/21/2015
7/24/2015
7/24/2015
7/27/2015
7/27/2015
8/3/2015
8/4/2015
8/6/2015
8/7/2015
8/7/2015
8/13/2015
8/13/2015
8/14/2015
8/20/2015
8/21/2015
8/25/2015
8/25/2015
8/27/2015
8/31/2015
8/31/2015
9/4/2015
9/10/2015
9/10/2015
9/15/2015
9/21/2015
9/22/2015
9/22/2015
9/23/2015
9/24/2015

 95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145

N/IL
E/NY
W/OK
S/TX
D/OR
D/NM
S/FL
D/SC
E/MI
D/MD
E/AR
C/CA
E/OK
D/ND
W/MO
W/VA
D/VI
D/AZ
W/MO
DC/DC
M/PA
N/IL
W/MO
D/AZ
E/NY
E/PA
E/KY
E/KY
D/AZ
D/AZ
E/NY
W/NY
W/MO
DC/SC
E/NY
D/HI
D/RI
D/MA
DC/DC
W/AR
E/MI
E/MO
E/MO
N/IL
C/CA
E/VA
D/AZ
W/NC
W/TX
W/TX
E/OK

Management & Program Analyst
Property Management Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Property Management Specialist
District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
Property Management Specialist
Administrative Officer
Property Management Specialist
District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
Property Management Specialist
Administrative Officer
Operations Support Specialist
Administrative Support Specialist
Purchasing Agent
Administrative Officer
Property Management Specialist
Financial Specialist
Financial Specialist
Administrative Officer
Criminal Program Specialist
Administrative Support Specialist
Lead Administrative Support Assistant
Purchasing Agent
Administrative Support Assistant
Administrative Support Assistant
Administrative Support Assistant
Investigative Research Specialist
Purchasing Agent
Criminal Program Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Financial Specialist
Financial Specialist
Administrative Officer
Budget Analyst
Administrative Support Assistant
Administrative Support Assistant
Financial Specialist
Administrative Officer
Investigative Research Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Administrative Support Assistant
District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
Senior Administrative Support Asst.
Investigative Research Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Criminal Program Specialist

GS‐0343‐11
9/30/2015
GS‐1101‐11
10/1/2015
GS‐0303‐07
10/5/2015
GS‐1101‐09
11/4/2015
GS‐0301‐11/12
12/10/2015
GS‐0301‐11/12
12/11/2015
GS‐1101‐11
12/16/2015
GS‐0341‐11/12/13
1/4/2016
GS‐1101‐9/11
1/4/2016
GS‐0301‐12
1/7/2016
GS‐0301‐11/12
1/7/2016
GS‐1101‐9/11
1/11/2016
GS‐0341‐11/12/13 1/11/2016
GS‐0301‐09
1/15/2016
GS‐0301‐09
1/22/2016
GS‐1105‐09
1/29/2016
GS‐0341‐11/12/13
2/8/2016
GS‐1101‐11
2/22/2016
GS‐0501‐07/09
2/22/2016
GS‐0501‐07/09
2/22/2016
GS‐0341‐11/12/13 2/22/2016
GS‐0301‐09
2/24/2016
GS‐0301‐09
2/25/2016
GS‐0303‐08
2/29/2016
GS‐1105‐09
2/29/2016
2/29/2016
GS‐0301‐06
GS‐0303‐07
3/1/2016
GS‐0303‐07
3/1/2016
GS‐0301‐09
3/2/2016
GS‐1105‐09
3/7/2016
GS‐0301‐09
3/7/2016
GS‐0301‐09
3/7/2016
GS‐0501‐07/09
3/11/2016
GS‐0501‐07/09
3/11/2016
GS‐0341‐13
3/14/2016
GS‐0560‐09
3/21/2016
GS‐0303‐07
3/23/2016
GS‐0301‐09
4/5/2016
GS‐0501‐11
4/6/2016
GS‐0341‐11/12/13
4/7/2016
GS‐0301‐09
4/22/2016
GS‐0301‐09
4/22/2016
GS‐0303‐07
4/25/2016
GS‐0303‐07
4/25/2016
GS‐0300‐12/13
5/20/2016
GS‐0303‐08
5/24/2016
GS‐0300‐11
5/26/2016
GS‐0300‐07
6/2/2016
GS‐0343‐11/12
6/2/2016
GS‐0343‐11/12
6/2/2016
GS‐0300‐09
6/3/2016

POD
ITD
ITD
POD
OPR
HRD
IOD
TD
JSD
HRD
JPATS
WSD
MSD
FSD
WSD
POD
POD
JSD
WSD
WSD
EEO
WSD
WSD
JSD
HRD
JPATS
FSD
JPATS
JSD
JPATS
HRD
HRD
HRD
POD
JPATS
HRD
HRD
AFD
AFD
ADA
JPATS
POD
POD
POD
JSD
IOD
JSD
WSD
WSD
FSD
HRD

Information Management Specialist
Supervisory IT Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Budget Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Human Resource Specialist
Contract Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Intelligence Research Specialist
Human Resource Specialist
Supervisory Aircraft Dispatcher
Administrative Officer
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Equal Employment Opportunity Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Lead Human Resources Specialist
Aircraft Dispatcher
Financial Specialist
Supervisory Airplane Pilot
Management & Program Analyst
Quality Assurance Specialist
Lead Human Resources Specialist
Human Resource Specialist
Human Resource Specialist
Program Manager
Parmedic
Human Resource Specialist
Supervisory Human Resources Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Accountant
Budget Analyst
Statistician
Information Management Specialist
Supervisory Physical Security Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Physical Security Specialist
Administrative Officer
Administrative Officer
System Accountant
Employee Health Programs Manager

GS‐0301‐13
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐0560‐09
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0201‐12
GS‐1102‐13
GS‐0343‐15
GS‐0132‐13
GS‐0201‐12
GS‐2151‐10
GS‐0341‐09
GS‐0343‐15
GS‐1102‐09/11
GS‐1102‐12/13
GS‐1102‐13
GS‐0343‐15
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0260‐07
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0343‐07/09/11
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐2151‐08
GS‐0501‐11
GS‐2181‐14
GS‐0343‐11/12
GS‐1910‐11/12
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0201‐14
GS‐0201‐12/13
GS‐0340‐15
GS‐0640‐07
GS‐0201‐9/11
GS‐0201‐15
GS‐1102‐11/12
GS‐1102‐11/12
GS‐0343‐12/13
GS‐0510‐12
GS‐0560‐09
GS‐1530‐9/11
GS‐0301‐13
GS‐0080‐14
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐0080‐12/13
GS‐0341‐09
GS‐0341‐09
GS‐0510‐13
GS‐0601‐14

9/25/2015
9/25/2015
9/25/2015
9/25/2015
9/29/2015
9/29/2015
9/30/2015
9/30/2015
9/30/2015
9/30/2015
9/30/2015
9/30/2015
10/1/2015
10/1/2015
10/1/2015
10/1/2015
10/1/2015
10/2/2015
10/2/2015
10/2/2015
10/2/2015
10/7/2015
10/7/2015
10/20/2015
11/5/2015
11/20/2015
12/1/2015
12/5/2015
1/6/2016
1/15/2016
1/15/2016
1/25/2016
1/25/2016
2/4/2016
2/5/2016
2/5/2016
2/12/2016
2/19/2016
2/19/2016
2/22/2016
2/25/2016
2/29/2016
3/8/2016
3/8/2016
3/14/2016
3/22/2016
3/23/2016
3/29/2016
3/29/2016
3/28/2016
4/3/2016

 146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196

D/HI
D/WY
E/NY
DC/SC
S/FL
E/CA
D/SD
D/NM
D/AZ
W/OK
W/TX
D/NM
DC/SC
E/WI
D/AZ
DC/DC
D/MA
D/NJ
D/VI
E/NY
E/NY
NE
E/TN
E/CA
E/CA
D/OR
W/OK
E/MO
W/TX
W/TX
D/OR
DC/SC
W/TX
N/WV
W/TX
D/VT
S/FL
M/FL
S/TX
N/IL
D/NJ
W/OK
D/UT
D/VT
N/CA
DC/SC
C/IL
N/IN
N/IL
C/CA
C/CA

Administrative Support Assistant
Financial Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Administrative Support Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Criminal Program Specialist
District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
Investigative Research Specialist
Administrative Officer
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Criminal Program Specialist
District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
Investigative Research Specialist
Financial Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Administrative Officer
Financial Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Financial Specialist
Purchasing Agent
Management & Program Analyst
Investigative Research Specialist
Administrative Officer
Investigative Research Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Investigative Research Specialist
Property Management Specialist
Budget Analyst
Seizure and Forfeiture Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Administrative Support Assistant
Administrative Officer
Administrative Officer
Administrative Support Assistant
Criminal Program Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Financial Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Physical Security Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant

GS‐0300‐07
GS‐0500‐09
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0341‐11/12/13
GS‐0343‐11/12
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0501‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0341‐13
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐1105‐08
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0341‐11/12/13
GS‐0101‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0343‐12
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐1101‐09
GS‐0560‐09
GS‐1101‐09
GS‐0343‐11/12
GS‐0343‐12
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0341‐13
GS‐0341‐11/12/13
GS‐0303‐05
GS‐0301‐07
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0501‐11
GS‐0201‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0080‐12
GS‐0303‐07

6/8/2016
6/14/2016
6/22/2016
6/30/2016
6/30/2016
7/5/2016
7/26/2016
8/1/2016
8/5/2016
8/11/2016
8/16/2016
8/19/2016
8/19/2016
8/22/2016
8/26/2016
8/29/2016
8/29/2016
8/29/2016
8/29/2016
8/29/2016
9/12/2016
9/16/2016
9/20/2016
9/20/2016
9/21/2016
9/28/2016
9/29/2016
10/5/2016
10/27/2016
10/27/2016
11/9/2016
11/9/2016
11/11/2016
11/16/2016
11/28/2016
12/9/2016
12/12/2016
12/15/2016
12/19/2016
12/28/2016
12/30/2016
12/30/2016
12/29/2016
1/6/2017
1/13/2017
3/3/2017
3/4/2017
3/6/2017
3/9/2017
3/13/2017
3/17/2017

ADA
WSD
JPATS
FSD
ADO
HRD
JSD
JSD
IOD
JPATS
HRD
HRD
ADA
FSD
FSD
FSD
TOD
IOD
TD
AFD
HRD
HRD
MSD
JSD
HRD
ITD
HRD
HRD
ITD
AFD
HRD
HRD
POD
POD
FSD
FSD
FSD
HRD
ADA
FSD
FSD
FSD
FSD
OPR
HRD
JSD
FSD
MSD
AFD
AFD
POD

Operations Research Analyst
Operations Analyst
Airplane Pilot
Systems Accountant
Program Manager
Human Resource Specialist
Supervisory Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Intelligence Research Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Lead Human Resources Specialist
Human Resource Specialist
Supervisory Operations Research Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Lead Public Safety Telecommunication Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Financial Specialist
Occupational Health Nurse
Occupational Health Nurse
Physical Security Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Human Resources Assistant
Supervisory IT Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Information Technology Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Contractor Administrator
Contractor Administrator
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Human Resource Specialist
Operations Research Analyst
Supervisory Accountant
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Human Resource Specialist
Budget Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Financial Specialist
Supervisory Business Operations Specialist
Grants ‐ Cooperative Agreement Specialist

GS‐1515‐13
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐2181‐13
GS‐0510‐13
GS‐0340‐15
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐1102‐14
GS‐1102‐12
GS‐0132‐13
GS‐0343‐15
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐1515‐14
GS‐1102‐11/12/13
GS‐1102‐11/12/13
GS‐1102‐11/12/13
GS‐0300‐12
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0500‐15
GS‐0600‐13
GS‐0600‐13
GS‐0080‐13
GS‐0343‐15
GS‐0200‐05
GS‐2200‐15
GS‐0200‐12
GS‐0200‐13
GS‐2200‐13
GS‐0343‐15
GS‐0300‐07
GS‐0300‐07
GS‐1100‐13
GS‐1100‐13
GS‐1100‐11
GS‐1100‐11
GS‐1100‐11
GS‐0201‐09/11/12
GS‐1500‐13
GS‐0510‐14
GS‐1100‐11
GS‐1100‐11
GS‐1100‐11
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0200‐13
GS‐0560‐11/12/13
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐0501‐14
GS‐1101‐15
GS‐1101‐12/13

4/3/2016
4/5/2016
4/6/2016
4/11/2016
4/14/2016
4/18/2016
4/19/2016
4/20/2016
4/27/2016
4/29/2016
4/29/2016
5/2/2016
5/2/2016
5/2/2016
5/2/2016
5/2/2016
5/6/2016
5/6/2016
5/6/2016
5/10/2016
5/12/2016
5/12/2016
5/13/2016
5/13/2016
5/16/2016
5/19/2016
5/20/2016
5/23/2016
5/25/2016
5/26/2016
5/26/2016
5/26/2016
5/27/2016
5/27/2016
5/27/2016
5/27/2016
5/27/2016
5/27/2016
5/31/2016
6/6/2016
6/3/2016
6/3/2016
6/3/2016
6/8/2016
6/22/2016
6/24/2016
7/1/2016
7/1/2016
7/15/2016
7/19/2016
7/22/2016

 197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247

DC/DC
N/MS
D/OR
S/FL
N/NY
D/NM
DC/SC
D/NH
W/WA
S/CA
E/WI
W/TX
W/TX
W/TX
E/CA
N/GA
DC/SC
W/MO
S/AL
W/NY
D/GU
W/WA
S/CA
S/TX
N/OK
W/TX
DC/SC
DC/SC
DC/SC
DC/SC
DC/SC
DC/SC
DC/SC
S/TX
M/TN
D/CT
N/CA
DC/SC
E/MO
D/OR
D/AZ
W/WA
D/ID
E/MO
W/TX
D/CO
D/MA
S/CA
D/CO
DC/DC
DC/DC

Criminal Program Specialist
Administrative Officer
Investigative Research Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Management & Program Analyst
Property Management Specialist
Administrative Officer
Administrative Officer
Criminal Program Specialist
Budget Analyst
Investigative Research Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Lead Administrative Support Assistant
Management & Program Analyst
Administrative Officer
Administrative Officer
Financial Specialist
Adminisrative Support Assistant
Investigative Research Specialist
Budget Analyst
Administrative Officer
Administrative Support Assistant
Property Management Specialist
Budget Analyst
District Asset Forfeiture Coordinator
Accounting Technician
Accounting Technician
Accounting Technician
Accounting Technician
Accounting Technician
Accounting Technician
Accounting Technician
Administrative Support Assistant
Operations Support Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Administrative Support Assistant
Administrative Support Assistant
Criminal Program Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Financial Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Property Management Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Operations Support Specialist
Administrative Support Specialist
Financial Specialist
Administrative Officer
Investigative Research Specialist

GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0341‐11/12/13
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0343‐12
GS‐1101‐09
GS‐0341‐11/12/13
GS‐0341‐11/12/13
GS‐0101‐11
GS‐0560‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐08
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0341‐13
GS‐0341‐13
GS‐0501‐11
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0560‐08
GS‐0341‐11/12/13
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐1101‐09
GS‐0560‐09
GS‐0301‐12
GS‐0525‐07
GS‐0525‐07
GS‐0525‐07
GS‐0525‐07
GS‐0525‐07
GS‐0525‐07
GS‐0525‐07
GS‐0303‐06
GS‐0301‐07
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0303‐06/07
GS‐0301‐07/09
GS‐1102‐09
GS‐1102‐11
GS‐0501‐11
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐1101‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0341‐13
GS‐0301‐09

3/21/2017
3/23/2017
3/23/2017
3/28/2017
3/31/2017
3/31/2017
4/5/2017
4/7/2017
4/7/2017
4/7/2017
4/11/2017
4/20/2017
4/20/2017
4/20/2017
4/21/2017
5/1/2017
5/1/2017
5/2/2017
5/22/2017
6/27/2017
6/30/2017
7/5/2017
7/6/2017
7/10/2017
7/10/2017
7/10/2017
7/14/2017
7/14/2017
7/14/2017
7/14/2017
7/14/2017
7/14/2017
7/14/2017
7/21/2017
7/31/2017
8/2/2017
8/2/2017
8/2/2017
8/11/2017
8/18/2017
8/30/2017
9/8/2017
9/29/2017
9/25/2017
9/28/2017
9/29/2017
10/2/2017
10/2/2017
10/2/2017
10/3/2017
10/5/2017

TOD
ITD
FSD
ADA
AFD
AFD
JSD
MSD
ADA
HRD
JSD
HRD
HRD
HRD
JSD
JSD
JSD
JSD
JSD
JSD
ITD
HRD
OPR
ADA
WSD
HRD
TOD
JPATS
ITD
ITD
OD
JSD
OCA
JSD
JSD
JPATS
WSD
JPATS
JPATS
OPR
FSD
ITD
HRD
HRD
HRD
MSD
ITD
HRD
OPR
MSD
FSD

Personnel Security Specialist
Information Technology Specialist
Supervisory Accountant
Data Governance Program Manager
Supervisory Financial Specialist
Contract Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Architect
Operations Research Analyst
Supervisory Human Resources Specialist
Intelligence Research Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Security Specialist
Security Specialist
Security Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Information Technology Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Data Governance Program Manager
Administrative Officer
Human Resources Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Parmedic
Supervisory IT Specialist
Supervisory IT Specialist
Internal Communications Specialist
Physical Security Specialist
Congressional Affairs Analyst
Supervisory Contract Specialist
Budget Analyst
Investigative Research Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Aircraft Dispatcher
Airplane Pilot
Management & Program Analyst
Budget Analyst
IT Specialist
Supervisory Human Resources Specialist
Lead Human Resources Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Safety & Occupational Health Manager
Supervisory IT Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Physical Security Specialist
Supervisory Contract Specialist

GS‐0080‐13
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐0510‐14
GS‐0301‐15
GS‐0501‐15
GS‐1102‐11/12
GS‐0343‐11/12
GS‐0808‐13
GS‐1515‐13
GS‐0201‐14
GS‐0132‐13
GS‐0201‐12
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0080‐09/11
GS‐0080‐09/11
GS‐0080‐09/11
GS‐1101‐12/13
GS‐1101‐12/13
GS‐1101‐12/13
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0301‐15
GS‐0341‐09
GS‐0201‐09/11
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0640‐07
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐1001‐13
GS‐0080‐12/13
GS‐0301‐13
GS‐1102‐14
GS‐0560‐09
GS‐0132‐11
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐2151‐08
GS‐2181‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0560‐13
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐0201‐15
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0018‐14
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0080‐13
GS‐1102‐14

8/1/2016
8/1/2016
8/4/2016
8/5/2016
8/8/2016
8/9/2016
8/10/2016
8/11/2016
8/16/2016
8/16/2016
8/18/2016
8/19/2016
8/19/2016
8/22/2016
8/22/2016
8/22/2016
8/22/2016
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
8/24/2016
8/26/2016
8/29/2016
8/29/2016
9/20/2016
9/12/2016
9/19/2016
9/21/2016
9/26/2016
9/28/2016
9/30/2016
9/30/2016
10/3/2016
10/10/2016
10/12/2016
10/6/2016
10/4/2016
10/11/2016
10/19/2016
10/19/2016
10/24/2016
10/26/2016
10/26/2016
12/1/2016
11/25/2016
11/28/2016
12/19/2016
12/9/2016
12/13/2016
12/14/2016
12/23/2016
12/23/2016

 248
249
250
251
252
153
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298

DC/SC
W/OK
D/NM
W/WI
S/OH
C/CA
D/WY
S/AL
DC/SC
E/CA
D/NH
E/LA
N/GA
E/MO
D/MN
D/OR
W/WI
D/HI
E/MI
W/TX
D/NV
N/MS
D/HI
W/TX
W/TX
D/DE
E/TX
DC/SC
DC/SC
D/CO
E/NY
DC/SC
N/FL
D/CT
DC/DC
E/KY
D/NM
D/HI
W/OK
E/TX
W/MI
D/NM
D/NM
W/NY
D/NV
E/AR

Investigative Research Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Administrative Support Specialist
Administrative Officer
Investigative Research Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Financial Specialist
Financial Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Criminal Program Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Administrative Support Assistant
Administrative Support Assistant
Management & Program Analyst
Operations Support Specialist
Purchasing Agent
Administrative Support Assistant
Investigative Research Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Property Management Specialist
Property Management Specialist
Financial Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Property Management Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Financial Specialist
Property Management Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Financial Specialist
Operations Support Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Investigative Research Specialist
Administrative Support Assistant
Financial Specialist
Criminal Program Specialist

GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0341‐13
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0343‐11/12
GS‐0301‐07/09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐07/09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0343‐11
GS‐0301‐07/09
GS‐1105‐08/09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐1101‐11
GS‐1101‐09
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐1101‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐1101‐11
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0301‐09
GS‐0309‐09
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0501‐09
GS‐0301‐09

10/5/2017
10/6/2017
10/10/2017
10/10/2017
10/10/2017
10/16/2017
10/17/2017
10/19/2017
10/19/2017
10/20/2017
10/20/2017
10/23/2017
10/23/2017
10/25/2017
10/25/2017
10/27/2017
10/30/2017
10/30/2017
10/30/2017
10/30/2017
11/2/2017
11/3/2017
11/14/2017
11/17/2017
11/29/2017
12/1/2017
12/5/2017
12/11/2017
12/11/2017
12/12/2017
12/13/2017
1/2/2018
1/8/2018
1/8/2018
1/8/2018
1/12/2018
1/16/2018
1/19/2017
1/24/2018
1/24/2018
1/26/2018
1/30/2018
1/30/2018
1/31/2018
2/8/2018
2/8/2018

OGC
AFD
JPATS
JPATS
JPATS
WSD
WSD
AFD
ITD
OPR
FSD
AFD
EEO
IOD
MSD
HRD
TOD
HRD
JPATS
JPATS
HRD
HRD
HRD
FSD
HRD
HRD
FSD
FSD
IOD
FSD
FSD
HRD
ITD
ITD
FSD
JSD
JSD
JSD
HRD
TOD
FSD
EEO
HRD
HRD
JSD
HRD
HRD
FSD
OPR
FSD
FSD

Government Information Specialist
Supervisory Contract Specialist
Prisoner Transportation Assistantt
Prisoner Transportation Assistantt
Intelligence Research Specialist
Operations Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory IT Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Budget Analyst
Property Management Specialist
Equal Employment Opportunity Specialist
Supervisory Financial Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Human Resources Specialist
Public Safety Communications Specialist
Human Resources Assistant
Senior Aviation Enforcement Officer
Senior Aviation Enforcement Officer
Human Resources Specialist
Supervisory Human Resources Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Accountant
Employee Health Programs Manager
Management & Program Analyst
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Supervisory Intelligence Research Specialist
Information Technology Specialist
Budget Analyst
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Personnel Security Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Administrative Officer
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Intelligence Anaylst
Human Resources Specialist
Human Resources Specialist (Salisbury, NC)
Budget Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Contract Specialist (Austin)
Lead Contract Specialist (Austin)

GS‐0306‐12/13
GS‐1102‐14
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0132‐11
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0343‐12
GS‐0343‐11/12
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0560‐09/11
GS‐1101‐13
GS‐0260‐12/13
GS‐0501‐15
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0201‐12
GS‐0301‐07
GS‐0203‐05
GS‐1801‐11
GS‐1801‐11
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0101‐15
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0510‐15
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐1102‐09
GS‐1102‐09
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐1101‐09
GS‐1101‐09
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐0560‐12/13
GS‐1102‐9/11/12/13
GS‐1102‐9/11/12/13
GS‐1102‐9/11/12/13
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0080‐12/13
GS‐0343‐11/12/13
GS‐0341‐12
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0132‐15
GS‐0201‐9/11/12
GS‐0101‐13
GS‐0560‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐1102‐11/12
GS‐1102‐13

12/27/2016
12/27/2016
12/30/2016
12/30/2016
12/30/2016
1/9/2017
1/6/2017
1/6/2017
1/12/2017
1/27/2017
1/13/2017
1/17/2017
1/25/2017
1/18/2017
1/17/2017
1/19/2017
1/24/2017
1/26/2017
1/26/2017
1/26/2017
1/27/2017
1/27/2017
1/27/2017
1/27/2017
1/27/2017
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
1/30/2017
3/6/2017
3/6/2017
3/6/2017
3/9/2017
3/10/2017
3/10/2017
3/17/2014
3/21/2017
3/21/2017
3/21/2017
3/22/2017
3/23/2017
3/28/2017
3/28/2017
3/28/2017
3/28/2017
3/29/2017
4/5/2017
4/5/2017
4/12/2017
4/12/2017
4/18/2017
4/18/2017

 299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349

TD
ITD
WSD
TD
JPATS
JPATS
ITD
JSD
JSD
JSD
JSD
IOD
IOD
IOD
HRD
FSD
POD
ITD
ITD
ITD
JSD
JPATS
JPATS
HRD
HRD
WSD
HRD
HRD
HRD
HRD
HRD
HRD
HRD
JPATS
FSD
HRD
HRD
OGC
OGC
IOD
IOD
JSD
OGC
OGC
JPATS
JSD
JSD
JSD
TD
POD
TOD

Training Administrator
Information Technology Specialist
Operations Analyst
Financial Specialist
Aircraft Dispatcher
Airplane Pilot
Information Technology Specialist
Intelligence Research Specialist
Intelligence Research Specialist
Intelligence Research Specialist
Intelligence Research Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Human Resources Specialist
Supervisory Contract Specialist
Contractor Administrator
Information Technology Specialist
Information Technology Specialist
Information Technology Specialist
Physical Security Specialist
Aircraft Dispatcher
Aircraft Dispatcher
Human Resources Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Administrative Officer
Human Resources Assistant
Human Resources Assistant
Human Resources Assistant
Human Resources Assistant
Human Resources Assistant
Human Resources Assistant
Human Resources Assistant
Quality Assurance Specialist
Supervisory Accountant
Employee Health Programs Manager
Senior Human Resources Specialist
Government Information Specialist
Government Information Specialist
Statistician
Statistician
Supervisory Contract Specialist
Attorney Advisor
Attorney Advisor
Supervisory Airplane Pilot
Physical Security Specialist
Physical Security Specialist
Physical Security Specialist
Training Specialist
Finance Officer
Interdisciplinary

GS‐1712‐13/14
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐0301‐11/12
GS‐0501‐09/11
GS‐2151‐08
GS‐2181‐13
GS‐1102‐13
GS‐0132‐13
GS‐0132‐13
GS‐0132‐13
GS‐0132‐13
GS‐0343‐11/12/13
GS‐0343‐11/12/13
GS‐0343‐11/12/13
GS‐0201‐14
GS‐1102‐15
GS‐1101‐13
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐0080‐12/13
GS‐2151‐08
GS‐2151‐08
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0341‐09
GS‐0203‐05/07
GS‐0203‐05/07
GS‐0203‐05/07
GS‐0203‐05/07
GS‐0203‐05/07
GS‐0203‐05/07
GS‐0203‐05/07
GS‐1910‐13
GS‐0510‐14
GS‐0601‐14
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0306‐09/11
GS‐0306‐09/11
GS‐1530‐13
GS‐1530‐13
GS‐1102‐15
GS‐0890‐15
GS‐0890‐15
GS‐2181‐14
GS‐0080‐9/11
GS‐0080‐9/11
GS‐0080‐9/11
GS‐1712‐12/13
GS‐0501‐15
GS‐0101/0180/0185‐15

4/19/2017
4/20/2017
5/1/2017
5/3/2017
5/16/2017
5/19/2017
5/19/2017
5/19/2017
5/19/2017
5/19/2017
5/19/2017
5/22/2017
5/22/2017
5/22/2017
5/23/2017
5/25/2017
5/25/2017
6/21/2017
6/26/2017
6/26/2017
6/26/2017
6/27/2017
6/28/2017
6/30/2017
6/30/2017
7/5/2017
7/10/2017
7/10/2017
7/10/2017
7/10/2017
7/10/2017
7/10/2017
7/10/2017
7/11/2017
7/21/2017
7/24/2017
7/31/2017
8/9/2017
8/9/2017
8/9/2017
8/9/2017
8/10/2017
8/14/2017
8/14/2017
8/16/2017
8/17/2017
8/17/2017
8/17/2017
8/18/2017
8/21/2017
8/21/2017

 350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400

JPATS
JSD
ITD
ITD
WSD
TOD
HRD
HRD
JSD
HRD
HRD
WSD
POD
POD
POD
POD
POD
POD
POD
POD
WSD
FSD
FSD
FSD
FSD
JSD
OGC
JSD
AFD
FSD
JSD
FSD
IOD
ITD
HRD
IOD
HRD
OGC
IOD
JPATS
JPATS
FSD
HRD
JPATS
HRD
JSD
MSD
POD
JPATS
TOD
JPATS

Parmedic
Supervisory Contract Specialist
Supervisory IT Specialist
Supervisory IT Specialist
Case Analyst
Supervisory Public Safety Communications Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Human Resources Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Supervisory Operations Analyst
Contract Administrator
Contract Administrator
Contract Administrator
Contract Administrator
Contract Administrator
Contract Administrator
Contract Administrator
Contract Administrator
Supervisory Case Analyst
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Contract Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Government Information Specialist
Contract Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Financial Management Analyst
Supervisory Physical Security Specialist
Supervisory Contract Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Information Technology Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Operations Research Analyst
Supervisory Human Resources Specialist
Government Information Specialist
Supervisory Management & Program Analyst
Aviation Enforcement Officer (OKC)
Aviation Enforcement Officer (LAS)
Contract Specialist
Supervisory Human Resources Specialist
Financial Analyst
Human Resources Specialist
Supervisory Contract Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Financial Management Analyst
Supervisory Aviation Enforcement Officer
Supervisory Personnel Security Specialist
Supervisory Airplane Pilot

GS‐0640‐07
GS‐1102‐14
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐0301‐13
GS‐0301‐14
GS‐0201‐07/09/11/12
GS‐0201‐07/09/11/12
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐0301‐13
GS‐1101‐13
GS‐1101‐13
GS‐1101‐13
GS‐1101‐13
GS‐1101‐13
GS‐1101‐13
GS‐1101‐13
GS‐1101‐13
GS‐0301‐14
GS‐1102‐9/11
GS‐1102‐9/11
GS‐1102‐13
GS‐1102‐13
GS‐0343‐11/12/13
GS‐0306‐09/11/12/13
GS‐11‐02‐9/11/12/13
GS‐0343‐11/12
GS‐0501‐14
GS‐0080‐14
GS‐1102‐14
GS‐0343‐14
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐1515‐14
GS‐0201‐14
GS‐0306‐12/13
GS‐0343‐14
GL‐1801‐07/09
GL‐1801‐07/09
GS‐1102‐13
GS‐0101‐14
GS‐0501‐09/11
GS‐0201‐13
GS‐1102‐15
GS‐0343‐11/12/13
GS‐0501‐09/11/12/13
GS‐1801‐12
GS‐0080‐14
GS‐2181‐14

8/23/2017
8/24/2017
8/24/2017
8/24/2017
9/5/2017
9/7/2017
9/12/2017
9/12/2017
9/13/2017
9/14/2017
9/15/2017
9/18/2017
9/19/2017
9/19/2017
9/19/2017
9/19/2017
9/19/2017
9/19/2017
9/19/2017
9/19/2017
9/21/2017
9/20/2017
9/20/2017
9/20/2017
9/20/2017
9/25/2017
9/25/2017
9/25/2017
9/27/2017
9/27/2017
9/28/2017
10/2/2017
10/6/2017
10/6/2017
10/10/2017
10/11/2017
10/13/2017
10/19/2017
10/23/2017
10/26/2017
10/26/2017
10/30/2017
10/30/2017
11/13/2017
11/13/2017
11/16/2017
11/21/2017
11/22/2017
11/28/2017
11/29/2017
12/1/2017

 401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434

TD
POD
JPATS
IOD
HRD
JSD
JPATS
JPATS
ITD
ITD
ITD
ITD
ITD
ITD
HRD
HRD
JPATS
OPR
TOD
TOD
OPA
OPR
ITD
JSD
ITD
ITD
JSD
ITD
ITD
IOD
IOD
JPATS
AFD
JSD

Training Specialist
Supervisory Detention Facilities Program Manager
Parmedic
Extradition Analyst
Employee Health Programs Manager
Management & Program Analyst
Airplane Pilot
Airplane Pilot
Supervisory IT Specialist (Sacramento)
Supervisory IT Specialist (Pensacola)
Supervisory IT Specialist (Washington, DC)
Supervisory IT Specialist (Chicago)
Supervisory IT Specialist (Brownsville)
Supervisory IT Specialist (Houston)
Human Resources Specialist
Human Resources Specialist
Prisoner Transportation Assistant
Management & Program Analyst
Supervisory Personnel Security Specialist
Supervisory Public Safety Communications Specialist
Public Affairs Specialist
Management & Program Analyst
Information Technology Specialist
Supervisory Contract Specialist
Information Technology Specialist (Philadelphia)
Information Technology Specialist
Supervisory Physical Security Specialist
Information Technology Specialist
Information Technology Specialist
Statistician
Statistician
Lead Paramedic
Business Operations Specialist
Executive Officer

GS‐1712‐12/13
GS‐0301‐14
GS‐0640‐07
GS‐0301‐13
GS‐0601‐14
GS‐0343‐12/13
GS‐‐2181‐13
GS‐‐2181‐13
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐0201‐07/09/11/12
GS‐0201‐09/11/12
GS‐0303‐07
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐0080‐14
GS‐0301‐13
GS‐1035‐13
GS‐0343‐13
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐1102‐14
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐0080‐14
GS‐2210‐14
GS‐2210‐13
GS‐1530‐13
GS‐1530‐13
GS‐0640‐08
GS‐1101‐14
GS‐0340‐15

12/5/2017
12/8/2017
12/11/2017
12/15/2017
12/23/2017
12/23/2017
1/5/2018
1/5/2018
1/10/2018
1/10/2018
1/10/2018
1/10/2018
1/10/2018
1/10/2018
1/10/2017
1/10/2017
1/19/2018
1/24/2018
1/25/2018
1/25/2018
1/26/2018
1/30/2018
2/1/2018
2/2/2018
2/7/2018
2/8/2018
2/8/2018
2/8/2018
2/8/2018
2/12/2018
2/12/2018
2/14/2018
2/19/2018
2/21/2018

 Footnote 3

US. Department of Justice

United States Marshals Service

 

Ojj?ice 0f the Director

 

Washington, DC 20530-0001

May 4,2017

Mr. David Barnes

Chapter President

Federal Managers Association
1641 Prince Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2818

Dear Mr. Barnes:

Thank you for the Federal Managers Association (FMA) letters dated March 24, 2017,
and April 11, 2017, discussing some 1? MA members? views of two merit promotion issues in the
United States Marshals Service (USMS). As with all USMS matters, I welcome constructive
comments and feedback from employees.

Regarding the Investigative Operations Division and the Regional Fugitive Task Forces
(RFTF), I was briefed on a proposed restructure of the task forces and I requested additional
information from both the Human Resources Division (HRD) and the Financial Services
Division (F SD). After reviewing the information provided by HRD and FSD. as well as
extensive discussions with my executive leadership, I have decided to proceed with the proposal
by establishing a new RFTF structure which will include positions at the 81 1-13, 14, and 15
levels. These positions will be announced on a future career board with the resulting selections
made in accordance with merit promotion principles.

Regarding the Selective Placement Factors (SPF) in the Witness Security Division
(WSD) job announcements, the SPF were established in conjunction with WSD management
after completion of a job analysis. The analysis supported that the experience established in the
SPFs is necessary for immediate successful performance on the job. If other divisions believe
SPF are necessary, the Assistant Director ofthat division is welcome to make a request and
complete a job analysis as was done by WSD. As you cite in your letter, the Judiciary
Committee?s Majority Staff Report acknowledged that we have already limited the use of SPFs,
but the USMS will continue to use allowable SPFs when warranted.

Merit promotions are often a sensitive issue because, by de?nition, many of the people
who do not receive promotion are disappointed by the outcome. Nevertheless, the USMS
continues to assess and discuss changes that can further strengthen our promotion processes. I
take pride in knowing that that according to the 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, when
considering all aspects of the survey, 70.5 percent of USMS employees are satis?ed with our

Mr. David Barnes
Page 2

organization, which surpasses the Department of ustice?s (DOJ) score and is considerably
superior to the federal government average. I also take pride in the fact that the USMS was the
highest ranked Law Enforcement agency in DOJ and third in the Law Enforcement and Border
Protection agencies category of the Partnership for Public Service?s 2016 Best Places to Work in
the Federal Government rankings.

Thank you for your interest in USMS merit promotion and please convey to your
membership my appreciation for their hard work and dedicated service to the USMS.

Sincerely,
David L. Harlow
Acting Director

cc: Mari Barr Santangelo
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Human Resources and Administration
Justice Management Division

DeLisa Lay

Investigative Counsel
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

Footnote 5

United States Marshals Service – FMA Chapter 373
fma.usmarshals@gmail.com
December 8, 2017

Mr. William Delaney, Chief
Office of Congressional Affairs
United States Marshals Service
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Subject:

Response to your e-mail on excepted service hiring
authority at the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)

Dear Mr. Delaney:
Thank you for your E-mail message of November 30th. Since the legislation you discuss
is entitled the U.S. Marshals Hiring Improvement Act of 2017 (S. 1124), we share a common
interest of improving hiring and promotion practices at the USMS.
While there has been some suggestion that we “oppose” excepted service hiring
authority, you can rest assured it is an unfortunate mischaracterization. We do not necessarily
oppose anything that is deemed good for the USMS. However, we, like many managers in the
USMS,1 believe there are opportunities to improve the Bill, specific to hiring and promotion
practices within the Agency.
The Ensuring a Qualified Civil Service (EQUALS) Act (H.R. 4182) was recently passed by
House lawmakers. The FMA supports this legislation that allows managers and supervisors
sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate their workers’ skills and abilities by having a two-year
probationary period,2 much like the proposed Bill (S. 1124) would do in granting the USMS
excepted service hiring authority. As you will note in the Washington Post article, the FMA
stepped forward in support of this Bill. Longer probationary periods are one area where we
already agree, and that is reflected in both Bills.
I last met with the Acting Director/Deputy Director on March 3rd as a part of regularlyscheduled USMS/USMS FMA meetings. That was more than nine months ago. Since that time,
we have extended multiple opportunities to meet. For example, we suggested a meeting in each
of our letters on hiring and promotion practices dated March 24th and April 11th. Our VicePresident for Law Enforcement Operations requested meetings with the Acting Director/Deputy
1

In the past, senior managers in the districts enjoyed representation by their peers to agency executives
through the District Allocation Working Group that was abolished in 2011. Since then, many district
managers believe they do not have a voice in agency operational decisions and instead, increasingly look
to the USMS FMA to collectively share their viewpoints with leadership for improving the workforce.
2
House to vote on lengthening trial period for federal employees from one to two years  
1   Excepted Service – Mr. Delaney

 Director on July 13th, July 23rd, October 24th, and as recent as November 28th, 29th, and 30th.
Excepted service hiring authority was an agenda item for these meetings.
Disappointingly, each of our offers to schedule a meeting have been rebuffed. Instead, I
was informed the Associate Director for Administration may have recently told Congressional
staffers we declined to meet with the Agency. The written record shows otherwise. Given our
multiple offers since springtime to meet with the Acting Director/Deputy Director, I find this
assertion, if true, to be misleading.
I am concerned our offers to meet and maintain regularly-scheduled consultative
meetings ceased, only after we began communicating with Congress on excepted service hiring
authority. We did so because it was apparent our own Agency did not wish to discuss with us
opportunities to improve hiring and promotion practices. This may have also led to the Acting
Director/Deputy Director’s letter to the FMA national president on August 3rd.3 This prompted
our subsequent letter to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on August 10th, and
his letter to the Attorney General on August 11th.4
Despite our multiple best efforts, we were unable to first share our concerns internally on
excepted service hiring authority when meetings ceased. We are open, however, to a reset to
quash the chilling appearance that diverse viewpoints from within the ranks are unwelcome.
In our continued effort to provide our membership with information the Agency has
gathered or developed on excepted service hiring authority, I transmitted a FOIA request on
September 28th to the USMS on this very subject. I followed up with the USMS FOIA Officer on
November 16th. Now 70 days later, neither of my communications have been as much as
acknowledged, as required by law.
To have a more meaningful discussion we would like to obtain the documents requested
through FOIA, giving us time to review them over the holidays. We would then like to meet and
would also be eager to share with agency officials the same presentation that we made to
Congress.
We would appreciate it if you would be so kind to determine the reason the FOIA request
has not been acknowledged, and if the requested documents may otherwise be provided,
consistent with our Consultative Agreement.5 If your office could then ensure that the information
is transmitted to me, trust we will review the materials over the holidays and be in touch to
schedule further internal agency communication. Given the time of year, many of our friends are
on holiday and using their end of year leave.

                                                            
3

Rather than come directly to me to share his concerns, the Acting Director/Deputy Director sent a letter
to the national office stating, in part, “…we question whether any continuing relationship with FMA is
viable” based on what he suggested was his belief our efforts were “designed to undermine significant
Agency initiatives and to further the personal agenda of certain FMA local officer of officers.” The FMA
Executive Director responded to the Acting Director/Deputy Director’s letter on August 16th.
4
Grassley to Sessions - FMA Letter
5
Our Consultation Agreement states, in part: “The USMS grants permission and agrees that the USMS
FMA membership may utilize the following agency items free of charge to further the goals of the FMA:
“…the use of any agency document that is obtainable under FOIA, without having to FOIA the
document…”
2   Excepted Service – Mr. Delaney

 

 We appreciate your E-mail and are very supportive of a meeting to discuss the proposed
legislation for excepted service hiring authority, and other agenda items. Our offer to meet
remains as important to us as does improving the Agency’s hiring and promotion practices. We
look forward to hearing back from you, reviewing the documents requested through FOIA, and
discussing S. 1124.
Thank you for your invitation to work together to better understand legitimate concerns
raised to us by the workforce.
With warm regards,

Dave Barnes 
Dave Barnes
President, Chapter 373
 
Enclosure: Acting USMS Director’s August 3, 2017 letter to Renee Johnson

3   Excepted Service – Mr. Delaney

 

 Footnote 7

Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

(USMS)
Friday, July 28, 2017 12:25 PM
Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Federal Managers Assoc.(USMS)
RE: USAJOBS Daily Saved Search Results for USMS for 7/15/2017

Jason, FSD does not monitor the contractor workforce. We do however work with Districts who
are having administrative staff(ing) challenges and help bridge that gap with contractor and other
resources. I believe those contractors are added to the DSM “on board” staffing
percentages.
 
From: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 6:25 PM
To:
(USMS)
Cc: Federal Managers Assoc.(USMS)
Subject: FW: USAJOBS Daily Saved Search Results for USMS for 7/15/2017

Hi 
 –  
 
            Is there someone in FSD who tracks the contractor workforce? 
 
Jason 
 
From: Mohan, Katherine (USMS)
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 5:16 PM
To: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Subject: RE: USAJOBS Daily Saved Search Results for USMS for 7/15/2017

Jason –  
 
No, HRD does not track the contractor workforce. 
 
Kat 
 
_________________________________ 
Katherine T. Mohan 
Assistant Director 
Human Resources Division 
 

 
From: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 6:12 PM
To: Mohan, Katherine (USMS)
Cc: Federal Managers Assoc.(USMS)
Subject: RE: USAJOBS Daily Saved Search Results for USMS for 7/15/2017

Thank you very much.  My purpose in asking is you may recall since late 
December 2014 I have been tracking (on behalf of the USMS Federal Manager’s 
1

 Association) all USMS administrative positions announced by OPM to identify 
trends on the numbers and grades for the 95 district and 218 sub‐offices, against 
the 12 divisions and half dozen, or so, HQ staff offices (attached).  Currently there 
have been 103 more positions announced for HQ, compared to the districts.  The 
grade structure is rather obvious in its significance for HQ. 
 
The Federal Manager’s Association uses this data when communicating with the 
Director and JMD.  We anticipate doing so again with the new Director when s/he 
is confirmed.   
 
We note the data does not include the contractor workforce where the numbers 
are anticipated to also be far greater for HQ than the districts.  Unfortunately, we 
have not been able to nail down with any certainty the contractor workforce 
within the Agency to compare and contrast those numbers.  In the FY 2017 
appropriation for the USMS, the appropriators included the following language 
that was specific to the USMS:
In addition to receiving direct appropriations, the Committee is
aware that USMS also receives funding from the Department's
Assets Forfeiture Fund [AFF] to augment salaries and expenses
that are intended to directly administer AFF-related activities
like the management and sale of forfeited assets. In an effort
to increase transparency to USMS's use of AFF funding, the
Department is directed to provide the Committee with quarterly
reports that include: a detailed list of USMS's AFF
expenditures; the number of Federal employees and contractor
staff, including the assigned division for each, for any
personnel expenses using AFF funds; and justifications for each
expenditure, including connections with AFF-related operations.

 
We can obtain AFF‐funded contractor positions based on the quarterly reports to 
the Committee.  I understand the DSM now also counts the contractor workforce 
for districts.  Is there any reliable record within HRD for the number of contractors 
assigned to divisions and staff offices? 
 
From: Mohan, Katherine (USMS)
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 4:35 PM
To: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Subject: RE: USAJOBS Daily Saved Search Results for USMS for 7/15/2017

Jason, 
 
The Accounting Tech positions are for DC Superior Court.  They currently have potentially 7 vacancies 
but that can change depending on staff movement and pending selections and their admin hiring 
threshold.  Similarly, there are currently 7 HR Assistant vacancies in HR.  If applicants have questions 
about a posting, I encourage them to contact the POC noted on each vacancy announcement.   
 
2

 Kat 
 
_________________________________ 
Katherine T. Mohan 
Assistant Director 
Human Resources Division 
 

 
From: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 12:43 PM
To: Mohan, Katherine (USMS)
Cc: Federal Managers Assoc.(USMS)
Subject: FW: USAJOBS Daily Saved Search Results for USMS for 7/15/2017

Similarly, are these district or division positions?  Assigned where?  And, the total 
number to be filled?  Thanks. 
 
 
From: <notifications@usajobs.gov> [DO NOT REPLY] [mailto:notifications@usajobs.gov]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 12:04 AM
To: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Subject: USAJOBS Daily Saved Search Results for USMS for 7/15/2017

Hello Jason,
Here are your newest search results for USMS for 7/15/2017.
Some jobs listed in this email may no longer be available—the job may have been canceled or may
have closed. Click the link for each job to see the full job announcement.

Accounting Technician (OA)
Department: Department of Justice
Agency:U.S. Marshals Service
Number of Job Opportunities & Location(s): Few vacancies - Washington DC, District of Columbia
Salary: $44,941.00 to $58,428.00 / Per Year
Series and Grade: GS-0525-7
Open Period: Friday, July 14, 2017 to Thursday, July 20, 2017
Position Information: Permanent - Full-Time
Who May Apply: U.S. Citizens
We only include up to 10 new search results in this email. To view the complete list of results on the
USAJOBS web site, please click View All Opportunities.
This saved search shall expire on 4/9/2018.
You’re receiving this email because you signed up to get automated job search results from USAJOBS.
To make changes or create more saved searches, sign into your USAJOBS account and click Saved
Searches.
Thank you for using USAJOBS.
Sincerely,
The USAJOBS Team
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
1900 E Street NW. Washington, DC 20415
3

 To make sure you get USAJOBS emails in your inbox (and not your spam) add
'notifications@usajobs.gov' to your address book.
If you doubt the authenticity of a USAJOBS email, please visit the USAJOBS site using your browser.
From there, you can log in to your account if an activity is being requested or contact us directly to
inquire about the authenticity of the email.
Please do not reply to this message. Replies to this message go to an unmonitored mailbox.
Have questions or comments? Visit our Help Center.

__________ 
From: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:40 AM
To: Mohan, Katherine (USMS)
Cc: Federal Managers Assoc.(USMS)
Subject: FW: USAJOBS Daily Saved Search Results for USMS for 7/11/2017

Hi Kat –  
 
            Is there an opportunity to better understand the total number of positions 
to be filled under this announcement in HRD?  It reads “many vacancies” without 
defining a number.  Thanks. 
 
Jason 
 
From: <notifications@usajobs.gov> [DO NOT REPLY] [mailto:notifications@usajobs.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 11:47 PM
To: Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Subject: USAJOBS Daily Saved Search Results for USMS for 7/11/2017

Hello Jason,
Here are your newest search results for USMS for 7/11/2017.
Some jobs listed in this email may no longer be available—the job may have been canceled or may
have closed. Click the link for each job to see the full job announcement.

Human Resources Assistant (Recruitment & Placement) (OA)
Department: Department of Justice
Agency:U.S. Marshals Service
Number of Job Opportunities & Location(s): Many vacancies - Arlington, Virginia
Salary: $36,281.00 to $47,171.00 / Per Year
Series and Grade: GS-0203-5
Open Period: Monday, July 10, 2017 to Friday, July 14, 2017
Position Information: Permanent - Full-Time
Who May Apply: All U.S. Citizens
We only include up to 10 new search results in this email. To view the complete list of results on the
USAJOBS web site, please click View All Opportunities.
This saved search shall expire on 4/9/2018.
4

 You’re receiving this email because you signed up to get automated job search results from USAJOBS.
To make changes or create more saved searches, sign into your USAJOBS account and click Saved
Searches.
Thank you for using USAJOBS.
Sincerely,
The USAJOBS Team
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
1900 E Street NW. Washington, DC 20415
To make sure you get USAJOBS emails in your inbox (and not your spam) add
'notifications@usajobs.gov' to your address book.
If you doubt the authenticity of a USAJOBS email, please visit the USAJOBS site using your browser.
From there, you can log in to your account if an activity is being requested or contact us directly to
inquire about the authenticity of the email.
Please do not reply to this message. Replies to this message go to an unmonitored mailbox.
Have questions or comments? Visit our Help Center.

 

5

 C-WISE

Page 1 of 1

Wojdylo, Jason (USMS)
Monday, February 26, 2018

Search this site...

USMS Executive Portal

Contractor – Workforce Information System Exchange
C-WISE enables all Divisions and Staff Offices to track their contractors by name, office, cost, and periods of performance Built-in features indicate which contractors
are “excepted” in the event of a Government shutdown as well as indicate those who are authorized to telework or travel
Managers have full visibility on business information of their contractor workforce without keeping separate cuff records AD’s, DAD’s, BIC Chiefs, and
Administrative Officers have access by default Permissions may be extended to other government employees, such as CO’s and COR’s Contractors are not allowed
to have access to C-WISE
Click here to view instructions
After reading instructions, if need help still, click here to fill out the request

http://exec.usms.doj.gov/Pages/C-WISE.aspx

2/26/2018

 Footnote 8

From: "Harlow, David 

Date: June 16, 2017 at 2:02:17 PM MST
To: "Gonzales, David 
Cc: "Snelson, William 
"Mohan, Katherine 

  
    
    

   

"Musel, David 

   
  
 
 
  
  
 

   






 
   




  
 



 




 
 

 
   

I

 
 
 
 
 
    
 

  
 
  



 
 
  
 
 



"Tobin, Peter 

- 
Subject: RE: Recommendations to Address District Staffing Concerns and Request for Status Update on
DEO Positions

Marshal:

Thank you for your email. As you note, the agency overall faces a challenge regarding
staffing. I have started discussions here with the staff and we will prepare a more complete response,
but wanted to pass along two quick items. First, on my initial review, I believe there are some
misperceptions in your representation and look forward to discussing those with you and others to
make sure we all have the same correct information. Second, your request regarding the DEC program
is very timely. just received a decision brief yesterday regarding the workgroup recommendation on
DEOs. A memo will be coming from me shortly announcing the new program which addresses some of
the specific requests in this email. Again, I appreciate the email and look forward to addressing the
concerns as a group.

Dave Harlow
USMS

From: Gonzales, David (USM)

Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 3:25 PM
To: Harlow, David (USMS)
Cc: Snelson, William (USMS 

   

Musel, David (USMS Mohan, Katherine 

         
 
    


m, er 
Subject: Recommendations 0 IS rIct Staf?ng Concerns and Request for Status Update on DEO
Positions

Deputy Director Harlow,

The purpose of this email is to request your support in addressing staffing challenges many districts are
experiencing. We are aware that you are dealing with many challenges and priorities demanding your
attention. We respectfully submit recommendations and an appeal in augmenting district resources.

Several districts NM, and have been
discussing operational resource challenges and we are collectively providing recommendations, and
requesting assistance to aid our efforts to effectively and safely execute the USMS mission. Over the
past two to five years, many districts across the organization have voiced frustration with staf?ng and
our inability to effectively carry out our various missions due to a steady decrease in operational
resources. This situation is aggravated with the DEC vacancies counting against the staffing formula,
speci?cally for those large districts which rely heavily on the DEC positions to ensure operational
consistency, quality of work and safety. A review of national workload numbers, speci?cally prisoner
workload, has decreased for the agency which may be leading agency leadership to assume the
decreased resources are in line with decreased workload. The fact that there are ef?ciencies with
volume may be a factor which is not taken into account in the workload models skewing the perspective
that the districts are adequately staffed.

To provide perspective, we have attached a historical comparison of the distribution of resources
between admin, op, districts and HQ which provides data on the growth or decrease of these
resources. The recent practice in which the agency promotes over 200 individuals per year, has
approximately 130 retirements per year and has at most 96 individuals graduating as new DUSMs per
year, with many of the new hires coming from within the organization, i.e. DEOs, appears to be
unsustainable. The facts are the districts, intentionally or unintentionally, are not being provided
equitable staffing when compared to the distribution of resources to our HQ components.

We are mindful that some of the growth during this time has come from reimbursable positions or other
agency priorities for both HQ and the districts. In regards to the districts, many of district positions were
specialists, SOICs, AFFIs, and added as of 2002. The district specialists must amount to over 300
positions which are not broken down in the historical staffing ?gures. These specialists counted as
operational positions hide the real loss of manpower to the districts. Bottom line, the attached charts
don?t tell the true loss of operational resources over the past 20 years by which the historical and
primary mission of the USMS is carried out by the districts. This is mitigated somewhat when it comes
to administrative employees due to the recent expansion of contractors over the past few years at
districts. We believe it is safe to assume the use of contractors at HQ is significantly greater than the use
by districts further compounding the disparity in growth reflected by these charts.

We routinely have program specialists (i.e. JSIs, PIIs, SOICs, etc.) and managers staffing court 
operations.  Several years ago, it reached a point which led some districts to advised JSD‐OPO and WSD 
that they can no longer support requests to staff details unless the assignment occurs in their district.  
  
Past agency senior HQ leadership have criticized districts for not using resources as intended.  The 
agency’s priorities of 1) judicial security; 2) investigative services; 3) detention management; 4) law 
enforcement safety; etc. lead districts to responsibly prioritize supporting our primary mission judicial 
security and court operations, with the unintended consequence of districts being viewed as 
overstepping their authority by utilizing specialized resources in line with original intent.  Prudent 
district managers have prioritized goal one, judicial security/court operations, pragmatically and 
responsibly re‐directing resources effectively in the best interest of the organization and our 
stakeholders.  If there were sufficient staffing, the utilization of program specialists would be 
mitigated.  We are left with no safe alternative and to do otherwise would undermine the confidence of 
the agency.  We would argue that our use of SOICs, JSIs, PIIs, and AFFIs demonstrate responsible and 
pragmatic stewardship.  
  
Current staffing challenges are compounded by a recent 9th Circuit decision issued on May 31, 2017, 
regarding the use of restraints on prisoners within the courtroom during non‐jury proceedings. The 9th 
Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that all prisoners will remain unrestrained during court proceedings, 
unless the presiding judge makes an individualized decision for each prisoner indicating that the 
utilization of restraints is the least restrictive means for maintaining security in the courtroom.  This new 
procedure of producing unrestrained prisoners for court hearings will place an immense staffing burden 
on USMS districts that routinely produce large quantities of prisoners per day.  In many busy district, 
prisoners are routinely produced in the courtroom three to five at a time for Change of Plea hearings, 5 
to 30+ for Initial Appearances and Arraignments, and Operation Streamline type productions in the SWB 
has experienced upwards of 100 at one time.  District managers in those impacted districts in the 9th 
Circuit will have no choice but to adjust already taxed resources in each courtroom during these 
hearings  to ensure the safety and security of the judicial process in furtherance of goal one.   Those 
districts dealing with volume, specifically C/CA, S/CA and the D/AZ are forced to revert to a one on one 
plus one practice of DUSM to prisoner ratio creating tremendous resource challenges.  This reallocation 
of resources will also ultimately result in unintentionally neglecting the USMS’ critical mission of fugitive 
investigations, thus failing our local communities and stakeholders.      
  
There have been recent efforts borne out of discussions with senior leadership to address these 
matters.  A recent example was the District Detention Enforcement Providers (DDEP) working group 
which took place in 2016 and a final report was provided to agency leadership in late 2016.  It has been 
approximately eight months since the committee prepared the proposal and we have not heard any 
feedback on the status of these efforts which would go a long in addressing many of these concerns, 
specifically the current process in allocating operational resources.   
  
We are respectfully requesting: 1) the current governance process be re‐evaluated to ensure district 
input (resurrecting the DAWG in some format is recommended); 2) consideration of an Associate 
Director for Field Operations primarily focused on ensuring awareness and advocating for district needs; 
3)  an update on the status of the DDEP project; 4) immediately discontinuing the practice of counting 
vacant DEOs as on‐board positions for future OPREF announcements and the filling of new BDUSM 
classes; 5) and a prioritization of field staffing so the districts can carry out the mission safely and 
effectively.  Our staff shortages are becoming critical and are starting to affect our effectiveness, 
productively, and moral within the DUSM and SDUSM ranks. 

   
Your consideration is greatly appreciated and we are available to assist in crafting long‐term solutions.   
  
  
Respectfully, 
  
  
David P. Gonzales 
U.S. Marshal 
District of Arizona 
  
  
On Behalf of: 
District of Arizona 
Central District of California 
Southern District of California 
District of Columbia Superior Court 
District of New Mexico 
Northern District of Ohio 
Southern District of Ohio 
Northern District of Texas 
Western District of Texas 
Southern District of Texas 
Eastern District of Tennessee 
 

 District vs. Headquarters Operational Employee Comparison

FY 2000 - FY 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT HD TRS
4000 1000
3500 A 900
800
3000
700
2000 500
1500 400
- 300
1000
- 200
500 100
0 0
FY 2000 FY 2007 FY 2011 FY 2017
?District Operational 2445 2769 3545 3095
?qutrs Operational 292 518 719 716

 

 

 

 

 

 

District vs. Headquarters Administrative Employee Comparison
FY 2000 - FY 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT 
800 800
700 700
600 600
Headquarters has Increased by 19.72% since FY-2000
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
FY 2000 FY 2007 FY 2010 FY 2017
?District Admin. 695 682 747 666
?qutrs. Admin. 563 595 713 674

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
District Onboard Count 2896 2837 2859 2862 2932 2987 3426 3545 3479 3408 3381 3289 3130 3095
Difference from Prior Year ?59 22 3 70 55 439 119 -66 ?71 ?27 ?92 ?159 ?35
Difference from Prior Year ?2.08% 0.77% 0.10% 2.39% 1.84% 12.81% 3.36% ?1.90% ?2.08% ?0.80% ?2.80% ?5.08% ?1.13%
Ilncrease during 14 year period 199
Headquarters Onboard Count 404 440 496 541 565 620 692 719 708 713 674 694 738 716
Difference from Prior Year Difference from Prior Year 8.18% 11.29% 8.32% 4.25% 8.87% 10.40% 3.76% ?1.55% 0.70% ?5.79% 2.88% 5.96% 1.54%
 lncrease during 14 year period 312

 

 

 

 

OPERATIONAL ON-BOARD COUNTS (as of Oct. 1 of each ?scal year)
4000

 

3545
3426 3479 3408 3381

3500 3289 3130
95
2896 2932 2987
3000 2337 2859 2862

- 6.43% increase in 14 years

2500

2000

1000

44.28% increase in 14 years
541 565 620 592 719 708 713 574 694 738 716

404 440 496
500

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
-0-District Onboard Count -I?Headquarters On board Count

 

 

 

UJ

FY 2017

FY 2016

FY 2015

FY 2014

FY 2013

FY 2012

FY 2011

FY 2010

FY 2009

FY 2008

FY 2007

FY 2006

FY 2005

FY 2004

 

 

 

OPERATIONAL
EMPLOYEES ON BOARD COMPARISON
THRU FY-2017 YTD

 

 

 

 

 

3095

3130

3289

3381

3408

3479

3545

3426

2987

2932


2859
I. I
2837
I 
2896
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

4000

Headquarters Onboard Count

44.28% INCREASE DURING A 14 YEAR PERIOD

District Onboard Count

6.43% INCREASE DURING A 14 YEAR PERIOD

Footnote 10

US. Department of Justice

United States Marshals Service

Of?ce of the Director

 

Washington, DC 20530-0001

January 3, 2018

MEMORANDUM TO: United States Marshals Service Employees

FROM: David L. Harlow
Deputy Director 

SUBJECT: District Administrative Structure Study

Goal Five of the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Strategic Plan prioritizes the
professionalization of our Agency?s workforce. In 2015, the USMS initiated a study of the
administrative positions in the district of?ces to rede?ne and enhance career paths in light of the
changing landscape of technology, missions, and regulations. As part of this initiative, the
Human Resources Division (HRD) completed on-site reviews and worked with many subject
matter experts in the districts and at Headquarters (HQ) and recently presented their
recommendations.

I am pleased to announce the initiation of the ?rst comprehensive transformation of the
district administrative structure, which I believe is critical to the success of our district
operations. Implementation is complex and reliant on individual district circumstances.
However, the primary changes that will be implemented in the districts are as follows:

1. Establishment of an Assistant Administrative Of?cer position;

2. Utilization of the Financial Specialist position throughout the districts;

3. Establishing Procurement Specialist positions in districts with a large procurement
workload;

4. Standardization of multiple Support Specialist positions; and

5. De?ned core positions by district workload.

HRD will communicate further details on the implementation plan, which due to both the
number of positions involved and existing budget constraints, will take place over the next
several years. Over the coming months, HRD will work with each district to establish their
individual way forward.

I strongly believe these changes are essential to providing a capable and appropriately
skilled administrative staff, in addition to a career path necessary to retain our best and brightest
employees. I want to thank all of the dedicated employees in the districts, HRD and other HQ
programs for all their hard work on this initiative.

Exhibit 2

it-o?dLES l: Lift?! 

., 'A-l ?JSlr Ji-I?lhl
SUJTH .erl?l' 

?r [=er IINCIS
bHr. f? I: 5. Ah: . 
Tzacmz *rxas JC AF 1 ?x'Jl'r SC-TA 5% 4 . 
?43::me ?m we: hall! ?lhb'J. [5 [nu 
.LW ARIZORA 44F. r. 330M. 
(3.78.1957 nap-.2. lit-?2N r17 TTF 5 I -
Huv "Jo-t K. awe. COM 0\ 

Leek 2' WASHING 1 ON, DC 20513-6275

\cusl L. Linc! (0.436! 3'19 Star: 
.l-I?l ?=55 A, .mp- Sm?in

April 24, 2017
VIA leg; TRAN 2N

David Harlow

Acting Director

US. Marshals Service
Washington, DC. 20530-00001

Dear Acting Director Harlow:

As you know, the Committee continues to examine allegations of wasteful
spending by the US. Marshals Service (USMS). Additional allegations suggest that the
USMS may have wasted signi?cant funds for certain contracts that are unnecessary and
may pose con?icts of interest.

First, my of?ce has received information indicating that the USMS has been
paying for an outside speechwriter and management consultant since 2010. The
original ?ve-year contract was worth more than half a million dollars, and a second
four-year contract was recently awarded at a value of more than $825,000. The
speechwriter reportedly works from her home in Longton, Kansas, even though she has
a desk and a telephone number in USMS headquarters in Arlington, VA. Public
information shows that the contractor previously had a ?ve-year contract with the Of?ce
of the Federal Detention Trustee for more than $900,000, at a time when former
Director Stacia Hylton served as the Trustee, and has likely known Ms. Hylton since at
least 1995.

Second, according to public information, the USMS issued an RF I for a
Beechcraft King Air 350 Aircraft Lease.l The USMS Technical Operations Group (TOG)
reportedly plans to use the aircraft as an air surveillance platform for its Mexico
operations. According to information received by my of?ce, TOG and USMS leadership
have been in discussions to acquire not simply a larger air surveillance platform, but this
speci?c aircraft model, for some time. However, the lease allegedly would impose an
unnecessarily high cost and would not, as the USMS RF I suggests, ?ful?ll . . . unique
mission objectives.?

 

Solicitation Number DJM- -17-A41- 
s: .fbo. 
core cview=o.

 

Acting Director Harlow

April 24, 2017
Page 2 of 3

For example, the USMS currently has seven planes, five pilots, and at least one
hanger that has sat empty for more than two years in Morristown, New Jersey, with no
planes and no pilots. Most of the planes are smaller and flown domestically, but,
according to information received by my office, domestic flights are not frequent. The
larger plane, a Cessna, is currently used by the USMS in Mexico.
That particular model reportedly is more suited to TOG’s operations. It is not,
like the King Air, a loud, multi-engine aircraft with a low wing that allegedly interferes
with the cellular tracking equipment on board. It is also apparently much less
expensive, to the point that the USMS could acquire or lease another platform like it and
spend about half as much money. Further, no current TOG pilot is licensed to fly a King
Air. Accordingly, leasing that particular aircraft will impose further costs required to
train and certify pilots. The King Air’s internal space restrictions also pose problems in
physically reaching the tracking equipment if it malfunctions during an operation.
Finally, the King Air allegedly poses added safety risks because it is more complex to
operate.
Whistleblowers allege that pilots rated on multi-engine aircraft are more eligible
to compete for work in the private sector upon government retirement. It has also been
suggested that a former USMS employee has a business relationship with a vendor for
this aircraft. Based on the information I have received, it is unclear why the King Air is
necessary, or what purpose it serves. In the absence of reasonable and transparent
justification, the RFI fuels a perception of conflicts of interest.
Please respond to the following questions by May 8, 2017, and number your
answers according to the corresponding questions.
1. Were any of the contracts awarded to the contractor located in Kansas competed?
2. Please describe in detail the services provided by the contractor, and explain why
speechwriting and management services could not be performed by existing
USMS employees.
3. How much has the USMS paid the contractor to date?
4. Has the USMS paid for any of the contractor’s travel since 2010?
5. Why is there a physical work space for the contractor in Virginia if the contractor
is located in Kansas?
6. Why is the USMS seeking to lease King Air? What benefits does it have over the
plane currently used in Mexico for TOG?
7. Please provide a detailed estimated cost analysis of leasing a King Air versus
leasing a second model like the large platform the USMS currently operates in
Mexico. Does the USMS currently employ individuals capable of performing the
maintenance on its current model?
8. How much would it cost to train and certify TOG pilots to fly a King Air?

 Acting Director Harlow

April 24, 2017
Page 3 of 3

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
cc:

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
The Honorable Michael Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice

 Exhibit 3

October 1, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Loretta Lynch
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Dear Attorney General Lynch:
On March 18, 2015, I sent a letter to former Director Stacia Hylton of the U.S.
Marshals Service (USMS) inquiring into questionable spending of the Assets Forfeiture
Fund by officials in the Asset Forfeiture Division (AFD). On April 3, 2015, the USMS
responded. In a follow-up letter dated May 6, 2015, I described how information
obtained by the Committee suggests that the USMS April 3 letter was incomplete and
potentially misleading. Unfortunately, the Committee has received additional
whistleblower allegations that suggest further discrepancies between statements in the
April 3 USMS letter and the agency’s actual spending habits. In light of these new
allegations, and as the investigations by the Committee and the Inspector General
continue, this letter requests additional information regarding potentially wasteful
expenditures by the USMS.
USMS Headquarters Relocation
In its April 3, 2015, letter, the USMS informed the Committee that it will relocate
its headquarters offices in Washington, D.C., in December 2016. According to
whistleblowers, the cost of the relocation has skyrocketed to approximately double
original projections. The final total allegedly amounts to tens of millions of dollars and
much more than the $30.8 million apparently allotted for the work plans of all 94 U.S.
Marshals Service districts in Fiscal Year 2015. The agency allegedly is paying for a
private gym, personal in-office bathrooms and showers for leadership, several lucrative
consultant contracts related to the build-out, expensive and unnecessary audio-visual

 Attorney General Lynch
October 1, 2015
Page 2 of 4

equipment, and office space for individuals assigned to headquarters divisions but who
do not live in the commuting area of Washington, D.C.
This spending does not conform to the impression left by the April 3 letter that
the relocation is aimed at saving money. The USMS stated in its April 3 letter that the
move “will save $9 million in rent annually totaling $145 million in cost savings over the
15-year lease period.”1 Such savings are commendable and of significant value for the
agency and the taxpayer. However, they do not clearly justify the inefficient use of funds
on arguably unnecessary and ballooning construction costs.
Additionally, the Committee’s original March 18, 2015, inquiry asked the agency
for details about lavish spending of the Assets Forfeiture Fund on office furniture and
fixtures in its Crystal City headquarters location in Arlington, Virginia, and the Asset
Forfeiture Academy in Houston, Texas. In its April 3, 2015 response, the USMS
explained that many of the expensive furnishings acquired for its Crystal City
headquarters offices would be reused when the agency relocated to new space in
December 2016. The USMS wrote that, while the fixtures would remain in the current
headquarters, “[r]emovable items . . . such as the framed prints and furniture—including
the [$22,000] conference table” would be “re-used by USMS or excessed to GSA for use
by the Department or other federal agencies.” 2
Information obtained by the Committee demonstrates that, in fact, the USMS is
buying primarily, if not entirely, new furniture for its new offices. These new purchases
follow closely on the heels of allegedly excessive spending not only by the Asset
Forfeiture Division but also other USMS headquarters divisions. For example, the
Prisoner Operations Division (POD) allegedly acquired brand new furniture for its
employees just last year—furniture that the USMS apparently will leave behind.
Asset Forfeiture Academy
The Committee’s May 6, 2015, letter also noted that the USMS’ stated reasons for
building the Asset Forfeiture Academy in a downtown office building in Houston to
achieve “greater consolidation and efficiency” appeared disingenuous. For example, as
the letter describes, the USMS already had access to other training facilities at the time
the agency built the Academy.
According to new information obtained by the Committee, the USMS also had—
and still has—access to additional conference rooms for no additional charge by virtue of
the rent it already pays for office space in the Allen Center in downtown Houston.
Letter from William Delaney, Chief of Congressional and Public Affairs, U.S. Marshals Service to Senator
Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Apr. 3, 2015).
2 Id.
1

 Attorney General Lynch
October 1, 2015
Page 3 of 4

These “Brookfield” conference rooms offer wi-fi internet access and audiovisual
equipment, and some can accommodate up to 140 individuals. It is difficult to
understand why the agency spent millions of dollars on the Academy when it already
had access to ample space for training at multiple venues.
In light of the additional information received by the Committee, please provide
written responses to the following requests by October 14, 2015:
1. Please provide a copy of the GSA lease agreement for the new headquarters
location.
2. How much did the USMS originally budget for the headquarters relocation?
a. What is the current projection for all spending for the relocation?
b. Please provide a detailed explanation for any discrepancy.
3. Please provide a detailed cost breakdown for all obligations and all expenditures,
by fiscal year, for all expenses related to the relocation. Please provide cost
projections, by fiscal year, including fiscal years 2016-2017, and beyond, as
applicable.
a. Please provide the obligations and expenditures, and future projections, by
cost category, including, but not limited to, moving, furnishings, security,
records management, construction, architecture, information technology,
audio-visual equipment, and any other related project costs.
b. Please also detail the source of funds for each category of costs, specifically
note which expenditures derive from the Assets Forfeiture Fund, and cite
the corresponding statutory and regulatory authorization for the agency’s
intended use of those funds.
4. What is the current cost savings projection for the 15-year lease period of the new
USMS headquarters location?
5. What, if any, furniture or audio-visual equipment will be reused in the new
headquarters location?
6. Please provide a copy of all consultant contract documents, including statements
of work.
7. What use, if any, has the USMS made of the Brookfield conference rooms in
Houston, Texas?

 Attorney General Lynch
October 1, 2015
Page 4 of 4

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

cc:

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby
Chairman
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies
Senate Committee on Appropriations
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies
Senate Committee on Appropriations
The Honorable John Culberson
Chairman
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies
House Committee on Appropriations
The Honorable Chaka Fattah
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies
House Committee on Appropriations
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice

 Exhibit 4

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Marshals Service

 

O?ice of Congressional A?airs

 

Washington, DC 20530-1000
April 3, 2015

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This responds to your letter to Director Hylton dated March 18, 2015 regarding
allegations of misuse of the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AF F) resources by the Asset Forfeiture
Division (AF D) within the United States Marshals Service (USMS). More speci?cally, your
letter suggests misuse of AF resources on of?ce renovations and furnishings and misuse of
funds provided for Joint Law Enforcement Operations (J LEO). We value the opportunity to
answer your questions and appreciate the additional time you provided in order to fully research
and report on events which occurred as long ago as 2008.

Cgstal Mall 4

In 2009, AFD moved its of?ces to Mall 4 in Arlington, Virginia to accommodate
a USMS headquarters space expansion of the Judicial Security mission. The USMS worked
closely with the General Services Administration (GSA) in the design and construction of the
required build out of this GSA-leased space. GSA approved and authorized the build out, which
met standards set forth in the GSA lease agreement. These renovations were incorporated into
the GSA build out pursuant to standard terms of the lease agreement for all interior ?nishing.
Finishing work, including millwork, painting, staining, and wall coverings, cost approximately
$23,800. The approvals for the build out were in compliance with USMS internal controls at the
time.

As to your speci?c questions, AFD did purchase a multi-purpose conference table for its
large conference room from the lowest offeror in a competitive procurement. AFD utilizes this
table for meetings and trainings because it is equipped to accommodate 16 local area network
connections so that multiple users can simultaneously connect to the network for ef?cient
interactive computer-application training sessions. The conference room table, including
installation of the noted technical capabilities, cost approximately $22,000 (including shipping).

As to window treatments, those initially provided in the existing of?ce space blocked out
all light when closed. Unfortunately, this design was not conducive to the structure of 
of?ce space, which contains a number of cost-effective cubicles sharing the available windows.
As a result, AF engaged in a competitive procurement process to change the window

The Honorable Charles Grassley
Page 2

treatments to a type that would allow natural light into the of?ce even when the shades are
closed. Again, AFD chose the lowest offer in the competitive procurement process, spending
approximately $12,300 total for 128 roller shades to enhance employee working conditions and
productivity through this alteration.

Likewise, AFD engaged in a competitive procurement process and selected the lowest
offer received to purchase framed prints for the entire office space at a total cost of
approximately $3,200. AFD also purchased a metal Asset Forfeiture Academy (AFA) sign for
approximately $2,000, which hangs in a conference room. Other renovation and design features
such as molding and wall coverings were also competitively bid and are part of the total project
costs noted above.

In December 2016, the USMS headquarters is scheduled to relocate to new office space
as directed by GSA because the majority of the current leases will expire at that time. The new
space will reduce overall square footage and will consolidate its several current leases
into a single lease. This move will save $9 million in rent annually totaling $145 million in cost
savings over the 15?year lease period. Fixtures such as millwork, wall coverings and window
shades, will remain in place when the AFD vacates its current space. Removable items,
however, such as the framed prints and ?lrniture?including the conference table noted above?
will be re-used by USMS or excessed to GSA for use by the Department or other federal
agencies. The new AFD of?ces in the USMS headquarters building will include standardized
?nishes with a similar/uniform appearance for all divisions/of?ces throughout the building. The
new USMS headquarters location and lease terms were selected through competitive
bidding process and the build out of the new space will adhere to requirements outlined in the
GSA lease.

The Asset Forfeiture Training Academy

The Asset Forfeiture Training Academy (AFA) is co-located within the Southern
District of Texas? Asset Forfeiture Unit AFU) for greater consolidation and efficiency.
By locating the Academy within the AF U, students bene?t from on~the~j ob training
provided by experienced staff in both office and ?eld settings. The cost to establish this
specialized training facility and educational resources was approximately $1,780,600, including
all construction, equipment, and furnishings.

The facility is located in a downtown Houston high-rise of?ce building. It is also
equipped with an audio/visual system, which is utilized for presentations and video?
teleconferencing capabilities during training. As a result of the radiant heat and light, the rooms
required a temperature and light control solution. The chosen solution was a remote controlled
two shade window system that can regulate temperature and light. This system was included in
the bui1d~out of the AFA using the standard GSA reimbursable work agreement. The total cost
of the window system, including integration within the audio/visual system, was approximately
$29,000, which was the lowest bid in the competitive procurement process. The ?illy integrated
audio/visual and teleconference system, which includes the window shades, has an annual
service plan cost of approximately $10,700, which provides for technical support of the audio?
visual conferencing system.

The Honorable Charles Grassley
Page 3

The granite mentioned in your letter is limited to ?ve small surfaces and one built-in
reception desk, all totaling approximately 57 square feet. We are unable to provide the total cost
because it was included in the overall contractor build out cost again, bid competitively and
procured by GSA pursuant to standard terms of the lease agreement for interior ?nishing.

You also requested information on asset forfeiture trainings at the AFA. In FY 2014,
during a time of government-wide ?scal restraints and limited government travel for trainings,
the facility was used for 33.5 days of training. The agenda consisted of courses on the Business
of Forfeiture, Financial Investigator Orientation and Information Sessions, Contracting Officer
Representative training, and Best Practices for BankScan training. We have enclosed the
agendas for the FY 2014 events. From FY 2011 through FY 2014, the AFA trained over 1,800
students at the facility.

The USMS strives to be good stewards of the appropriations entrusted to us as we carry
out our important law enforcement mission. The approvals for the items raised in your letter
occurred as far back as 2008 and were compliant with the internal controls at the time
and the senior USMS of?cials who approved the questioned expenditures retired years ago. The
current Associate Director for Administration has implemented additional approval safeguards
for furniture and equipment expenditures across USMS headquarters functions, including AFD,
while USMS reviews internal controls and Agency-wide policies.

Joint Law Enforcement Operations Funds

JLEO funds are provided from the AF to support state and local task force operations.
N0 JLEO funds have been used to directly support any USMS employee. JLEO funds are used,
however, to pay a share of circuit and database service costs proportional to the usage of those
services by state and local law enforcement.

The invoices for the circuit costs do not provide suf?cient detail to determine which
charges are attributed to federal versus state and local cases. Therefore, we relied on historical
analysis to determine that approximately 80% of circuit costs are associated with state and local
investigative cases. Accordingly, the Department approved, as a permissible use of the LEO
funding, 80% of the circuit and database costs that are attributed to state and local investigations.

Likewise, for the Commercial?Assisted Legal Research (CALR) databases, which are the
most widely used tools for investigators in developing information to locate and arrest ?igitives,
the USMS monitors the number of searches for cases that are non-federal. 0f the
approximately 270,000 database searches, 79.4% are run for state or local cases,
regardless of whether they are adopted by the USMS or retained by the state or local agency.
Accordingly, the Department approved use of JLEO funds for the same proportional share to
cover the costs of CALR databases.

The Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-544) resulted in the
implementation of seven USMS Regional Fugitive Task Forces. The USMS also is the lead
agency in 60 district-led fugitive task forces across the nation. These regional and district task
forces, consisting of federal, state, and local law enforcement of?cers, locate and apprehend

The Honorable Charles Grassley
Page 4

thousands of dangerous fugitives charged with drug-related offenses associated with the
possession, transportation and distribution of illegal narcotics.

The only AFF allocations? used to support fugitive task forces is the funding
classi?ed as ?Awards for Information.? These allocations occur because state and local law
enforcement agencies generally do not have suf?cient resources to provide such funding. These
funds are used to pay for information leading to the location and apprehension of fugitives
wanted for drug offenses. Over the last two and a half ?scal years, the USMS has transferred
$26,000 funds to the District of Arizona for payments under the Awards for
Information funding for drug cases.

Thank you for bringing these matters to our attention and for your support of the USMS
and law enforcement in general. If you have further questions, please contact me at

-, or at

Sincerely,

William Delaney
Chief of Congressional and Public Affairs
United States Marshals Service

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General

Of?ce of the Inspector General

US Department of Justice

Exhibit 5

it-o?dLES I: UH 

??1?th ?13? 1.. 

ucssv o. sank/v.1, SOJTH 39:. .ww? ant/om

was air-Arr. ram IINCIS

-5: sum summon . 

Tzacmz ?raw-?0010M w, 5% 4 . 
Hit-K F?l??lKE?l. lJlIl?x?Jthl? [nu 
.w puma. ARIZORA 44F. sr3F~Ea scorts. scan/an: 

mm: mm mil-gar nuvrm tram." mr TTF I .

Huv "Jo-t K. .4940 COM 0\ 

DC 20513-6275

\cusi L. Linc! (0.436! and Star: 
.l-I?l ?=55 A, .mp- Sm?in

September 12, 2017

VIA TRAN SMISSIQN

The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General

US. Department of Justice

950 Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC. 20530

The Honorable Lee Lofthus

Assistant Attorney General for Administration
US Department of Justice

950 Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC. 20530

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Assistant Attorney General Lofthus:

This letter follows the August 11, 2016, letter from the U.S. Marshals Service
(USMS) providing information in response to multiple inquiries regarding allegations of
excessive and wasteful spending by the USMS of the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AF F) and
funds dedicated to Joint Law Enforcement Operations (J LEO).

Although a Department of Justice Of?ce of Inspector General (DOJ OIG) Report
of Investigation examining some of these allegations found that the USMS ?did not
violate the Federal Acquisition Regulation or other policies,?1 the OIG questioned the
wisdom of certain of these expenditures and recommended that the Department update
LEO policy guidance. The DOJ OIG report also did not resolve all allegations raised in
my previous letters. Attached for your review is a courtesy copy of a memorandum
detailing the ?ndings and conclusions regarding these allegations.

To gauge what progress the USMS and the Department have made in properly
administering and overseeing these funds, I also respectfully request that the
Department respond to the following questions by September 26, 2017:

 

1 US. Dep?t of Justice Of?ce of the Inspector General, Report No. 2015-005333 (May 12, 2016) AFF
Report].

Attorney General Sessions
Assistant Attorney General Lofthus
September 12, 2017
Page 2 of 4

1. Is the Department reviewing and updating the Colgate Memo? What is the
status of that effort? Please provide a copy of any changes to guidance
regarding JLEO expenditures.
2. The Department’s March 8, 2016, letter to me indicated that Justice
Management Division staff was reviewing AFF allocations to the USMS to,
among other things, “identify tools to increase transparency and improve
oversight, and make recommendations for future program efficiencies.” In
that letter, the Department also stated it was “conducting a broader review of
reimbursable payments made to participants in the Asset Forfeiture
Program,” working with Department components “to standardize the tracking
and reporting of program-related expense data” and “anticipates conducting
regular reviews of AFF allocations in the future.”
a. What oversight tools has the Department identified and implemented?
b. What changes, if any, have been made to avoid wasteful spending and
ensure AFF resources are allocated efficiently and appropriately?
c. Please provide an oversight briefing on the results of the Department’s
review of AFF payments, plans for regular reviews going forward, and
all efforts to oversee and administer appropriate expenditures of AFF
funds by Department components, particularly the USMS.
3. In the FY 2017 allocation to the USMS of the AFF, the Department wrote that
it was working with the USMS Investigative Operations Division (IOD) to
accurately document circuit cost expenditures. What are the results of those
efforts? What internal controls are in place to ensure IOD expenditures of
JLEO funds are allowable under the statute?
4. Please provide copies of all allotments and suballotments of AFF funds,
including JLEO funds, provided to the USMS for FY 2017; a copy of any
additional requests by the USMS under the AFF for FY 2017; and, when
available, a copy of the initial FY 2018 AFF budget allocation for the USMS.
To the extent the information is not readily apparent in FY 2017 suballotment
documents, please provide documentation demonstrating when and what
amount amounts of JLEO funds have been allocated to the USMS thus far in
FY 2017 to support circuit costs.
5. Please provide documentation describing the assets currently managed by
each district employee who is “dedicated” to the Asset Forfeiture Program.
Please also provide answers to the questions previously asked on this topic in
my letter of June 10, 2015.

 Attorney General Sessions
Assistant Attorney General Lofthus
September 12, 2017
Page 3 of 4

6. Please provide documentation demonstrating that headquarters positions
“dedicated” to and fully funded by the Asset Forfeiture Program are 100%
devoted to AFF work. Please also provide answers to the questions asked on
this topic in my letter of June 10, 2015.
7. How many days has the Asset Forfeiture Academy in Houston been used for
Asset Forfeiture-related training in FY 2017? How many days has the
Academy been used for non-AFP training in FY 2017? For non-AFP training,
is the AFF reimbursed for non-AFP use of the Academy?
8. What items, if any, are being reused by the USMS in its new headquarters
location?
9. How many offices in the new USMS headquarters location are not physically
occupied on a full-time basis? How many offices in the new USMS
headquarters location are dedicated to positions that are physically located
outside of the local commuting area? This includes, but is not limited to,
offices where the name plate on the office or cubicle designates an employee
or contractor who does not live in the local commuting area.
10. Please provide the total expenditures for travel of the two individuals
associated with the Asset Forfeiture Division international unit to and from
Washington, D.C., and other destinations since those individuals joined the
unit. Please provide a list of all international destinations.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please
contact DeLisa Lay of my staff at (202) 224-5225.

Sincerely,

cc:

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary

 Attorney General Sessions
Assistant Attorney General Lofthus
September 12, 2017
Page 4 of 4

The Honorable Michael Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
Attachment

 MEMORANDUM
To:

Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate
Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate

From:

Senate Judiciary Committee, Oversight and Investigations Staff

Subject:

Spending of the Assets Forfeiture Fund by the U.S. Marshals Service

Date:

September 11, 2017

This memorandum outlines findings as a result of Chairman Grassley’s inquiries
into allegations of wasteful spending by the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) of the Assets
Forfeiture Fund (AFF). It examines certain expenditures in greater detail, including
those related to the USMS Asset Forfeiture Academy, the USMS headquarters
relocation, so-called “dedicated” asset forfeiture positions, and joint law enforcement
operations. It concludes that the USMS wasted asset forfeiture money, spent it contrary
to the Fund’s authorizing statute, and made questionable representations to the
Committee, and likely the Department of Justice. There is a clear need for more robust
and consistent oversight of asset forfeiture expenditures by components participating in
the Asset Forfeiture Program.
The Asset Forfeiture Program:
Congress established the Assets Forfeiture Fund in 1984 and authorized the
Attorney General to use the Fund for limited purposes.1 First, the Attorney General may
use the Fund to support the Department’s Asset Forfeiture Program (AFP or “the
Program”). The Program, according to the Department of Justice website, administers
“the seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to
facilitate federal crimes.”2 Multiple Department of Justice components participate in
the program, including the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Attorney’s
Offices, and the USMS.3
The USMS plays a unique role in the Program. It does not initiate underlying
investigations that lead to seizures. Rather, the USMS is the “primary custodian of
seized property for the Program” and “manages and disposes of the majority of the
28 U.S.C. § 524(c).
https://www.justice.gov/afp.
3 Organizations outside of the Department that also participate in the fund include the U.S. Postal
Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the
Inspector General, the Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service.
1

2

 property seized for forfeiture” by other Program participating components.4 The bulk of
Program costs associated with asset management and disposal and certain other
Program operations expenses are incurred by the USMS Asset Forfeiture Division
(AFD).5 AFD also administers third party interest and equitable sharing payments.6
Second, Congress authorized the Attorney General to use the AFF to offset costs
associated with specific enumerated investigative expense categories. Those categories
include awards for information, purchase of evidence, equipping of conveyances, and
joint law enforcement operations (JLEO).7 JLEO funds are a subcategory of the AFF.
Statutory restrictions particular to the use of JLEO funds are described further below.
Inaccurate and Misleading Responses to the Committee:
Chairman Grassley wrote to the USMS with questions about specific instances of
reportedly wasteful spending of the AFF on multiple occasions. 8 Although the Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) did not find violations of the Federal Acquisitions
Regulation or applicable policies with respect to certain of these expenditures, the
Committee’s inquiry also considered whether they appeared excessive and wasteful.9
The Chairman further determined that, on several of these topics, the USMS failed to
accurately report simple facts about its AFF spending or to offer sufficient justifications.
Overall, the agency demonstrated a clear need for significantly more robust oversight of
its AFF expenditures.
Asset Forfeiture Academy
The USMS Asset Forfeiture Academy (AFA) is a facility built by the USMS
purportedly to train employees and contractors in the AFD on fundamentals of asset
forfeiture law and the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture Program. The AFA is
located in Houston, Texas in a privately-owned high rise building called the Allen
Center. It is adjacent to USMS office space and a weapons storage facility. According to
a USMS brochure, “[t]he AFA includes a classroom that holds 48 student consoles and
an instructor podium, a conference room, a business center and a kitchenette/galley.”10
When whistleblowers alleged that the establishment of the AFA was unnecessary and
that its expenses were excessive and wasteful, the Chairman requested detailed
explanations for the costs associated with the AFA. Several of the USMS’s explanations
are incomplete and misleading.

https://www.justice.gov/afp/participants-and-roles.
https://www.justice.gov/afp/page/file/934031/download.
6 Id.
7 28 U.S.C. § 524(c).
8 See, e.g., Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, to Stacia A
Hylton, Director, USMS (Mar. 18. 2016).
9 DOJ OIG AFF Report.
10 U.S. Marshals Service Asset Forfeiture Academy brochure (Attachment 1).
4
5

 First, the USMS underreported to the Committee the AFA’s ongoing rent costs.
The USMS stated that it pays $42,000 per month for its facilities at the Allen Center,
which, as noted, includes the AFA.11 However, the USMS only reported the square
footage of the AFA classroom, and did not include square footage of the AFA reception
area, “conference room, a business center and kitchenette/galley” constructed as part of
the AFA build out.12 This means the USMS underreported to the Committee the amount
it spends on rent for the AFA by $7,774 per month, or $93,292 per year.
Second, the USMS underreported the amount of custom granite installed in the
facility.13
Third, the USMS underreported the AFA’s operating costs. The USMS claimed
these costs are $50,000 per year.14 But budget documents show that for every year from
FY 2012 to FY 2017, the USMS has requested and the Department has allotted between
$75,000 and $175,000 for the AFA’s “operating costs.”15
The AFA’s limited use of the space calls into question whether its costs—whatever
they actually are—are justified. In FY 2014, the AFA was used for approximately 32 days
out of the entire year.16 In FY 2017, based on documents reviewed by the Committee,
the USMS has hosted or plans to host Asset Forfeiture-related trainings for
approximately 52 days—an improvement from prior years but still not even accounting
for two total months out of the year. Although other divisions have used and still plan to
use the facility, it is for non-Asset Forfeiture purposes and it is unknown whether those

11 Letter from William Delany, Chief of Congressional & Public Affairs, USMS, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee (Aug. 11, 2016).
12 Id.; U.S. Marshals Service Asset Forfeiture Academy brochure (Attachment 1). The USMS reported that
3,186 square feet at the Allen Center was dedicated to the Asset Forfeiture Academy, but blueprints
indicate that an additional 2,192 square feet make up the Academy’s reception area, conference rooms,
and kitchen—all constructed as part of the Academy’s build out. AFA Plans (Attachment 2). The USMS
has reported to the Committee expenditures related to the reception and conference room area as part of
its total build out cost and advertises these facilities as benefits of using the AFA space. At the entrance to
the AFA from the S/TX office space, the USMS has labeled the entire suite, including the reception area,
kitchen, conference rooms, and classroom as the “Asset Forfeiture Academy.”
13 The USMS stated in an April 2015 letter that the custom granite in the facility was limited to five small
surfaces and a reception desk, but invoices and photographs show the same granite used for two custom
table tops in the conference and reception areas. Invoices for Table Tops, On File with the Committee.
14 Letter from Willian Delaney, Chief of Congressional and Public Affairs, U.S. Marshals Service to Charles
E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary (Aug. 11, 2016).
15 FY 2012 USMS AFF Budget Request; FY 2013 USMS AFF Budget Request; FY 2014 USMS AFF Budget
Request; FY 2015 USMS AFF Budget Request; FY 2016 USMS AFF Budget Request; FY 2017 USMS AFF
Budget Request; FY 2012 USMS AFF Budget Allocation; FY 2013 USMS AFF Budget Allocation; FY 2014
USMS AFF Budget Allocation; FY 2015 USMS AFF Budget Allocation; FY 2016 USMS AFF Budget
Allocation; FY 2017 USMS AFF Budget Allocation. In FY 2014, the USMS actually was allocated
$207,000 for the AFA’s operating costs.
16 Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary to Loretta Lynch,
Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Oct. 1, 2015).

 divisions and groups have reimbursed or will reimburse the Assets Forfeiture Fund for
use of the AFA.17
Moreover, the Allen Center has always had conference rooms available for
tenants to use at no cost. The USMS claimed that these are difficult to use, do not have
USMS intranet access, and pose security concerns.18 However, it is alleged that only one
of many courses at the AFA require intranet access. Additionally, both the USMS and
the Department have used these rooms with no reported security concerns.19
Headquarters Relocation
In October 2015, the Chairman wrote to the Department outlining whistleblower
allegations that the USMS planned headquarters relocation was rife with wasteful
spending.20 Whistleblowers alleged, among other things, that the USMS planned to
construct personal in-office bathrooms for senior leadership, procure expensive and
unnecessary furniture and audio-visual equipment, and provide office space for
individuals who do not live or work in the local commuting area.21 The Chairman
requested information about these expenditures, some of which still has not been
provided. In August 2016, the USMS wrote to the Committee that it planned to take
steps to minimize unnecessary expenditures for the relocation, including reusing certain
furniture. Yet, whistleblowers reported that most furniture, including office furniture
and TVs, was not reused and may have been discarded. Additionally, USMS reportedly
installed television cable in offices of USMS employees who are prohibited by policy
from actually using it. The agency also built office space specifically for employees who
do not live or work in the local commuting area.
Fully Funded Asset Forfeiture Positions:
Outside of the four enumerated categories of investigative expenses,22 Congress
has authorized use of the Fund only to pay Asset Forfeiture-related expenses.23 As the
USMS Asset Forfeiture Division itself noted in May 2013, an employee whose salary and
expenses are paid by the AFF means that they are “preclude[d from] realigning their
It is also alleged that many AFF-related courses offered in the Academy are taught by instructors that
have to be flown in from FLETC in Georgia, and some classes contain a high instructor/student ratio.
18 Letter from Willian Delaney, Chief of Congressional and Public Affairs, U.S. Marshals Service to Charles
E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary (Aug. 11, 2016).
19 Additionally, the USMS Strategic Plan calls for centralized training within the USMS organized under
and administered by its own Training Division. The Plan also encourages the use of cost-effective
distance learning that would not require the establishment of the separate AFA and conceivably would be
an efficient way to train asset forfeiture personnel, many of whom are distributed in districts throughout
the country.
20 Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary to Loretta E. Lynch,
Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Oct. 1, 2015).
21 Id.
22 28 U.S.C. §§ 524(c)(1)(B), (C), (F), (G), (I).
23 Id. § 524(c)(1)(A); id. §§ 524(c)(1)(D), (E), (H).
17

 work outside supporting the asset forfeiture mission.”24 But information provided to
the Committee shows that is exactly what the USMS has been doing, and provides
additional evidence that the Department must exercise more thorough oversight of its
components’ AFF expenditures.
Headquarters Employees
First, the Chairman has raised questions about headquarters employees who are
funded by the AFF but not fully available for asset forfeiture work.25 A memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between the USMS and Department of Justice authorized
funding from the AFF for eight “dedicated” headquarters employees.26 USMS has since
requested and received funding for these positions each fiscal year. According to
whistleblowers, these fully funded employees are not fully dedicated to the Asset
Forfeiture Program, and in some cases spend only a small portion of their time on asset
forfeiture work. Despite requests from the Committee, the USMS has failed to provide
any information demonstrating otherwise.27 Moreover, the FY 2017 Asset Forfeiture
Fund allocation provided to the USMS states that for FY 2017 the USMS requested
funding for ten dedicated headquarters positions rather than the eight authorized by the
MOU.28 The Department indicated it would “evaluate the propriety” of using AFF funds
to support the additional positions.29
District Employees
The Chairman also has raised questions about whether the USMS is using the
AFF to fully fund the salaries and expenses of district employees who are not actually
fully dedicated to the asset forfeiture mission.30
Prior to 2013, the USMS paid the salaries and expenses of all district employees
whose work included asset forfeiture-related tasks from appropriated funds. The USMS
kept track of this work by having employees bill any time allocated to asset forfeiture

Memorandum from Kimberly Beal, Acting Assistant Director, Asset Forfeiture Division, U.S. Marshals
Service to United States Marshals and Chief Deputy United States Marshals, U.S. Marshals Service (May
10, 2013).
25 Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary to Sally Quillian Yates,
Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (June 10, 2015).
26 See, e.g., FY 2010 USMS AFF Budget Request.
27 Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary to Sally Quillian Yates,
Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (June 10, 2015).
28 FY 2017 USMS AFF Budget Allocation.
29 Id.
30 Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary to Sally Quillian Yates,
Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (June 10, 2015); Memorandum from Kimberly Beal, Acting
Assistant Director, Asset Forfeiture Division, U.S. Marshals Service to All United States Marshals, All
Chief Deputy United States Marshals, and All Administrative Officers (Jan. 9, 2013).
24

 work to a specific asset forfeiture code. The USMS was then reimbursed from the AFF
for costs of employee time spent on asset forfeiture work.
In 2012, the Asset Forfeiture Division conducted an analysis of the asset
forfeiture workload performed by these district employees. The Assistant Director at
the time determined that the USMS would seek full funding from the AFF for any
district employee who worked a “preponderance” of their time on asset forfeiture. She
determined that any employee who billed at least 70% of their time, based on a 1,740
hour work year, to asset forfeiture work would qualify.31 According to documents, she
made exceptions for some employees who billed less than 70% of their time to asset
forfeiture and directed that they too would be considered as devoting a “preponderance”
of their time to asset forfeiture.32 The USMS would then discontinue seeking
reimbursement for any asset forfeiture work performed by the remaining district
employees. Theoretically, those costs would offset whatever non-asset forfeiture work
was performed by fully funded employees. The analysis showed that this arrangement
would yield an approximate $1.3 million “net gain” to the USMS.33
So, in FY 2013, the USMS requested full AFF funding for the employees it
claimed spent a preponderance of their time on asset forfeiture work.34 Converting
these positions to “fully funded” AFF positions meant that the AFF would not only pay
for actual work hours dedicated to asset forfeiture, but also for the employees’ leave
time, holidays, and benefits. In the budget request, the USMS represented to the
Department that it would be “[r]edefining these positions” and “devoting them entirely
to [asset forfeiture] duties.”35 The request was approved. In its FY 2013 asset forfeiture
allocation for the USMS, the Department approved approximately $1.3 million “to
convert part-time forfeiture government employees to 100% dedicated forfeiture
personnel.”36
However, those employees were not 100% dedicated to asset forfeiture, and the
USMS stopped tracking how much time they devoted to both asset forfeiture and nonasset forfeiture work. On the other hand, the USMS did track how much time nondedicated employees spent on asset forfeiture work. Non-dedicated employees billed
their asset forfeiture work to an asset forfeiture-specific project code, but dedicated
employees billed all of their time to an asset forfeiture code and did not designate their
non-asset forfeiture work with a non-asset forfeiture project code.37 This practice left no
Spreadsheet, On File with the Committee; E-mail re: Spreadsheet (Nov. 2, 2012).
E-mail re: Spreadsheet (Nov. 2, 2012).
33 Spreadsheet, On File with the Committee.
34 FY 2013 USMS AFF Budget Request at 25-27.
35 FY 2013 USMS AFF Budget Request at 27.
36 FY 2013 USMS AFF Budget Allocation.
37 Memorandum to United States Marshals, Chief Deputy United States Marshals, and Administrative
Officers from Holly O’Brien, Assistant Director, Financial Services Division, U.S. Marshals Service,
Recording Asset Forfeiture Work in WebTA (May 2013).
31

32

 method to verify whether non-asset forfeiture work performed by dedicated employees
offset asset forfeiture work performed by non-dedicated employees.
Furthermore, the asset forfeiture workload has decreased since FY 2013. Below
is a table from the 2016 USMS annual report showing how many assets the program
received from FY 2013 through FY 2016. According to this data, the number of assets
received fell by 39%.

Additionally, according to whistleblowers, approximately 65% of assets currently
in USMS inventory are cash. Cash is the easiest and least time-consuming asset to
manage—once the cash is in custody and placed in an account, it requires very little
maintenance. Moreover, many types of assets are not managed by the dedicated district
personnel, but “nationally” either by contractors or by Asset Forfeiture Division
headquarters personnel. The types of assets in this category include aircraft, jewelry,
antiques and collectibles, commercial businesses, financial instruments, firearms, and
real property. Thus, the workload associated with management of those assets cannot
support full AFF funding for district personnel.
Recognizing the decrease in the asset forfeiture workload, the Department
decreased AFF funding for both USMS federal employees and contractor personnel in
FY 2017. The Department stated that its allocation for district asset forfeiture personnel
would be reduced by “10 FTEs [full-time equivalent positions] from the requested level
of 235 authorized FTEs in accordance with workload data showing a significant decline
in asset seizure activity over the last several fiscal years.” The Department further noted
that “[c]onsistent with the FY 2016 allocation, no funding is provided in FY 2017 for the
salary and benefits of USMS personnel performing non-forfeiture related work.”38
In response to these cuts, the USMS reportedly is in the process of realigning its
workforce to reflect the workload. However, based on the above information, the USMS
has for some time been using the AFF to fund work that otherwise would—and probably
should—be paid by appropriated funds.

38

FY 2017 USMS AFF Allocation.

 Joint Law Enforcement Operations:
As discussed above, JLEO is one of the categories of investigative expenses
authorized by Congress to be paid from the AFF.39 The statute provides that JLEO
funds may be used for “payment of overtime salaries, travel, fuel, training, equipment,
and other similar costs of state or local law enforcement officers that are incurred in a
joint law enforcement operation[s].”40 The statute does not say that JLEO funds are
available to pay federal expenses incurred by federal officers in joint operations. Again,
the law does allow for payments for federal activities from the Fund, but only for those
directly related to asset forfeiture and for the other specified investigative categories.41
Further guidance on the use of JLEO to support state and local officers is outlined in a
1997 Department of Justice document known as the Colgate Memorandum.42
Chairman Grassley’s letters have raised questions about the agency’s
methodology and justification for two subcategories of its JLEO expenditures: circuit
costs and databases. Among the questions raised were whether the USMS improperly
directly funded these costs rather than seek reimbursement and whether the USMS used
the funds for expenses incurred by federal, and not state and local, officers.43 Although
the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found no “issues” with these expenditures, the
OIG recommended that the Department update the Colgate Memorandum “to more
fully address issues related to direct payment versus reimbursement of certain task force
costs and to clarify certain allowable uses of these funds.”44 It also does not appear the
OIG examined the question of whether the USMS JLEO expenditures funded federal
officers. Further inquiry shows that they did.
Circuit Costs
The USMS Asset Forfeiture Division is not the only USMS unit that has sought to
secure a greater portion of the AFF to pay questionable expenses. The Investigative
Operations Division (IOD) reportedly has long viewed the money set aside for the Asset
Forfeiture Program as a lucrative “funding stream” that IOD could “tap” to expand its
various programs, particularly those managed by the Technical Operations Group
(TOG).45 Initially, the IOD sought funding from the AFF for what it claimed were
“investigative costs leading to seizure.” However, according to individuals familiar with
28 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1)(I).
28 U.S.C. § 524(I) (emphasis added).
41 28 U.S.C. § 524(c)(1)(A)(ii), (iv); id. § 524(c)(1)(B),(C), (F), (G).
42 Memorandum from Stephen R. Colgate, Assistant Attorney General for Administration re: Guidance on
Use of the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) to Pay State and Local Law Enforcement Officer Overtime and
Other Costs In Joint Law Enforcement Operations (July 1, 1997).
43 See Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary to Sally Quillian
Yates, Acting Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (May 6, 2015).
44 DOJ OIG AFF Report at 2.
45 E-mail from J. Kirsch to TOG personnel (Sept. 21, 2009).
39

40

 TOG operations, the group could never provide meaningful data demonstrating how its
investigations regularly lead to seizures, because they do not.
TOG ultimately was unable to secure this funding stream, but it also sought funds
for cellular tracking equipment and associated operating costs—known as circuit costs
and intercept fees—through JLEO.46 Arguably, the USMS has long been aware of the
statutory restrictions on the use of JLEO to support state and local officers, because it
has repeatedly taken pains to justify the purchase of cellular tracking equipment for task
force officers who work for TOG by citing to the Colgate Memorandum.47 The USMS
also has clearly understood that task force JLEO funding for overtime and other state
and local expenses supported state and local officers.48 However, according to multiple
sources, the vast majority of users of USMS surveillance equipment who incur
associated circuit costs have always been federal officers. However, USMS requests for
JLEO funds for these circuit costs may not have made this clear to the Department.
In Fiscal Year 2011, for example, TOG explicitly attributed the increase in the
portion of non-federal circuit costs to “an increase in state and local investigators being
assigned” to task forces (both Regional Fugitive Task Forces and Technical Operations
Centers).49 However, the request did not clarify that task force officers with Regional
Fugitive Task Forces do not operate the TOG equipment or themselves incur costs for
intercept fees.50 The request also did not clarify that the majority of TOG equipment
users are federal officers. Later requests simply point to increased costs attributed to
the percentage of cases the USMS says are “state and local cases.”51
Apparently for this reason, the Department has recently taken issue with the
USMS’s use and justifications for this funding stream. For FY 2017, the Department
Further, the unit sought to lean more heavily on increased use of sophisticated surveillance equipment
in its Air Surveillance Program, by “setting aggressive and more ambitious performance targets,” in order
to “sell the argument” for more resources, in that case “additional ASO personnel and larger aircraft.”
Email from Kirch (Sept. 22, 2009).  
47 E-mail from M. Arnold to E. Morales (June 23, 2010); FY 2011 USMS AFF Budget Request, FY 2012
USMS AFF Budget Request, FY 2013 USMS AFF Budget Request. (FY 2014 also contains “Colgate Memo”
justification but requests only funding to cover circuit costs, not for surveillance equipment).
48 FY 2009 USMS AFF Budget Request at 16 (noting past use of JLEO funds to support “state and local
law enforcement officers”); see also Internal Document discussing requirements of JLEO, on file with the
Committee, which in response to the question “Can any of the JLEO funding be used to pay for any USMS
expenses (USMS employee or contract OT, travel, etc)?” stated “No. JLEO program funds can only be
used for State & local full time TFOs.”).
49 FY 2011 USMS AFF Budget Request.
50 Id.; According to an individual familiar with these operations, “that should never happen.”
51 FY 2012 USMS AFF Budget Request; FY 2013 USMS AFF Budget Request; FY 2014 USMS AFF Budget
Request; FY 2015 USMS AFF Budget Request; FY 2016 USMS AFF Budget Request; FY 2017 USMS AFF
Budget Request. Also, the FY 2012 request, unlike others, specifically noted that a portion of Circuit
Costs would be directed to costs required to maintain the TOG network. TOG uses its own hardware and
software to support the intercepts. To the extent that state and local officers who are themselves
operating this equipment also use the network, the expense associated with the use of the network would
appear to be allowable under JLEO.
46

 allocated the agency’s requested $4,160,000 for circuit costs.52 However, the
Department limited the USMS’s ability to obligate the funds “until the USMS and AFMS
can agree on a set of internal controls and procedures necessary to firmly establish that
these expenses are ‘costs of State or Local law enforcement officers’ pursuant to 28 USC
524(c)(1)(I).” The Department went on to “remind” the Marshals Service, as the
Chairman has argued,53 “that funds authorized under 28 USC 524(c)(1)(I) are not
available for Federal agency expenses, regardless of whether those expenses support a
State or local investigation.” Unfortunately, the agency’s FY 2018 request inexplicably
continues to disregard the plain limits of the law, requesting the same amount again for
circuit costs based on the same faulty justification.54
Databases
OIG also determined that the USMS does have “a method to estimate the portion
of database costs that are related to federal vs. non-federal fugitives.”55 However, the
database funding faces the same problem as the circuit costs—it primarily supports the
work of federal officers. The portion of costs described by OIG is based on cases, not on
the number of registered state and local task force officers (“TFOs”) who use the
databases. In recent years, as shown in the table below, the percentage of database costs
paid from JLEO has dwarfed the percentage of state and local registered database users.
Notably, in earlier years, the USMS stated explicitly in its budget requests that a
minority of its database users were TFOs. 56 The Department thus should have been
aware that the USMS was entitled to less JLEO money than it requested—and perhaps
this is why the percentage of database costs actually paid by JLEO in the first few years
was so low. However, from FY 2015-FY 2017, the USMS did not offer this information
in its requests.57 In the most recent budget rounds, however, after the Chairman asked
questions about these costs, the Department sought additional information about the
registered users and learned that only approximately 42% of them are TFOs.
Accordingly, the Department allocated 42% of USMS’s requirement for database costs in
its initial FY 2017 AFF budget allocation. As it did with respect to circuit costs, the
FY 2017 Initial AFF Allocation.
Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary to Sally Quillian Yates,
Acting Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (May 6, 2015).
54 FY 2018 AFF Budget Request.
55 According to the OIG report, the USMS states that there is a field in the system where users can identify
whether they are searching for state or federal cases. However, it allegedly was not until the Committee
first asked about these costs that the USMS notified database users alerting them to the “federal v. state”
box in the system, and that box is not a mandatory field. There also is no way to verify whether searches
conducted actually relate to a federal or state case, even on a general level.
56 FY 2012 Mid-Year AFF Budget Request; FY 2013 USMS AFF Budget Request; FY 2014 USMS AFF
Budget Request.
57 FY 2015 USMS AFF Budget Request; FY 2016 USMS AFF Budget Request; FY 2017 USMS AFF Budget
Request.
52
53

 Department reminded the USMS that Congress has not authorized JLEO funds to pay
federal expenses. Unlike the agency’s circuit costs request, in FY 2018 the agency finally
accepted that JLEO funds are not available to pay expenses incurred by federal law
enforcement officers.58
Conclusion:
Evidence shows that the USMS wasted and misused money it received from the
Assets Forfeiture Fund. The agency also provided incomplete and in some cases
misleading details about some of these expenditures to the Committee and potentially to
the Department.
Equally concerning, however, is that the Department’s more stringent oversight
of AFF expenditures, described in the sections above examining fully funded positions
and JLEO, did not begin until the Chairman raised whistleblower allegations of waste
and abuse. The Department’s FY 2017 AFF allocation to the USMS shows that the
Department is capable of requiring more substantive justification for its components’
budget requests than it appears to have done in past years. In this last budget round
the Department asked more probing questions about the USMS’s AFF expenditures and
was thus finally equipped to push back. The Department also:






challenged “excessively high” USMS rent requests for the amount of funded
government positions allocated to the agency, causing the USMS to lower the
requests by $790,000;
drastically reduced funds for “Awards for Information” after a closer look found
that a full “80 percent of all USMS awards” in the past “were unrelated to any of
the federal violations enumerated” in the applicable statute; and
cut funding for an asset management and tracking system the USMS spent
millions developing only to have it proven redundant to a system already in place.

To ensure that careful scrutiny continues to be applied to AFF expenditures, at
least by the USMS, the Chairman is sending the attached letter with follow-up
questions. The Committee will continue to exercise oversight on these expenditures,
and strongly encourages the Department to do the same.

58

FY 2018 AFF Budget Request.

   
   
 

U.S. Marshals Service
Asset Forfeiture Academy



\5 16??

i: ass-M

5"15.
1:



Three Allen Center
333 Clay Street
Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77002

   

 

 

U.S. Marshals Service
Asset Forfeiture Academy

 

  

The U.S. Marshals Service Asset Forfeiture Academy (AFA) sits 011
the 30th ?oor of the Three Allen Center building in the heart of

downtown Houston, TX. The AFA includes a classroom that holds
48 student consoles and an instructor podium, a conference room,
a business center and a galley The AFA IS a federally

 

the AFA other than travel and per diem for attendees.

Classroom

The classroom consists of individual student consoles and an instructor podium. Each
student console provides a USMS-network enabled desktop computer, microphone,
connectivity, TurningPoint Audience Response System, Microsoft Office pro-
grams, lnternet and access to color printers, scanners and fax machines.

The instructor podium offers USMS network-enabled desk-
top computer with SMART- Podium panel and laptop connec-



 
  
  

7 I as.? tion. Video feed from the podium 18 displayed on two projec-
4 .2 . 1 . tors and a confidence monitor. Presentation tools available
5 . in the classroom include cable TV, MP3 player,

document camera and video-conferencing technology.

Conference Room Business Center
In addition to the classroom, the AFA has a conference room with two seating areas that
can accommodate up to 14 people. Meeting technology available in the conference room
includes USMS-network connections, a 360-degree 

webcam, Video-conferencing and speaker-phone capabil-
ity, cable TV, DVD BluRay player and Video feed from the
main classroom. The AFA Business Center offers access to

 

a copier, fax machine, color printer, scanner, telephone,
shredder, laptops, cable TV and classroom video to sup-
port business needs or instructor preparation during

 

meetings or training sessions.

Hotels 
The AFA is within walking distance to the following hotels: 
 Hyatt Regency Houston  
 DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Houston Downtown 
 Residence Inn Houston Downtown  
 Courtyard Houston Downtown 
The AFA can be accessed from the Hyatt Regency Houston and DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel 
through the underground tunnel system, without leaving the building.   
Airport Information 
The AFA has easy access to two airports: 
 George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), 22 miles 
 William P. Hobby Airport / Houston Hobby Airport (HOU), 12 miles 
 

Transportation in Houston 
The following transportation services are available: 






Greenlink: Environment-friendly buses travel routes in the downtown area regularly 
with stops every 7-10 minutes.  Routes connect major of ice buildings along Smith and 
Louisiana streets to METRO transit, the convention corridor, hotels, restaurants, shopping, and entertainment.  Greenlink is free Monday thru Friday, 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM. 
METRORail: Houston’s METRORail offers inexpensive transportation in close proximity to more than 70 dining and entertainment options, professional sports arenas, and 
many cultural institutions and districts. Tickets cost $1.25 (one-way) and can be purchased using cash, credit or debit card at all rail stops via the METRO Ticket Vending 
Machine (TVM). METRORail hours are: 
4:30am-11:40pm (M-TH) 4:30am-2:20am (F)  
5:30am-2:20am (SAT)  
5:30am-11:40pm (SUN)  
Taxi Services: “Six in the City” is a special offer provided by local taxi cabs. Guests can 
go anywhere in the Downtown area for $6.  

Interested in reserving the U.S. Marshals Service Asset Forfeiture Academy?  
CONTACT US! 
Amber Webber 
Unit Coordinator 
Direct: 786-433-6641 
Mobile: 202-696-3317 
Amber.Webber@usdoj.gov 

 

Molly Brugge 
FSA Training Technician 
Direct: 713-718-4357 
Molly.Brugge@usdoj.gov 

 

Carmen Matos 
FSA Training Technician 
Direct: 202-532-4151 
Mobile: 202-779-2474 
Carmen.Matos@usdoj.gov 

 

 Three Allen Center - F30 - Floorplan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41o RSF
Three Allen Center Floor 30
measles: Wham manna


 

 

 

0510 20 so 

Exhibit 6

US. Department of Justice

Of?ce of Legislative Affairs

 

 

Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary 2 5 2013
United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Grassley:

This responds to your letter to the Attorney General and to the Assistant Attorney
General for Administration dated September 12, 2017, regarding the use of funds from the
Assets Forfeiture Fund (AF F) by the United States Marshals Service (USMS). We apologize for
our delay in responding to your letter. We recognize that you have made a number of inquiries
related to the USMS and we are responding on a rolling basis consistent with the priorities
discussed with your staff.

We know that you share the Attorney General?s desire that the Asset Forfeiture Program
(AF P) be effectively and responsibly managed. As you know, in October 2017, the Attorney
General directed the creation of a new position of Director of Asset Forfeiture Accountability
within the Of?ce of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG). The Director, Mr. Corey Ellis, a
career prosecutor, has begun work on several Department of Justice (Department) priority
initiatives, including updating the program?s policy guidance and improving controls over the
use of program funds. The Director will also gather such data and make such recommendations
as will advance the integrity, ef?ciency, and effectiveness of the program.

We respond to your speci?c questions below.

1. Is the Department reviewing and updating the Colgate Memo? What is the status of that
effort? Please provide a copy of any changes to guidance regarding JLEO expenditures.

As you know, some portion of AFF funds are designated by Congress to be used for the
Joint Law Enforcement Operations (J LEO) program. State and Local of?cers, often deputized as
federal agents, act as critical force multipliers in helping to achieve the law enforcement mission
of the Department?s law enforcement agencies, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(ATP) and the USMS. The LEO program pays for of?cer overtime and a variety of other
critical needs. Operations supported in part by JLEO funding include FBI task forces associated
with the Violent Gang and Violent Crime Safe Streets, Indian Country Safe Trails, and Crimes

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page Two

Against Children. JLEO funding also helps to support the Fugitive Apprehension Task
Forces.

The Department is reviewing the 1997 ?Colgate Memo? in the context of its broader
review of policies and guidance related to the AFP. In addition, the Department?s Justice
Management Division Asset Forfeiture Management Staff (AFMS) has recently standardized the
collection, tracking and recording of ILEO expenses by the Department?s law enforcement
components.

2. The Department?s March 8, 2016, letter to me indicated that Justice Management
Division staff was reviewing AFF allocations to the USMS to, among other things, ?identify
tools to increase transparency and improve oversight, and make recommendations for
future program efficiencies.? [n that letter, the Department also stated it was ?conducting
a broader review of reimbursable payments made to participants in the Asset Forfeiture
Program,? working with Department components ?to standardize the tracking and
reporting of program-related expense data? and ?anticipates conducting regular reviews of
AFF allocations in the future.?

a. What oversight tools has the Department identi?ed and implemented?

The Department has devoted more program management personnel to improve oversight,
transparency, and accountability of the AF P. In addition to the appointment of the Director of
Asset Forfeiture Accountability within ODAG, AF MS has formed a small cadre of AFP subject
matter experts focused solely on oversight and evaluation of APP-supported programs and
associated expenditures. AF MS experts were augmented by contractor support teams and 1311-
series law enforcement agents on detail from ATF, DEA, and FBI during FY 2016 and FY 2017'.
In order to keep senior leaders in the Department apprised of his efforts over the course of the
past two years, the Senior Executive-level Director of AF MS routinely engages with senior
USMS of?cials regarding USMS compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

b. What changes, if any, have been made to avoid wasteful spending and ensure
AFF resources are allocated ef?ciently and appropriately?

Improved Badger Review

In FY 2016, AF MS initiated a robust budget review process focused on the identi?cation
of core critical forfeiture program expenses that must be funded to maintain basic program
functionality. This review process involved over 60 hours of meetings among senior of?cials.
As a result, the FY 201??r and FY 2018 budget allocations, the internal process by which the
Department allocates AF funds to Department components, were controlled and funding
was restricted if there was not transparency as to the nature or necessity for the expenditure.
AFMS documented these allocation decisions, provided components with the speci?c rationale

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page Three

for these decisions, and identi?ed the data and documentation that will be needed to support
future resource allocations.

This FY 2017 improved budget review and allocation process reduced the number of
program-wide APP-paid government positions by approximately 5% and reduced the number of
contract support personnel by approximately The FY 2018 budget review made further
reductions, totaling a nearly 8% decrease in APP-paid government personnel and a just over 13%
decrease in contract support personnel over the two-year period from FY 2016 to FY 2018.

New Quarterly Allocation Process

Beginning in FY 2017, AFMS also instituted a new process for allocations from the AF 
to components. Under the new process, the allocations are made quarterly instead of obligating
and transferring an entire year?s AFF allocation to each component at the beginning of each
?scal year. This new quarterly allocation process provides another opportunity for more
frequent and continuous oversight of spending within each component throughout the year.

New Real Time Analysis Expenditure Data

AFMS can access AFF expenditure data for the USMS through the Unified Financial
Management System (UFMS). Beginning in April 2017, AFMS began using this data to conduct
near real-time analysis of expenditures by the USMS and provide regular feedback to USMS
leadership.

Review of 2015, 2016, and l" 201 7AFF Expenditures

A team of AF MS employees, augmented by contractor support from a private sector
accounting ?rm, reviewed and analyzed a sample of FY 2015 AFF expenditures for the eight
Department components receiving AFF support, plus the ?ve external law enforcement agencies
who participate in the AFP.1 The results of these reviews were shared with each of the partner
components or agencies in January 2017 and a follow-on effort has been underway for several
months in order to evaluate similar samples of FY 2016 and FY 2017 AFF expenditures.

c. Please provide an oversight brie?ng on the results of the Department?s review of
AFF payments, plans for regular reviews going forward, and all efforts to oversee and
administer appropriate expenditures of AF funds by Department components,
particularly the USMS.

The Department is happy to provide a brie?ng regarding its oversight efforts in this area.

 

1 These include the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
Department of Agriculture Of?ce of Inspector General (OIG), the Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic
Security (US), and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS).

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page Four

3. In the FY 2017 allocation to the USMS of the AFF, the Department wrote that it was
working with the USMS Investigative Operations Division (101)) to accurately document
circuit cost-expenditures. What are the results of those efforts? What internal controls are
in place to ensure 10D expenditures of JLEO funds are allowable under the statute?

AF MS sought and evaluated detailed information about the entire scope of the USMS
Investigative Operations Division?s (10D) LEO expenditures, including overtime expenses of
state and local task force of?cers, database costs, vehicle expenditures and costs associated with
implementation of the court orders related to service providers, so-called
?circuit costs.? As part of this process, IOD drafted standard operating procedures (S OPS) to
help guide ?eld and headquarters personnel in distinguishing circuit costs incurred in federal
cases from those costs incurred in state and local cases. In general, the new procedures already
include, or will include, separate accounting for federal versus state and local expenditures,
reconciliation procedures, and end-of?year cost projections for operations crossing ?scal
years. A team of AFMS of?cials has reviewed samples of supporting documentation to help test
the effectiveness of these SOPs and has provided feedback to USMS to help them fUl?thBI' re?ne
and improve those SOPs. This improvement process is still ongoing and not yet ?nalized.

During August-September 2017, AFMS employed a small team of audit ?rm contractors
familiar with circuit cost operations to evaluate a larger sample of circuit cost expenditures in an
effort to better understand the percentage attributed as State and local costs. Final results and
conclusions of that review are still pending. However, because of the volume and complexity of
the underlying transactional data, AFMS has issued another task order for a larger team of
contractors to support the review. The review is expected to be completed within the next few
months.

4. Please provide copies of all allotments and suballotments of AFF funds, including JLEO
funds, provided to the USMS for FY 2017; a copy of any additional requests by the USMS
under the AFF for FY 2017; and, when available, a copy of the initial FY 2018 AFF budget
allocation for the USMS. To the extent the information is not readily apparent in FY 2017
documents, please provide documentation demonstrating when and what
amount of JLEO funds have been allocated to the USMS thus far in FY 2017 to support
circuit costs.

The FY 2017 and FY 2018 allocation and suballotment documents are enclosed.

5. Please provide documentation describing the assets currently managed by each district
employee who is ?dedicated? to the Asset Forfeiture Program. Please also provide answers
to the questions previously asked on this topic in my letter of June 10, 2015.

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page Five

The Department does not collect data in the precise manner you have requested.
However, the USMS has provided the enclosed spreadsheet that indicates the number of assets
being managed in districts.

6. Please provide documentation demonstrating that headquarters positions ?dedicated? to
and fully funded by the Asset Forfeiture Program are 100% devoted to AFF work. Please
also provide answers to the questions asked on this topic in my letter of June 10, 2015.

The USMS seeks to ensure that AFF funds are used to conduct asset forfeiture related
work in compliance with applicable statutes. While the USMS ?inds much of its APP-related
personnel costs from AFF resources, there are also some APP personnel costs that are not paid
from AP resources.

The USMS conducts forfeiture activities in its headquarters of?ces as well as in its
district of?ces located throughout the country. To reapond to your questions, we believe it may
be useful to describe APP-related personnel in four conceptual categories: (1) AFD headquarters
dedicated AFP personnel; (2) non-AFD non-dedicated headquarters personnel; (3) district based
dedicated APP personnel; and (4) district based non-dedicated AFP personnel. Employees in
categories 2, 3 and 4 are not assigned to AP and therefore do not appear on the AF 
organizational chart.

The ?rst category includes AFP dedicated personnel in headquarters AFD positions
which are included on the AF organizational chart and whose daily work is devoted to APP
work. The salaries for these personnel are paid from AFF resources. The USMS has provided
the enclosed chart that shows the number of positions in this category and the units they are
assigned to.

The second category consists of employees and contractors in headquarters non-AFD
administrative support divisions. Although not assigned on organizational charts to the AFD,
these personnel and others within these divisions provide assistance and support integral to the
operations. For example, personnel in the USMS General Counsel?s Of?ce advise on
forfeiture related matters; support Department attorneys who handle forfeiture litigation; and
provide training to AP and district staff on asset forfeiture related legal issues. Similarly,
personnel in the USMS Human Resources Division support recruitment and hiring actions for
the AP and advise on employee performance related matters; and personnel in the Information
Technology Division provide technical support and equipment needed to perform daily AFP
operations.

USMS analyzed the aggregate AFP work hours of each of these non-AFD administrative
support divisions and, for planning, hiring, and budgeting purposes, converted those hours
worked by federal employees into a number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions, whose

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page Six

salaries are paid from AFF resources. The expectation is that the aggregate AFP related work
conducted by employees within each of the support divisions collectively meets or exceeds the
number of AFF??mded FTE positions assigned to these sopport divisions. As requested, the
USMS has provided the enclosed list of positions, currently in this second category, which are
funded by AFF resources.

The third category includes district based employees and contractors whose daily
activities are dedicated to AFP work and who are assigned to asset forfeiture related position
descriptions. These employees and contractors include District Asset Forfeiture Coordinators,
Seizure and Forfeiture Specialists, Realty Specialists, and Property Management Specialists,
Property Custodian, Records ExaminerlAnalyst, as well as Criminal Investigators speci?c to the
AFP.2 The salaries for these dedicated personnel are paid from AF resources. USMS has
provided the enclosed spreadsheet, referenced above, that shows the number of positions and the
assets managed by district within this category.

The fourth category includes personnel assigned to district based positions such as
Administrative Of?cers, Budget and Deputy US. Marshals, whose core
responsibilities are not APP-speci?c but whose ancillary assistance is required to support the
AFP. Even though some portion of their time supports the AF P, the salaries of these personnel
are not funded by AFF resources. We understand from USMS that employees in this category
contribute approximately 25,000 hours on asset seizure and forfeiture related activities annually,
although their salaries are not paid from AP resources.

7. How many days has the Asset Forfeiture Academy in Houston been used for Asset
Forfeiture-related training in FY 2017? How many days has the Academy been used for
non-AFP training in FY 2017? For non-AFP training, is the AFF reimbursed for non-AFP
use of the Academy?

No fee is charged for non-APP use of the space occupied by the Asset orfeiture
Academy (AFA). As such, there is no reimbursement to the AFF for non?APP use of the
classroom by the USMS. The chart below lists the dates that the AFA space was used for
training in FY 2017.

 

9- Where district resources are maximized and AFF funded personnel have completed all AFP related work, these
employees are not prohibited ?om providing assistance on an as needed basis.

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Page Seven

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Training Dates Event Type Notes
11! 14fr 16 11/18/16 USMS Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Protective
Other Investigations Training Program
12/? 06/ 16 121?07/1 6 DOJ AFP Executive Of?ce of United States Attorneys Suspicious
Activity Report (SAR) Training
01f10f17 01f12/17 USMS Business of Forfeiture; 1811 Edition Session 
AF 
0307! 17 02! 1 0/1? USMS Contracting Of?cer?s Representative Refresher
AF Training (AFA Classroom)
02107! 17 02K09i17 DOJ AF Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section
Financial Investigation Seminar (Brook?eld Cont)
02f14f17 02/17/1? USMS Advanced Asset Forfeiture Administration Session 1713
AP 
03f01/17 03f02/l 7 USMS Asset Forfeiture for District Leadership Subject Matter
AFD Experts Working Group
03,0701? 03l31f17 USMS Sex Offender Investigations Coordinator Basic School
Other #1
04f25f17 04f28r?17 USMS - Advanced Asset Forfeiture Administration Session 17C
AFD
05f02f17 05f04f17 AFP Executive Of?ce of United States Attorneys
Consolidated Asset Tracking System Working Group
Training
05:08} 17 05/12/17 USMS Sex Offender Investigations Coordinator Basic School
Other #2
05f16/17 05H 8I17 DOJ AF Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section Chiefs
and Experts Conference (Brookfield Cont)
061?13/1 7 061?14l1 7 USMS A Asset Forfeiture Financial Investigator District
AFD Information Session
06/21f17 - 06f22/17 USMS Asset Forfeiture for District Leadership Pilot Session
AFD
07/11f1 7 07/1311? USMS Business of Forfeiture; 1811 Edition Session 1713
AFD
07H 81'17 07/20! 17 DOJ AFP Food and Drug Administration Of?ce of Criminal
Investigations Training
072225117 0722 8/17 USMS Advanced Asset Forfeiture Administration Session 17B
AF 
08f08a?1 7 .1 08f10r?l7 USMS Asset Forfeiture Financial Investigator Orientation

 

AFD

 

 

 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

 

 

 

Page Eight
08114! 17 08f18i17 USMS Business of Forfeiture Session 173
AFD
0839117 08/31/17 USMS Sex Offenders Investigation Branch Missing Child
Other Orientation (Postponed to FY 2018 due to Hurricane
Harvey)
09l11/17 09115117 USMS Judicial Security Division Security Awareness Training
Other Seminar for District Managers (Cancelled due to
Hurricane Harvey Recovery)

 

 

 

 

 

8. What items, if any, are being reused by the USMS in its new headquarters location?

The USMS is reusing the following in its new headquarters location: approximately
1,3 00 pieces of furniture; 3,700 pieces of information technology equipment such as computers
and monitors; and 28 pieces of audio-visual equipment.

9. How many of?ces in the new USMS headquarters location are not physically occupied
on a full-time basis? How many of?ces in the new USMS headquarters location are
dedicated to positions that are physically located outside of the local commuting area? This
includes, but is not limited to, offices where the name plate on the of?ce or cubicle
designates an employee or contractor who does not live in the local commuting area.

There are five of?ces or workspaces in the new USMS headquarters that are designated
for specific employees who are not physically located in the DC local commuting area on a full
time basis. There are other workspaces available for any employee who may need to work in the
headquarters building on a temporary basis while in DC for meetings or on a short-term project.

10. Please provide the total expenditures for travel of the two individuals associated with
the Asset Forfeiture Division international unit to and from Washington, DC, and other
destinations since those individuals joined the unit. Please provide a list of all international
destinations.

For the two employees currently assigned to the International Unit of the AFD, since
each joined the unit in 2013 and 2016 respectively, through April 1, 2013, the USMS has paid

$1 57,5 14.04 in travel expenditures.

The travel for these two employees is ?inded by multiple sources. As a general matter,
the funding source is determined by the underlying purpose of the travel. For example, travel
associated with one of the employee?s membership on the Critical Incident Response Team
(CIRT) is not funded by the AF as the purpose of that travel is not related to forfeiture. Sources

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page Nine

of funding for the travel of these two employees have included: the AF the USMS Salaries and
Expenses Appropriation, the State Department, the European Union Agency for Law
Enforcement Cooperation (EUROPOL), and the Department?s Of?ce of Overseas Prosecutorial
Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT).

The international destinations of these two individuals are as follows: Aruba, Netherlands
Antilles; Asuncion, Paraguay; Bali, Indonesia; Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles; Bucharest,
Romania; Catania, Italy; Dubai, Dublin, Ireland; Guatemala City, Guatemala; Hague, the,
Netherlands; Kingston, Jamaica; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Lombok/Jakarta, Indonesia; London,
nited Kingdom; Madrid, Spain; Muscat, Oman; Port of Spain, Trinidad And Tobago;
Rotterdam, Netherlands; San Jose, Costa Rica; San Salvador, El Salvador; Santiago de
Compostela, Spain; Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; Sarajevo, Bosnia Herzegovina; St
Peter Port, Guernsey, Stockholm, Sweden; Vienna, Austria; and Zagreb, Croatia.

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.

   

hen E. Boyd
ssistant Attorney General

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Dianne einstein
Ranking Member

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
US. Department of Justice

 

\?TVva .. .. 

 

I . 

Asset liq

Posltlons On Board Pasitons in Recruitment Positions Vacant

Managed Tm 
2017' (mime: min flanuacwv Agmln - ?-91 ?351
March 31,2019 5229:8191an

of
MIW?Wustcm

 

 

--..-: - -

 

Managed
April 1 2017-
March 31. 2018

. Eastern

- Western

 

1979:} lam.
unmask)! 911mm

 

 

Positions Board Posltons In Positions Vacant

Manage!
Apm: 2017' my; game: 9mm: Mm gut-?actor
- Morcln31.2018

TON 
am. ?229292;

 

5!s. mge'ued- to as. host.? dinner, Permanently transitioned districts axe sum In: this right; side of. the this! solumn and their 5mm managed"- an: rimmed. their ?huskdismct. I:
administrative she! consist; supporting a given .?hosl? My. 3m ?r??eotaditi- Ind-counts of diet-- "host? dissi'kt. $11160!) II at Forfeiture Flnan?u! Mitigate?) 
i .. id 

        

   

 

(35.th ind e.
lidstsi ALN. sex 

 

0!
math

 

 

 

USMS Asset Forfeiture Division (HQ) "Dedicated" Positions as of 03/31/2018

r? Moviresieri. . .

 

1 wimctot mute: Financial Sumac Unit funded outside 0! F118 FSA budge: ?otation

?To Be Detunincd posiions enahla Mo to "spend to Intuition: In volt duo
Io workload inmase, cm: In po?cv, etc. ?nu USMS ha: diia?u?on lowing.
[he ram belmm adminhmtivn and ?Inmate: positions band In AFB annd
those hand in the USM5 dbbim In to optimiu 99mm

 

ham-nan". 

USMS HQ non-AFD Administrative Support Positions funded by the Assets Forfeiture
Fund as of March 15, 2018 (Pay Period S)

Attorney, Of?ce of General Counsel

Attorney, Of?ce of General Counsel

Human Resources Specialist, Human Resources Division

Human Resources Specialist, Human Resources Division

Information Technology Specialist, Information Technology Division
Supervisory IT Specialist, Information Technology Division
Supervisory IT Specialist, Information Technology Division

Contract Specialist, Financial Services Division

Systems Accountant, Financial Services Division

Management Program Analyst, Management Support Division

Paralegal, Contractor, Of?ce of General Counsel

 

US. Department of Justice
Justice Management Division
Asset Forfeiture Management Stq??

I45NSL, NE, Suite 
Washington, DC. 20530

 


ocr 18 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR IIOLLEY 

Assistant Director

Financial Services Division

United States Marshals Service 
FROM: Kenneth A. Arnold/j? 6?

Director

SUBJECT: Initial Full-Year Assets Forfeiture Fund Allocation for FY 2017

I am writing to transmit the initial full-year Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF)
allocation for FY 2017 as approved by Deputy Attorney General Yates. Your initial allocation is
$700,535,000, which includes $700,249,000 for Program Operations Expenses and $286,000 for
Investigative Expenses. Attached is a summary listing the allocation levels for speci?c
programs and activities along with any conditions on their use, and a Suballotment Advice
re?ecting these resources.

With the ever-present public scrutiny of our Asset Forfeiture Program, it is imperative
that all expenditures of this allocation not only withstand potential criticism, but also
demonstrate our careful stewardship over these non-appropriated funds. While additional
allocations might be possible later in the year depending upon the health of the AFF, we cannot
fully commit to providing your agency any additional funds with the ?scal uncertainties we
currently face. Therefore, you should ?rst look within your agency?s available appropriations
for support of any unfunded needs that exceed this initial AF allocation. The policy guidance
contained in the Attorney Gengal?s Guidelines on Seized and Forfeited Property; supplemental
policy memoranda, and guidance found in previous allocation letters continue to apply until
superseded.

AFF monies for Investigative Expenses are subject to statutory funding limitations and
the amount initially provided is the maximum that can be apportioned under the Continuing
Resolution for FY 2017 (HR. 5325), which covers the period October I 2016 to December 9,
2016. Additional funds will be made available when the enacted appropriation or another
continuing resolution provides added authority for these expenses.

Attachments

Holley O?Brien Page 2

no: Jolene A. Lauria
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Controller
Justice Management Division

M. Kendall Day, Chief
Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section
Criminal Division

Timothy Virtue, Assistant Director
Asset Forfeiture Division
United States Marshals Service

United States Marshals Service
FY 2017 Initial Allocation Summary

 

 

Program Operations Expenses Amount Amount
(permanent, inde?nite authority) Reguested Approved
Asset Management and Disposal $40,389,000
Third-Party interests $240,000,000
Equitable Sharing $325,000,000
Joint Law Enforcement Operations $32,775,000
Special Contract Services $13,742,000
information Systems $5,447,000
Training and Printing $1,466,000
MM
Total, Program Operations Expenses $700,249,000
Investigative Expenses Amount Planning*
(pmpriated, definite authority) Rguested Estimate
Equipping Conveyances - $l 83,000
Awards for Information 
Total, Investigative Expenses $286,000
Grand Total $700,535,000

 

The Flaming Estimate isfor planning purposes only. Congressional action and other events
may result in changes to estimates.

Program Operations Expenses (permanent, inde?nite authority)

ASSET MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

Amount Amount

Re uest Approved
$40,389,000

$40,389,000 are provided for Asset Management and Disposal expenses to include the following
programs and activities:

0 $20,713,000 for the personal property contracts, including the management of vehicles,
vessels, and aircraft;

United States Marshals Service
FY 2017 Initial Allocation Summary

0 $l4,739,000 for the national real property management contracts;

0 $3,287,000 for the national jewelry, art, antiques, and collectibles program;
0 $1,000,000 for unique asset management in major cases;

0 $500,000 for international asset management; and

0 $l50,000 for travel directly associated with the disposition and management of seized
assets.

This amount fully funds the request for Asset Management Disposal expenses in order to
cover contract minimum requirements. However, CATS data shows a significant decline in
overall asset management workload for the USM S. For example, the AFP seized 42 percent
fewer vehicles in FY 20l5 than we seized in FY 2012 and cunently?available data for FY 2016
indicates further declines. Therefore, AFMS will closely monitor these expenditures throughout
FY 20] 7 and will adjust allocated funding levels as necessary via the suballotment process.

We also strongly encourage USMS to begin exploring the possibility of aligning and/or
consolidating aSpects of the USMS real property program with the real property program of the
Treasury Executive O?ice on Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF). Initial data and anecdotal evidence
indicates TEOAF maintains the same level of inventory with far fewer complaints from the
Assistant US. Attorneys who must judicially seize and forfeit all real property the Government
takes.

THIRD-PARTY INTERESTS
Amount Amount

nested Approved


$240,000,000 are provided for the payment of third party interests. This amount is based on
recent trends that point to a smaller funding requirement in FY 2017. The allocation will be
continually monitored throughout the ?scal year and additional allocations will be provided, if
necessary.

EQUITABLE SHARING
Amount Amount

Approved

- $325,000.000

$325,000,000 are provided for equitable sharing payments to state and local agencies based on the
the degree of participation in federal investigations resulting in the seizure and forfeiture of assets.
This amount is based on recent trends that point to a smaller ?inding requirement in FY 2017. As

United States Marshals Service
FY 2017 Initial Allocation Summary

with the Third?Party Interests allocation, this allocation will be continually monitored throughout
the fiscal year and additional allocations will be provided, if necessary.

JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS
Amount Amount
Re nested Approved
$32,775,000
$32,775,000 are provided for the payment of overtime salaries, travel, fuel, training, equipment,
and other similar costs of State or Local law enforcement of?cers that are incurred in ajoint law
enforcement operation with the USMS. Based on your budget estimates and supporting
justifications, this initial allocation includes speci?c non-?tngible funding levels in the following
programs and activities. However, if unforeseen operational circumstances support realigning

funds between these programs or activities during FY 2017', AFMS stands ready to assist in
making anyr necessary adjustments beIWeen these cost areas:

$23,525,000 for State or local law enforcement of?cer ov'ertirne incurred in ajoint law
enforcement operation with the 

$4,160,000 for Technical Operations/Circuit Costs that are subject tojudicial authorization.
No more than one-fourth ,040,000) ofthis allocation may be obligated or expended
until the USMS and AFMS can agree on a set of internal controls and procedures necessary
to ?rmly establish that these expenses are "costs of State or Local law enforcement
of?cers? pursuant to 28 USC 524(c)( AFMS will engage with the USMS
Investigative Operations Division during the ?rst quarter of FY 2017 to develop improved
internal controls and a Standard Operating Procedure for documenting these expenses
going forward. The USMS is reminded that funds authorized under 28 USC 
are not available for Federal agency expenses, regardless of whether those expenses
support a State or local investigation;

- $l,890,000 for commercial database access for State or local law enforcement of?cers
participating in ajoint law enforcement OperatiOn with the USMS. This amount provides
42 percent of the USMS's $4.5 million total requirement for commercial database access
and is based on the proportion of task force officers with access to this system. USMS
stated that approximately 2,100 (42 percent) of the 4,926 active database users were task
force of?cers and that the remaining 2,800 users are USMS employees. The USMS is
reminded that funds authorized under 28 USC 524(c)(l)(l) are not available for Federal
agency expenses, regardless of whether those expenses support a State or local
investigation;

United States Marshals Service
FY 2017 Initial Allocation Summary

. $1,400,000 for the annual lease or rent of 190 vehicles for State or local law enforcement
of?cers participating in ajoint law enforcement operation with the USMS. No funds from
this allocation may be used to purchase vehicles. Not only is this approach consistent with
other JLEO programs, but we believe that leasing or renting vehicles will enhance
of?cer safety by removing older, high-mileage vehicles from service and by also allowing
TFOs to more easily change-out vehicles as necessary during sensitive operations. AFMS
will engage with the USMS Investigative Operations Division duringthe first quarter of
FY 2017 to establish future year lease requirements for all task force of?cer vehicles;

0 $950,000 for the retro?tting or equipping of vehicles used by State or local law
enforcement officers participating in ajoint law enforcement operation with the USMS.
This amount provides funding for equipping 190 leasedfrented vehicles and is based on
similar rates incurred by ATP for installing equipment in leasedfrented TFO vehicles;

- $600,000 for High Risk Fugitive Apprehension Training (HRFA) and Adam Walsh
Training for State or local law enforcement of?cers participating in ajoint law enforcement
operation with the and

- $250,000 for background investigations of State or local law enforcement of?cers
participating in ajoint law enforcement operation with the USMS.

All expenses under this cost category must conform with 23 USC and the policy
directive contained in the memo known as the ?Colgate Memo,? Stephen R. Colgate, Assistant
Attorney General for Administration, Subject: Guidance on Use of the Assets Forfeiture Fund

to Pay State and Local Law Enforcement Officer Overtime and Other Costs In ,[oint Law

Enforcement Operations, dated July 1, 1997.

 

 

Please note that reimbursement for state or local task force salary expenses with AFF monies is
available for state or local of?cer overtime salary expenses and shall not include any costs for
bene?ts, such as retirement, FICA, or other expenses.

As a condition of funding, the USMS is required to submit the amount funds paid to
each state and local law enforcement agency for FY 2016 (by agency and number), and the
amount allocated to each agency in FY 2017, to AFMLS and AFMS within 60 days of the

FY 2017 allocation. We note that this requirement has not been com plied with in the past.
AFMS will closely monitor compliance during FY 2017.

A recent LEO program review by AFMS and AFMLS revealed inconsistencies and likely
redundancies in expenditures among the investigative agencies. Therefore, AFMS will
explore whether there are better ways to allocate JLEO resources across the Asset Forfeiture
Program in FY 2017.

Agencies are reminded about the limitations on using either JLEO or equitable sharing funds to
purchase certain ilitary-style equipment for use by state and local agencies- On January 16,

United States Marshals Service
FY 2017 Initial Allocation Summary

2015, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13688, ?Federal Support for Local Law
Enforcement Equipment Acquisition,? that identi?ed and implemented actions to improve federal
support for the appropriate use, acquisition, and transfer of equipment by state, local, and tribal
law enforcement agencies. This Executive Order prohibits Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs)
from using federal funds to purchase certain military-style equipment. The order also requires
LEAs to obtain pre-approval from the funding federal agency and follow new guidelines when
purchasing equipment found on the Controlled Equipment List. Effective October I, 20l6, the
following equipment is on the Controlled Equipment List and is subject to these requirements
when using federal funds:

0 Manned Aircra?, Fixed Wing and Rotary Wing;
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles;

0 Armored Vehicles, Wheeled;
0 Tactical Vehicles, Wheeled;

0 Command and Control Vehicles;
0 Breaching Apparatus; and
0 Riot/Crowd Control Batons and Shields.

If an LEA intends to use Department of Justice or Department of the Treasury JLEO or equitable
sharing funds to purchase any Controlled Equipment, the agency must submit a request to the
funding federal agency for approval. LEAs shall not obligate or spend any federal JLEO or
equitable shan?ng funds for a Controlled Equipment purchase until approval has been granted by
the funding federal agency. For the Department of Justice, the Asset Forfeiture and Money
Laundering Section (AFMLS) will review requests and notify agencies when the request has been
approved or denied.

SPECIAL CONTRACT SERVICES
Amount Amount

Hm nest Mum
$3,742,000

$8,742,000 are provided for special contract services costs to include the following programs
and activities:

0 $13,403,000 for I47 authorized full-time equivalents (Fl?Es) for Forfeiture Support
Associates (FSA) contractor support. We note that these I47 FTEs matches the same
number of FT Es the USMS ordered against the FSA contract for FY 2016, irrespective of
subsequent hiring freezes and vacancy rates that occurred after the ?rst quarter of

- United States Marshals Service
FY 2017 Initial Allocation Summary

FY 2016. While the USMS asserts this is more than a 10 percent reduction to its current
authorized position count of 165 FT Es, this FY 2017 initial allocation for FSA support is
only 4.9 percent below the USMS requested level of funding. AF MS believes this 
reduced level of support should be easily absorbed because workload data shows a
signi?cant decline in asset seizure activity over the last several ?scal years. Nearly
complete data for FY 2016 shows that trend is accelerating. AFMS anticipates the
possibility of making further adjustments to this amount in FY 2018 and FY 2019 as part
of a phased plan to right-size contractor position requirements. Rather than managing
reductions solely via attritions, the USMS is strongly encouraged to begin actively
managing these contractor positions to meet changing workload dynamics of its forfeiture
program . This may involve transferring on-board contractor positions from locations with
declining workload to locations where the resource may be more effectively utilized;

$314,000 for FSA contractor case-related travel; and
$25,000 for FSA contractor overtime.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Arnou nt Amount
Approved

- 35.447.000

$5,447,000 are provided for lnformat ion Systems expenses to include the following programs and
activities:

$2,197,000 as a planning estimate for Uni?ed Financial Management System (UFMS)
operational support. This amount includes $1,547,000 for the AF portion of 
billing for operations and maintenance expenses and $650,000 for the Asset Forfeiture
Division UF MS Help Desk. We understand that this amount is based on the proportion of
uansactional workload attributable to the AF 

$1,683,000 for ADP Cost Sharing for the cost of information technology and
telecommunication services for Asset Forfeiture Division personnel, including so?ware
and services used by A FF-funded personnel and a preportional amount of the IT
infrastructure services used by the Asset Forfeiture Division;

$225,000 for the purchase of computers, IT peripherals, and cellular services and related
equipment;

$7 50,000 for asset forfeiture data reporting, analysis, and dashboard management tools
associated with the CRAD. This amount was requested in the Exhibit 1a but was not

included in the narrative AFF budget submission for FY 2017. Please provide a
narrative justification for this expense in future AFF budget requests;

United States Marshals Service
FY 2017 Initial Allocation Summary

0 $92,000 for software purchases and license renewals. This amount was requested in the
Exhibit la but was not included in the narrative AFF budget submission for
FY 2017. Please provide a narrative justi?cation for this expense in future AFF budget
requests; and

0 $500,000 for Business Objects for in-house reporting and analysis needs related to
implementation of the UFMS 22 upgrade. We understand this represents 50 percent of
the total cost for this requirement.

No funds are provided for the US MS Property Asset and Control Enterprise System (PAC ES) due
to concerns that the USMS no longer plans to implement the system?s Radio Frequency
Identi?cation Technology that served as the original basis for AFF funding. Because the asset
tracking functionality of PACES is now essentially redundant with the Consolidated Asset
Tracking System (CATS), this project was not considered among the highest priority activities
that are ?core? to the overall Asset Forfeiture Program (AFP), which utilizes CATS for all asset
management and disposal functions across the AFP.

TRAINING AND PRINTING
Amount Amount

pEoved

A
- 9.466.000

$1,466,000 are provided for forfeiture training activities based on a recommendation provided by
the Criminal Division, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, with AFMS concu'rence.
A list of courses or events speci?cally approved will be provided by AFMLS.

OTHER PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Amount Amount
Rc ueste Approved
$4 I .430,000

,43 0,000 are provided for other program management. Bxed on your budget estimates and
supportingjusti?cations, this initial allocation includes speci?c non-fungible funding lcvels in the
following programs and activities. However, if unforeseen operational circumstances support
realigning funds between these programs or activities during FY 2017, A FMS stands ready to
assist in making any necessary adjustments between these cost areas:

$22,076,000 for the salaries and $l0,370,000 for the bene?ts of 225 authorized FTEs for
government positions across four program categories, including:

United States Marshals Service
FY 2.017 Initial Allocation Summary

3* Deputy US. Marshals. Currently, the USMS has allocated 53 Deputy US.
Marshals based in the United States Attorney's Of?ces for the Asset Forfeiture
Financial lnvesti gator (AFFI) program and 9 Deputy US. Marshals based in the
Asset Forfeiture Division (AFD). However, the USMS has discretion to change
this ratio to optimize operations;

143 administrative positions based in the USMS districts and in AFD. Currently,
the USMS has 55 positions allocated to APD and NB positions allocated to
districts; however, the USMS has the discretion to change this ratio when
implementing the reduction; and

3* 10 administrative positions based in non~AFD divisions ofthe USMS.

This amount provides for a reduction of 10 FTEs from the requested level of 235
authorized FTEs in accordance with workload data showing a signi?cant decline in asset
seizure activity over the last several ?scal years. Consistent with the FY 2016 allocation,
no funding is provided in FY 20] for the salary and bene?ts of USMS personnel
performing non-forfeiture related work. Because this 4.3 percent reduction is well below
the signi?cant declines in asset seizure activity, AFMS anticipates the possibility of
making further adjustments to this amount in FY 2018 and FY 2019 as part ofa phased
plan to right-size government employee position requirements;

$7,8l 5,000 for rent associated with APP-funded government FTE positions. This amount
provides rent for District Of?ce personnel Non-A FD Headquarters
personnel and AFD Headquarters personnel Rent funding for
AFD Headquarters personnel of $l,l45,000 includes space occupied by AFD at the
USMS headquarters in Arlington, VA ($678,000) and at the Asset Forfeiture Academy in
Houston, TX This cost category causes a signi?cant concern. The 
original request of $8,605,000 for rent was subsequently lowered to $7,815,000 based on
AFMS's requested exPlanation of the rent calculation methodology. However, this
amount still appears excessively high for I67 funded government positions in USMS
space. AFMS will therefore conduct an independent review of the data and make any
necessary adjustments to this total in FY 2017;

$335,000 for non?salary Asset Forfeiture Division operational expenses;
$208,000 for background investigations for AFF-funded USMS government employees;

$336,000 for JMD Reimbursable requirements. This amount was requested in the Exhibit
la but was not included in the narrative AFF budget submission for FY 2017.
Please provide a narrativejusti?cation for this expense in ?sture AFF budget requests;

$200,000 for the on-site reviews of district asset forfeiture units in association with the
USMS Of?ce of Compliance Review;

United States Marshals Service
FY 2017 Initial Allocation Summary

0 $75,000 for the Operating costs of the Asset Forfeiture Academy in Houston, and
. $15,000 for printing and publications.

AFMS will conduct a review of the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding between AFMS and the
USMS regarding the funding of Other Program Management expenses, including rent, non-A FD
USMS government positions, and other requirements. As part of this initiative, AFMS will also
evaluate the propriety of the AF F's support for the [0 administrative personnel based outside of
AFD, especially because the cun'ent signed MOU provided for only 8 of these positions.

Investigative Expenses (annual, de?nite authority)

These monies are limited by an annual obligation cap enacted into law in the apprOpriations
process. These caps have remained at about the $2l million level for more than a decade. There
is essentially no ?exibility to exceed that overall cap, and therefore, agency allocation for the
expenses below are the same as the previous year. The Planning Estimates below reflect that
reality.

Because the Congress has not yet enacted the full-year Appropriations Act for the Department of
Justice, we are unable to provide funding for those categories of investigative expense that are
subject to limitations; namely, awards for information, purchase of evidence, and
equipping of conveyances. When the enacted appropriation provides authority for these
expenses, an allocation will be made.

 
    

EQUIPPING OF CONVEYANCES
FY 20 16 Amount Plan ning
Allocation A Estimate
$183,000 $0 $183,000

 
    

The use of AFF monies under this cost category is described in the Attorney General?s Guidelines
and is governed as follows:

0 Payments to Equip Conveyances

0 Decisions to equip a government?owned or leased conveyance (vehicle, vessel, or
aircra?) for drug law enforcement functions shall be made by the organizational
component within the agency which is responsible for management of the
conveyance.

Reimbursable payments may be made to equip conveyances which are used the
majority of the time for activity relating to the investigation or apprehension of
violators of the federal laws and the seizure and forfeiture of their assets.

United States Marshals Service
FY 2017 lnit'nl Allocation Summary

0 Monies from the Fund may not be used for recurring expenses such as fuel, Spare
or replacement parts, maintenance, or replacement of equipment due to wear and
tear by the agency using the conveyance.

Equipping should generally occur before the conveyance is placed into of?cial
use and only if it is intended to be in service for at least two years.

AWARDS FOR INFORMATION

    
    

FY 20l6
Allocation
$515,000

Amount Planning
Estimate
$0 $103,000

AFMS conducted a program wide reviewof agency payments made under the Awards for
Information authority and found that 80 percent of all USMS awards were unrelated to any of the
federal violations enumerated in 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(l Therefore, this planning estimate
re?ects an 80 percent reduction to amounts allocated in prior years.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 USMS is reminded that these
funds are available exclusively for the payment of awards for information or assistance directly
relating to violations of the criminal drug laws of the United States or of chapter 77 of title 18,
sections 1956 and 1957 of title 18, sections 53 3 and 5324 of title and section 6050l of the
Internal Revenue Code of I986.

10

 

US. Department of Justice

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff

Suballotment Advice

 

Fund Symbol and Title:

15 5042
Assets Forfeiture Fund

Code Number
ALLOC Oct FY17

 

Suballottee:
Director, US. Marshals Service

 

Fiscal Year or Period Covered:

FY 2017

 

Suballotm ent No.



 

You are hereby allotted and authorized to obligate funds from the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) for expenses

expressly authorized in your organization?s most recent allocation summary. No other agency expenses, even if they
are forfeiture-related, will be authorized. Schedule A shows the net total of the suballotment. Schedule shows the
distribution of the total suballotment by expense category.

An of?cer or employee of the United States Government who makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure
exceeding the amount ofthe suballotment will be in violation 1514 and 31 U.S.C. 1517(a)(2), and will
be subject to penalties under the Antide?ciency Act to include administrative disciplinary action, a ?ne ofnotmore
than $5,000, and imprisonment for not more than two years. Further, obligation of AF funds is subject to statutory
controls under 28 U.S.C. 524 policy controls contained in the Attorney General's Guidelines on Seized and

Forfeited Property, and amplifying policy statements from the Department.

Asset Forfeiture Program participants must maintain proper supporting documentation for all expenses billed to the
AFF and must make such documentation available to AFMS representatives upon request. Documentation must

comprehensively establish the basis for each obligation, including the relationship to expenses approved in the most
recent allocation summary. More speci?cally, AFF participants may be required to provide acquisition documents,
contract invoices, purchase card details, payroll journals, travel vouchers, accounting system cost allocation entries,
and other transaction support for AFF expenditures.

A. Funds Allocated By Fiscal Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior Change Present
Amount Amount Amount
Fiscal Year 2017 - 700,304,000 700,304,000
B. Funds Allocated By Category of Expense
Category of Prior Change Present
Expense Amount Amount Amount
Program Operations Expenses
Asset Management and Disposal 40,389,000 40,389,000
Third Party Interests 240,000,000 240,000,000
Equitable Sharing Payments 325,000,000 325,000,000
Case Related Expenses - -
Joint Law Enforcement Task Forces 32,775,000 32,775,000
Special Contract Services 13,742,000 13,742,000
Storage/Destruction of Substances - -
Information Systems 5,447,000 5,447,000
Training and Printing 1,466,000 1 ,466,000
Other Program Management 41,430,000 41 ,43 0,000
Contracts to Identify Assets - -
Awards Based on Forfeiture - -
Investigative Costs Leading to Seizures - -
Subtotal 700,249,000 700,249,000

Purchase of EWIence - -
Equipping ofConveyances 35,000 35,000
Awards for Information 20,000 20,000
Subtotal - 55,000 55,000
Grand Total. - 700,304,000 700,304,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SA 

Remarks:

This document provides initial Amets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) allocation for FY 2017 as approved by Deputy
Attorney General Yates. AFF monies for Investigative Expenses (E) are subject to statutory funding limitations
and are apportioned quarterly by OMB. The amount provided for IE in this document (19.18 percent of the annual
allocation) is the maximum allowable under the Continuing Resolution for FY 2017 (HR. 5325), which covers the
period October 1, 2016 to December 9, 2016. Additional IE funds will be made available when the enacted
appropriation or another continuing resolution provides added authority for these expenses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved: 2? Date: 

Kenneth A. Arl?ild. Director

 

US. Department of Justice

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff

Suballotment Advice

 

 

Fund Symbol and Title: 15 5042 Code Number
Assets Forfeiture Fund ALLOC Oct FY17
Suballottcc: Fiscal Year or Period Covered: No.
2

Director, US. Marshals Service

 

FY 2017

 

 

You are hereby allotted and authorized to obligate funds from the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) for expenses

expressly authorized in your organization?s most recent allocation summary. No other agency expenses, even if they
are forfeiture-related, will be authorized. Schedule A shows the net total of the suballotment. Schedule shows the
distribution of the total suballotment by expense category.

An of?cer or employee of the United States Government who makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure
exceeding the amount of the suballotment will be in violation of U.S.C. 1514 and 31 U.S.C. 1517(a)(2), and will
be subject to penalties under the Antide?ciency Act to include administrative disciplinary action, a ?ne of not more
than $5,000, and imprisonment for not more than two years. Further, obligation funds is subject to statutory
controls under 28 U.S.C. 524 policy controls contained in the Attorney General's Guidelines on Seized and

Forfeited Property, and amplifying policy statements from the Department

Asset Forfeiture Program participants must maintain proper supporting documentation for all expenses billed to the
AFF and must make such documentation available to AFMS representatives upon request. Documentation must

comprehensively establish the basis for each obligation, including the relationship to expenses approved in the most
recent allocation summary. More speci?cally, AFF participants may be required to provide acquisition documents,
contract invoices, purchase card details, payroll journals, travel vouchers, accounting system cost allocation entries,
and other transaction support for AFF expenditures.

A. Funds Allocated By Fiscal Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior Change Present
Amount Amount Amount
Fiscal Year 2017 700,304,000 88,000 700,392,000
B. Funds Allocated By Category of Expense
Category of Prior Change Present
Expense Amount Amount Amount
Program Operations Expenses
Asset Management and Disposal 40,3 89,000 - 40,389,000
Third Party Interests 240,000,000 - 240,000,000
Equitable Sharing Payments 325,000,000 - 325,000,000
Case Related Expenses - - -
Joint Law Enforcement Task Forces 32,775,000 - 32,775,000
Special Contract Services 13,742,000 - 13,742,000
Storage/Destruction of Substances - - -
Information Systems 5,447,000 - 5,447,000
Training and Printing 1,466,000 - 1,466,000
Other Program Management 41,430,000 - 41,430,000
Contracts to Identify Assets - - -
Awards Based on Forfeiture - - -
Investigative Costs Leading to Seizures - - -
btotal 700,249,000 700,249,000
Investigative Expenses
Purchase of Evidence - - -
Equipping of Conveyances 35,000 56,500 91,500
Awards for Information 20,000 31,500 51,500
ubtotal 55,000 88,000 143,000
Grand Total 700,304,000 88,000 700,392,000

 

Remarks:

 

 

 

AFF monies for Investigative Expenses (IE) are subject to statutory funding limitations and are apportioned
quarterly by 0MB. The amount provided for IE in this document (50 percent of the annual allocation) is the

maximum allowable for the quarter ending March 31, 2017.

 

 

Approved: (4641/

 

Date: 

 

Kenneth A. Arnold, Director

 

 

U. S. Department of Justice
Justice Management Division
Asset Forfeiture Management Sta??
45 St. NE, Suite 5 W. 511
Washington. D. C. 20530

 


MAY 1 i 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR HOLLEY 

Assistant Director
Financial Services Division
United States Marshals Service

FROM: Kenneth A. Arnold 

Director

SUBJECT: FY 2017 Assets Forfeiture Fund Suballotment Advice #3

In response to your FY 2017 Mid?Year Review request dated March 3, 2017, I am writing to
transmit Suballotment Advice Number 3. which re?ects the following adjustments to 
FY 2017 Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) annual allocation:

Realigns $421,000 from ?Asset Management and Disposal? to ?Information Systems? to
terminate the asset forfeiture portion of the Property Asset and Control Enterprise System
(PACES).

Increases the Q3 and Q4 spending limits for discretionary Investigative Expenses to the
amount that has been automatically apportioned through June 4, 2017.

The request to realign $600,000 within ?Other Program Management? from HQ Dedicated
AF Administrative Personnel salaries and bene?ts to District AF Dedicated
Administrative Personnel salaries and benefits is approved. This is a technical adjustment
that does not affect the FTE caps provided in the FY 2017 allocation

The request to realign $250,000 within ?Other Program Management? to extend contract
support for the UFMS Helpdesk through February 2018 is approved.

The following requests were deferred or denied for the reasons stated below:

The request for $1,884,000 in ?Information Systems? to support the development of the
Capture system, which will replace the Judicial Detainee Information System (JDIS), is
denied because both the AFF'statutc (28 U.S.C. 524(0)) and the Attorney General 's
Guidelines on Seized cud Forfeited Property preclude use of the AFF to fund information
systems unless ?a majority" of the system will be dedicated to asset forfeiture program
related work. The ?Capture? system that will replace JDI does not meet that threshold.

Holley O?Brien Page 2

If ion have ani :?uestionsl please call Kevin Arnwine at or email him at

Attachment

cc: Jolene A. Lauria
Deputy Assistant Attorney GeneraL Controller
Justice Management Division

Deborah Connor, Acting Chief
Money Laundering and Asset Recoveryr Section
Criminal Division

Timothy Virtue, Assistant Director
Asset Forfeiture Division
United States Marshals Service

 

U.S. Department of Justice

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff

Suballotment Advice

 

Fund Symbol and Title:

15 5042
Assets Forfeiture Fund

Code Number
ALLOC Oct FYI 7

 

Su bal Iottee:
Director, U.S. Marshals Service

 

Fiscal Year or Period Covered:

FY 2017

 

Suballotment No.
3

 

You are hereby allotted and authorized to obligate funds from the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) for expenses

expressly authorized in your organization?s most recent allocation summary. No other agency expenses, even if they
are forfeiture-related, will be authorized. Schedule A shows the net total of the suballotment. Schedule shows the
distribution of the total suballotment by expense category.

An of?cer or employee of the United States Government who makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure
exceeding the amount of the suballotment will he in violation ofll.S.C. 1514 and 31 U.S.C. 1517(a)(2), and will
be subject to penalties under the Antide?ciency Act to include administrative disciplinary action, a ?ne of not more
than $5,000, and imprisonment for not more than two years. Further, obligation of AFF funds is subject to statutory
controls under 28 U.S.C. 524 policy controls contained in the Attorney General's Guidelines on Seized and

Forfeited Property, and amplifyng policy statements from the Department.

Asset Forfeiture Program participants must maintain proper supporting documentation for all expenses billed to the
AFF and must make such documentation available to AFMS representatives upon request. Documentation must

comprehensively establish the basis for each obligation, including the relationship to expenses approved in the most
recent allocation summary. More speci?cally, AFF participants may be required to provide acquisition documents,
contract invoices, purchase card details. payroll journals, travel vouchers, accounting system cost allocation entries.
and other transaction support for AFF expenditures.

A. Funds Allocated By Fiscal Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior Change Present

Amount Amount Amount
Fiscal Year 2017 700,392,000 50,536 700,442,536

B. Funds Allocated By Category of Expense
Category of Prior Change Present
Expense Amount Amount Amount
Program Operations Expenses
Asset Management and Disposal 40,389,000 (421,000) 39,968,000
Third Party Interests 240,000,000 - 240,000,000
Equitable Sharing Payments 325,000,000 - 325,000,000
Case Related Expenses - - -
Joint Law Enforcement Task Forces 32,775,000 - 32,775,000
Special Contract Services 13,742,000 - 13,742,000
Storage/Destruction of Substances - - -
Information Systems 5,447,000 421,000 5,868,000
Training and Printing 1,466,000 - 1,466,000
Other Program Management 41,430,000 - 41,430,000
Contracts to Identify Assets - - -
Awards Based on Forfeiture - - -
Investigative Costs Leading to Seizures - - -
Subtotal 700,249,000 700,249,000
nvmigative Expenses

Purc?se of Evidence - 
Equipping of Conveyances 91,500 32,336 123,836
Awards for Information 51,500 18,200 69,700
Subtotal 143,000 50,536 193,536
Grand Total .. 700,392,000 50,536 700,442,536

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remarks:

This document re?ects the FY 2017 Mid-Year Review adjustments detailed in the accompanying cover memo. AFF
monies for Investigative Expenses (IE) are subject to statutory funding limitations. The additional amount provided
for in this document is 67.67 percent of the annual allocation, which is the amount automatically apportioned
after passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2017 and covers the period through June 4, 2017. Additional
IE funds will be made available when the full-year apportionment has been approved.



A. Arnold, Director

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice Suballotment Advice

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff

 

Code Number
Assets Forfeiture Fund ALLOC Jun 

Fund Symbol and Title: 15 5042

 

Fiscal Year or Period Covered: Suballotment No.
FY 2017 4

Suballottee:
Director, U.S. Marshals Service

 

 

 

 

You are hereby allotted and authorized to obligate funds from the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) for expenses
expressly authorized in your organization?s most recent allocation summary. No other agency expenses, even if they
are forfeiture-related, will be authorized. Schedule A shows the net total of the suballotment. Schedule shows the
distribution of the total suballotment by expense category.

An of?cer or employee of the United States Government who makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure
exceeding the amount of the suballotrnent will be in violation of U.S.C. 1514 and 3  U.S.C. 1517(a)(2), and will
be subject to penalties under the Antide?ciency Act to include administrative disciplinary action, a ?ne of not more
than $5,000, and imprisonment for not more than two years. Further, obligation of AF funds is subject to statutory
controls under 28 U.S.C. 524 policy controls contained in the Attorney General's Guidelines on Seized and
Forfeited Property, and amplifying policy statements from the Department.

Asset Forfeiture Program participants must maintain proper supporting documentation for all expenses billed to the
AFF and must make such documentation available to AFMS representatives upon request. Documentation must
comprehensively establish the basis for each obligation, including the relationship to expenses approved in the most
recent allocation summary. More speci?cally, AFF participants may be required to provide acquisition documents,
contract invoices, purchase card details, payroll joumals, travel vouchers, accounting system cost allocation entries,
and other transaction support for AFF expenditures.

A. Funds Allocated By Fiscal Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior Change Present
Amount Amount Amount
Fiscal Year 2017 700,442,536 700,535,000
B. Funds Allocated By Category of Expense
Category of Prior Change Present
Expense Amount Amount Amount
Trogram Operations Expenses
Asset Management and Disposal 39,968,000 39,968,000
Third Party Interests 240,000,000 - 240,000,000
Equitable Sharing Payments 325,000,000 - 325,000,000
Case Related Expenses - - -
Joint Law Enforcement Task Forces 32,775,000 - 32,775,000
Special Contract Services 13,742,000 - 13,742,000
Storage/Destruction of Substances - - -
Information Systems 5,868,000 5,868,000
Training and Printing 1,466,000 - 1,466,000
Other Program Management 41,430,000 - 41,430,000
Contracts to Identify Assets - - -
Awards Based on Forfeiture - - -
Investigative Costs Leading to Seizures - - -
Subtotal 700,249,000 700,249,000
Expenses
Purchase of Evidence - -
Equipping of Conveyances 123,836 59,164 183,000
Awards for Information 69,700 33,300 103,000
Subtotal 193,536 92,464 286,000
Grand Total. 700,442,536 92,464 700,535,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remarks:

This document increases Investigative Expenses (IE) to the full-year budget authority of $286,000. AFF monies for
IE are subject to statutory funding limitations and are apportioned quarterly by 0MB. The amount provided for
IE In this document represent the entire annual appropriated amount. Your agency's cumulative quarterly IE
limitations are follows: Q3: $214,500 and Q4: $286,000. These quarterly obligation limitations must not

exceeded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alzumed= z/i/Z/ Dana/47

enneth A. Arnold, D?'ector

US. Department of Justice Suballotment Advice

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff

 

Code Number
Assets Forfeiture Fund ALLOC FY17

Fund Symbol and Title; 15 5042

 

Fiscal Year or Period Covered: Subailotment No.
FY 2017 

Suballottee:
Director, US. Marshals Service

 

 

 

 

 

You are hereby allotted and authorized to obligate funds ?oor the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AF F) for expenses
expressly authoriZed in your organization's most recent allocation summary. No other agency expenses, even if they
are forfeiture-related, will be authorized. Schedule A shows the net total of the subailotment. Schedule shows the
distribution of the total suballotment by expense category.

An of?cer or employee ofthe United States Government who makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure
exceeding the amount ofthe suballotment will be in violation 1514 and 31 U.S.C. 1517(a)(2), and will
be subject to penalties under the Antideficiency Act to include administrative disciplinary action, a ?ne of not more
than 8 5,000, and imprisonment for not more than two years. Further, obligation of AFF funds is subject to statutory
centrols under 28 U.S.C. 524 policy controls contained in the Attorney General's Guidelines on Seized and

Forfeited Preperty, and amplifying policy statements from the Department.

Asset Forfeiture Program participants must maintain proper sUpporting documentation for all expenses billed to the
AFF and must make such documentation available to AF MS representatives upon request. Documentation must
comprehensively establish the basis for each obligation, including the relationship to expenses approved in the most
recent allocation summary. More speci?cally, AFF participants may be required to provide acquisition documents.
contract invoices, purchase card details, payroll journals, travel vouchers, accounting system cost allocation entries,
and other transaction support for AFF expenditures.

A. Funds Allocated By Fiscal Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior Change Present
Amount Amount Amount
Fiscal Year 2017' 700, 535,000 388,000,000 1,088,535,000
B. Funds Allocated By Cate cry of Ex?nse
Category of Prior Change Present
Expense Amount Amount Amount
Program Operations EXpenses
Asset Management and Disposal 39,968,000 - 39,968,000
Third Party Interests 240,000,000 457,000,000 697,000,000
Equitable Sharing Payments 325,000,000 (69,000,000) 256,000,000
Case Related Expenses - - -
Joint Law Enforcement Task Forces 32,775,000 - 32,775,000
Special Contract Services 13,742,000 - 13,742,000
Storagei'Destruction of Substances - - -
Information Systems 5,868,000 - 5,863,000
Training and Printing 1,466,000 - 1,466,000
Other Program Management 41,430,000 41,430,000
Contracts to Identify Assets 
Awards Based on Forfeiture - - -
Investigative Costs Loading to Seizures - -
Subtotal 700,249,000 388,000,000 1,088,249,000
Investigative Expenses
Purchase of Evidence - - -
Equipping of Conveyances 183,000 - 183,000
Awards for Information 103,000 - 103,000
Subtotal 286,000 - 286,000
Grand Total . 700,535,000 388,000,000 1,088,535,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff FY 2017 USMS Suballotment No. 5

Remarks:

This document increases the USMS's annual allocation by $388,000,000. These additional funds are provided in the
Third Party Interests cost category to cover anticipated obligations for victims in the Western Union fraud case.
This document also realigns $69,000,000 from Equitable Sharing Payments to Third Party Interests for the same

purpose.

Approved: 7&w ?y?fZ/Z

Kenneth A. Arnold, Director Date

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice
Justice Management Division
Asset Forfeiture Management &aj
I45 NSL, ME, Suite 
Washington DC. 20530

 

MEMORANDUM FOR HOLLEY 

Assistant Director

Financial Services Division

United States Marshals 7
FROM Kenneth A. Arnold?

Director

SUBJECT: Initial Full-Year Assets Forfeiture Fund Allocation for FY 2018

I am writing to transmit the initial Full-year Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF)
allocation for FY 2018 as approved by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General Your initial
full-year allocation is $559,615,000, which includes $559,329,000 for Program Operations
Expenses and $286,000 for Investigative Expenses. The second attachment is a summary listing
the allocation levels for speci?c programs and activities along with any conditions on their use.
The third and final attachment is Suballotment Advice re?ecting your available FY 2018 AFF
funding. Please note that this document does not include any ?Jnds for Joint Law Enforcement
Operations Circuit costs for the reasons noted in the allocation summary.

AFF monies for Investigative Expenses are subject to statutory funding limitations and
the amount initially provided is the maximum that can be apportioned under the Continuing
Appropriations Act, FY 2018 (PL. 115-56, HR. 601), which covers the period October 1, 2017
through December 8, 2017. Additional funds will be made available when the enacted
appropriation or another continuing resolution provides added authority for thae expenses.
Please note that the House version of the FY 2018 Appropriations Bill would reduce the 
discretionary funding for Investigative Expenses by $10 million, which is nearly half the amount
we?ve historically received each year. We encourage you to manage three expenses carefully in
the event that Congress ultimately enacts the proposed reduction in this area.

With the ever?present public scrutiny of our Asset Forfeiture Program, it is imperative
that all expenditures of this allocation not only withstand potential criticism, but also
demonstrate our care?Jl stewardship over these non-appropriated ?rnds. While additional
allocations might be possible later in the year depending upon the health of the AFF, we cannot
?illy commit to providing your agency any additional funds with the ?scal uncertainties we
currently face. Therefore, you should first look within your agency?s available appropriations

Ms. Holley O?Brien Page 2

for support of any unfunded needs that exceed this initial allocation. The policy guidance

contained in the Attorney General's gmidelines on Seized and Forfeited Property, supplemental
policy memoranda, and guidance found in previous allocation letters continue to apply until
superseded.

Attachments

co: Jolene A. Lauria
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Controller
Justice Management Division

Deborah Connor, Acting Chief
Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section
Criminal Division

Timothy Virtue, Assistant Director
Asset Forfeiture Division
United States Marshals Service

United States Marshals Service
FY 2018 Initial Allocation Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current
Program Operations Expenses FY 2017 Amount
(permanent, inde?nite authorim Allocation Approved
Asset Management and Disposal $39,968,000 $35,618,000
Third-Party Interests $240,000,000 $200,000,000
Equitable Sharing $325,000,000 $230,000,000
Joint Law Enforcement Operations $32,775,000 $33,285,000
Special Contract Services $13,742,000 $1 1,925,000
Information Systems $5,868,000 $6,578,000
Training and Printing $1,466,000 $1,193,000
Other Pro gain Management $40 730 000
Total, Program Operations Expenses $700,249,000 $559,329,000

Current
Investigative Expenses FY 2017 Planning*
(appropriated, de?nite authorig') Allocation Estimate
Equipping of Conveyances $183,000 $183,000
Awards for Information $103,000 $101800
Total, Investigative Expenses $286,000 $286,000
Grand Total $700,535,000 - $559,615,000

The Planning Estimate i 312?- planning purposes only. Congressional action and other events
may result in changes to estimates.

FY 2018 PROGRAM REVIEWS:

Review of Immiopal Asset Seizure and Forfeiture-Related Activities In view of the
growing level of international asset seizure costs incurred by DEA, the Criminal Division?s
Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section and Of?ce of International Affairs, and the
USMS, as well as the inherent challenges in bringing these cases to forfeiture, AFMS will
conduct a program review to carefully examine the synergies between these separately-funded
programs. Ideally, this review will help establish and document the mu scope of law enforcement
bene?ts inherent in international asset forfeiture-related activities. For the USMS, these
activities include:

United States Marshals Service
FY 2018 Initial Allocation Summary

0 The Asset Forfeiture Division's International Unit responsible for seizure, inventory,
appraisal, packing movement, storage, maintenance, security, and disposition of seized
and forfeited assets located abroad. This includes repatriation of funds in connection with
active cases involving international assets, requiring investigators to travel abroad.

Program Operations Expenses (permanent, inde?nite authority)

ASSET AND DISPOSAL

Current
FY 2017 FY 2018 Amount
Allocation Reguest Approved

 

$39,963,000 $35,513,000

$35,618,000 are provided for Asset Management and Disposal expenses to include the following
programs and activities:

$17,750,000 for the personal property contracts, including the management of vehicles,
vessels, and aircraft;

I $14,850,000 for the national real property management contracts;
I $2,768,000 for the national jewelry, art, antiques, and collectibles program; and

I $25 0,000 for travel directly associated with the disposition and management of seized
335615.

This amount fully funds the request for Asset Management Disposal expenses in order to
cover contract minimum requirements- CATS data show a signi?cant and continued decline in
overall asset management workload for the USMS. AFMS applauds USMS efforts to reduce
government and contractor personnel costs by consolidating the number of staffed ?eld of?ces
from 30 in FY 2016 to 53 by the middle of FY 2018 based on workload analysis, and encourage
the continuation of this process.

While AFMS understands that the USMS has decided against aligning andfor consolidating
sapects of the USMS real property program with the real property program of the Treasury
Executive Office on Asset Forfeiture it is pleased that the USMS is re-evaluating the
best ways to restructure its real estate contracts based on feedback from TEOAF and the AUSA
community. With the Attorney General?s expressed commitment to pursue real estate forfeitures
in a more deliberate and cautious manner, please provide AFMS with any revised seizure
guidelines or performance measures that have been developed to help reduce further the backlog
of real property assets and avoid the seizure of underwater assets.

United States Marshals Service
FY 2018 Initial Allocation Summary

THIRD-PARTY INTERESTS
Current
FY 2017 FY 2018 Amount
Allocation Rgumt Approved

$240,000,000 - $200,000,000

$200,000,000 are provided for the payment of third party interests. The allocation will be
continually monitored throughout the ?scal year and additional allocations will be provided, if
necessary.

EQUITABLE SHARING

Current
FY 2017 FY 2018 Amount

Allocation Reg uest Approved
$325,000,000 $230,000,000

$230,000,000 are provided for equitable sharing payments to State and local law enforcement
agencies based on the degree of participation in federal investigations resulting in the seizure and
forfeiture of assets. As with the Third-Party Interests allocation, this allocation will be
continually monitored throughout the fiscal year and additional allocations will be provided, if
necessary.

JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS

Current
FY 2017 FY 2018 Amount
Allocation Reguest A rov

 

$32,775,000 $33,285,000

$33,285,000 are provided for the payment of overtime salaries, travel, ?Jel, training, equipment,
and other similar costs of State and local law enforcement of?cers that are incurred in ajo int law
enforcement operation with the USMS. Based on the budget estimates and supporting
justi?cations, this initial allocation includes specific non-mngible funding levels in the following
programs and activities. However, if un foreseen operational circumstances support realigning
funds between these programs or activities during FY 2018, AFMS stands ready to assist in
making any necessary adjustments between these cost areas:

United States Marshals Service
FY 2013 Initial Allocation Summary

$23,210,000 for State and local law enforcement of?cer overtime incurred in a joint law
enforcement operation with the USMS. Because this level of ?mding matches the amount
requested by the USMS and is almost identical to the amount requested for FY 2017,
AFMS assumes there is no planned FY 2018 increase in the number of fugitive Task Force
Of?cers 

$4,160,000 for Technical Operations! Circuit Costs that are subject to judicial authorization
has been allocated; however, none of this amount will be allotted or expended until AFMS
fully audits FY 2017 expenditures in this area. First, the USMS must establish ?rm legal
authority to maintain the separate account where these funds are deposited. Second, AFMS
is still evaluating the effectiveness of recently approved internal controls for obligating and
spending in support of these operations. Finally, AF MS is still evaluating the methodology
used to allocate the amount of federal expenses versus the costs of State and local law
enforcement of?cers. This separation is critical because fugitive operations is a core
USMS mission, o?en without regard to whether a particular fugitive is wanted under a
federal or state warrant. The USMS is reminded that ?unds authorized under 28 USC
524(c)(l)(l) are not available for Federal agency expenses, regardless of whether those
expenses support a State and local investigation. Because of internal control and other
concerns AFMS identi?ed last year, the USMS must provide reconciliation
reports re?ecting all account activity, and all unused funds must be returned each ?scal year;

1,915,000 for commercial database access for State and local law enforcement of?cers
participating in a joint law enforcement operation with the USM S. This amount provides
42.? percent ofthe $4.485 million total requirement for commercial database
access and is based on the proportion of task force of?cers with access to this system.
Because there is no evidence to suggest that all TFOs are actually using these database
services, AFMS will continue to re?ne this ?mding model over time. Again, the USMS is
reminded that ?nds authorized under 28 USC 524(c)(1)(I) are not available for Federal
agency expenses, regardless of whether those eXpenses support a State and local
investigation;

$2,95 0,000 to lease 500 vehicles for the ?nal 8 months of FY 2013 for State and local lavvr
enforcement of?cers participating in a joint law enforcement operation with the 

$200,000 (of the $625,000 requested) for temporary contract support to help manage the
vehicle lease program as it is established. Ideally, these vehicles should be managed by
existing USMS vehicle ?eet managers to help ensure better integration and standardization
of vehicle policies and procedures at the fugitive task force level;

United States Marshals Service
FY 2018 Initial Allocation Summary

0 $600,000 for High Risk Fugitive Apprehension Training (HRFA) and Adam Walsh
Training for State and local law enforcement of?cers participating in a joint law
enforcement operation with the and

0 $250,000 for background investigations of State and local law enforcement of?cers
participating in ajo int law enforcement operation with the USMS.

All expenses under this cost category must conform with 28 USC 524(c)(l)(l) and the policy
directive contained in the memo known as the ?Colgate Memo,? Stephen R. Colgate,
Assistant Attorney General for Administration, Subject: Guidance on Use of the Assets
Forfeiture Fund (AFF) to Pay State and Local Law Enforcement Officer Overtime and Other
Costs In Joint Law Enforcement Operations, dated July l, 1997.

Please note that reimbursement for state and local task force salary expenses with AFF monies is
available for state and local officer overtime salary expenses and shall not include any costs for
bene?ts, such as retirement, FICA, and other expenses.

Despite aggressive enforcement of the requirement for agencies to identify the amount of LEO
funds paid to each state and local law enforcement agency for FY 2016 (by agency and NCIC
Code/Originating Agency Identifier ORI), AFMS was only able to account for 63 percent of
the LEO funds spent in FY 2016, and only 52 percent by geographic location. Properly tracked,
Program-wide distributions of JLEO spending around the country could better inform the USMS
and other senior DOJ leaders on whether there are gaps and seams in collective efforts to
reduce violent crime, gangs, and drug tra?icking. As a condition of funding, the USMS is
required to submit an Exhibit 6 by the end of the ?rst quarter of FY 20l8. AFMS will distribute
the template and instructions for this exhibit in the next few weeks

A recent JLEO program review revealed inconsistencies and likely redundancies in expenditures
among the investigative agencies. Therefore, AFMS will continue to explore whether
there are better ways to allocate JLEO resources across the Asset Forfeiture Program in FY 2018.

SPECIAL CONTRACT SERVICES

Current
FY 2017 FY 2018 Amount
Allocation Rguest Approved

$13,742,000 $11,925,000

$11,925,000 are provided for special contract services costs to include the following programs
and activities:

0 $1 1,550,000 for 130 authorized full-time equivalents (FT Es) for Forfeiture Support

United States Marshals Service
FY 2018 Initial Allocation Summary

Associates (FSA) contractor support, a reduction of 17 ?oat the 147 FTES authorized in
FY 2017. AFMS commends USMS efforts to right-size its FSA staf?ng based on
workload analysis and encourage the continuation of this process because seizure activity
appears to be steadily declining at a higher rate than these relatively modest personnel
reductions;

I $350,000 for FSA contractor case-related travel; and
I $25,000 for FSA contractor overtime.

INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Current
FY 2017 FY 2018 Amount
Allocation chu est Approved

$5,353,000 $6,578,000

$6,578,000 are provided for information systems expenses to include the fo flowing programs and
activities:
I 294,000 for Uni?ed Financial Management System (UFMS) operational support to
include:

0 $1,624,000 for the AFF portion of billing for operations and maintenance

expenses; and
$670,000 for the Asset Forfeiture Division (AFD) UFMS Help Desk based on the
proportion of transactional workload attributable to the 

I $1,767,000 for ADP Cost Sharing for the cost of information technology (IT) and
telecommunication services for AF personnel, including software and services used by
AFF-?mded personnel and a proportional amount of the IT infrastructure
services used by the 

I $1,440,000 for a new initiative that will integrate asset management-related data found in
multiple stand?alone systems multiple vendor tracking and reporting systems,
SharePoint case management tools, CATS, UFMS, etc.) to improve asset tracking and
reporting. AF MS will evaluate whether this effort is ?illy consistent with a central tenet
of the AF ?'om its inception: ?implementation of a single Departmental asset forfeiture
information system";

I $25 0,000 for the purchase of computers, IT peripherals, and cellular services and related
equipment for headquarters and district asset forfeiture staff;

I $730,000 for UFMS in-house reporting; and

United States Marshals Service
FY 2013 Initial Allocation Summary

0 $97,000 for software purchases and license renewals.

No funds are provided for the dcveIOpment of the CAPTURE System the planned
replacement for the Judicial Detainee Information System (JDIS). The AFF statute, its legislative
history, and the implementing Attorney General?s Guidelines are clear: the AFF may not be used
to fund information systems unless ?a majority? the system will be dedicated to asset forfeiture
program related work. The CAPTURE system does not even come close to meeting that
threshold.

TRAINING AND PRINTING
Current
FY 2017 FY 2013 Amount

Allocation Reguest Approved

$1,466,000 - $1,193,000

$1,193,000 are provided for forfeiture training activities based on a recommendation provided by
the Criminal Division, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, with AF MS concurrence.
MLARS will provide a list ofthe Speci?c courses or events that are approved.

OTHER PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Current

FY 2017 FY 2018 Amount
Allocation nest Approved

$41,430,000 $40,730,000

$40,730,000 are provided for other program management. Based on the budget estimates
and supportingjustilications, this initial allocation includes speci?c non-funnible ?unding levels in
the following programs and activities. However, if unforeseen operational circumstances support
realigning funds between these programs or activities during FY 2018, AFMS stands ready to
assist in making any necessary adjustments betwoen these cost areas:

$31 ,693,000 for the salaries and benefits of 21 authorized F'fEs, re?ecting a reduction of
8 FTEs from the 225 positions funded in FY 2017. Because this 3.6 percent reduction is
well below the signi?cant decline in asset seizure activity, AFMS anticipates the
possibility of making further adjustments in future years as part of a phased plan to right-
size government position requirements. As always, no funding is provided in FY 2018 for
the salary and benefits of USMS personnel performing non forfeiture related work. The
217 APP-funded positions ate assigned as follows:

United States Marshals Service
FY 2018 Initial Allocation Summary

0 54 Deputy U.S. Marshals based in the United States Attorneys? Offices for the
Asset Forfeiture Financial Investigator (AFFI) program;

0 9 Deputy U.S. Marshals based in the 

0 49 administrative positions in the AFD headquarters;

95 administrative positions based in the USMS districts. The USMS has discretion
to change the ratio between administrative positions based in AFD headquarters
and those based in the USMS districts in order to optimize operations; and

10 administrative positions based in non-AFD divisions of the USMS.

$6,021,000 for rent, security, and administrative overhead costs for space occupied by
AFF??mded government and contractor positions assigned full-time to asset forfeiture
responsibilities in USMS district of?ces;

$686,000 for rent, security, and administrative overhead costs for AF personnel assigned
to USMS headquarters in Arlington, 

$519,000 for the rental cost of space occupied by the Asset Forfeiture Academy in
Houston, 

$75,000 for the operating costs of the Asset Forfeiture Academy in Houston, 

$80,000 for rent, security, and administrative overhead costs of non-AFD administrative
personnel;

$5 06,000 for AFF I non~salary expenses including travel expenses, fuel, administrative
supplies, and ammunition consumed in mandatory ?rearms quali?cation and training;

$50,000 for fumiture and equipment for full-time AFF-funded government and contractor
personnel assigned to headquarters or district of?ces;

$320,000 for the operating expenses of AFB headquarters including of?ce supplies,
services, copier leases, and express mail costs;

$203,000 for background investigations for APP-funded government and contractor
employees;

$185,000 for reimbursement agreements with JMD for National Finance Center payroll
charges, JMD Personnel Services, Workers Compensation charges, and electronic
personnel folder charges;

$200,000 for the on-site reviews of district asset forfeiture units in association with the
USMS Of?ce of Compliance Review;

$97,000 for access to the Accurint and CLEAR databases for AFFIs and government and

United States Marshals Service
FY 2018 Initial Allocation Summary

contract employees assigned to Complex Assets and lntemational Units. Because
this is in part a cost of pursuing international assets, the ef?cacy of supporting these costs
will be evaluated as part of the larger review of resource commitments for international
seizure activity;

0 $15,000 for printing and publications; and

0 $75,000 to extend the detail of an AUSA to the USMS Real Property Working Group for
5 months.

USMS and AFMS staff have been working together to address some of the inconsistencies in the
2010 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between AFMS and the USMS regarding the
funding of Other Program Management expenses, including rent, non-AFD USMS government
positions, and other requirements. Accordingly, AFMS plans to revise the MOU during the ?rst
quarter of FY 2018.

Investigative Expenses (annual, de?nite authority)

These monies are limited by an annual obligation cap enacted into law in the appropriations
process. These caps have remained at about the $21 million level for more than a decade. There
is essentially no ?exibility to exceed that overall cap, and therefore, the agency allocation for the
expenses below are the same as the previous year. The Planning Estimates below re?ect that
reality.

Because the Congress has not yet enacted the full-year Appropriations Act for the Department of
Justice, AFMS is unable to provide funding for those categories of investigative expense that are
subject to appropriations limitations; namely, awards for information, purchase of evidence, and
equipping of conveyances. An allocation will be made when the enacted appropriation provides
authority for these expenses

EQUIPPING 0F CON VEYANCES
FY 2017 FY 2018 Amount Planning

Allocation Rguest Approved Estimate
$183,000 - $0 $183,000

The use of AFF monies under this cost category is described in the Attorney General?s Guidelines
and is governed as follows:

0 Payments to Equip Conveyances

0 Decisions to equip a govemment?owned or leased conveyance (vehicle, vessel, or
aircraft) for drug law enforcement ?mctions shall be made by the organizational

United States Marshals Service
FY 2018 Initial Allocation Summary

component within the agency, which is responsible for management of the
conveyance.

Reimbursable payments may be made to equip conveyances which are used the
majority of the time for activity relating to the investigation or apprehension of
violators of the federal laws and the seizure and forfeiture of their assets.

0 Monies from the Fund may not be used for recurring expenses such as fuel, spare
or replacement parts, maintenance, or replacement of equipment due to wear and
tear by the agency using the conveyance.

Equipping should generally occur before the conveyance is placed into official
use and only if it is intended to be in service for at least two years.

AWARDS FOR 
FY 2017 FY 2018 Amount Planning
Allocation Request Approved Estimate

$103,000 - $0 $103,000

AFMS conducted a program wide review of agency payments made under the Awards for
Information authority and found that 80 percent of all USMS awards were unrelated to any of the
federal violations enumerated in 28 U.S.C. Therefore, this planning estimate
re?ects an 80 percent reduction to amounts allocated in prior years.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. USMS is reminded that thme
?inds are available exclusively for the payment of awards for information or assistance directly
relating to violations of the criminal drug laws of the United States or of chapter 77 of title 18,
sections 1956 and 1957 of title 18, sections 5313 and 5324 of title 31 and section 6050! of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

ll]

 

U.S. Department of Justice Suballotment Advice

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff

 

Code Number:
Assets Forfeiture Fund ALLOC Oct FY13

Fund Symbol and Title: 15 5042

 

Fiscal Year or Period Covered: SuballotmentNo.:
FY 2018 1

Suballottee: Director, United States
Marshals Service 

 

 

 

 

You are hereby allotted and authorized to obligate funds from the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) for eitpenses
expressly authorized in your organization?s most recent allocation summary. No other agency expenses, even if they
are forfeiture-related, will be authorized. Schedule A shows the net total of the suballotment. Schedule shows the
distribution of the total suballotrnent by expense category.

An of?cer or employee of the United States Government who makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure
exceeding the amount ofthe suballotmenl will be in violation 1514 and 31 U.S.C. and will
be subject to penalties underthe Antideficiency Act to include administrative disciplinary action, a fine ofnot more
than $5,000, and imprisonment for not more than two years. Further, obligation of APP funds is subject to statutory
controls under 28 U.S.C. 524 policy controls contained in the Attorney General's Guidelines on Seized and
Forfeited Property, and amplifying policy statements from the Department.

Asset Forfeiture Program participants must maintain proper supporting documentation for all eXpenses billed to the
AFF and must make such documentation available to AP MS representatives upon request. Documentation must
comprehensively establish the basis for each obligation, including the relationship to expenses approved in the most
recent allocation summary. More speci?cally, AFF participants may be required to provide acquisition documents,
contract invoices, purchase card details, payroll journals, travel vouchers, accounting system cost allocation entries,
and other transaction support for AFF expenditures.

A. Funds Allocated By Fiscal Year

 

Prior Amount

Change Amount

Present Amount

 

Fiscal Year 201 

 

 

555,222,800

 

555,222,800

 

B. Funds Allocated By Category of Expense

 

Category of Expense

Prior Amount

Change Amount

Present Amount

 

Program Operations Expenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asset Management and Disposal - 35,618,000 35,618,000
Victim and Other Third Party Payments - 200,000,000 200,000,000
Equitable Sharing Payments - 230,000,000 230,000,000
Case Related Expenses - - -
Joint Law Enforcement Operations 29,125,000 29,125,000
Special Contract Services - 1 1,925,000 1 1,925,000
StoragefDestruction of Controlled Substances - 
Information Systems - 6,578,000 6,578,000
Training and Printing - 1,193,000 1,193,000
Other Program Management 40,730,000 40,730,000
Contracts to Identify Assets - -
Awards Based on Forfeiture - - -
investigative Costs Leading to Seizures - -
Subtotal 555,169,000 555,169,000
Investigative Eweitses
Purchase of Evidence - 
Equipping of Conveyances - 34,400 34,400
Awards for information - 19,400 19,400
Subtotal - 53,800 53,800
Grand Total - 555,222,800 555,222,800

 

 

 

 

Page 1 of 2

 

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff FY 20l8 USMS Suballotment No. 1

Other Provisions:

 

 

On a case-by-case basis, the period of performance for AFF-funded contracts and agreements may be extended
beyond September 30, 2018 upon approval by AF MS.

 

Remarks:

 

 

This document provides the USMS with its initial Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) allocation for FY 2018 as approved
by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.

AFF monies for Investigative Expenses (1E) are subject to statutory funding limitations and are apportioned
quarterly by 0MB. The amount provided for in this document is the maximum allowable under the Continuing
Appropriations Act, FY 2018 (EL. 115-56, HR. 601), which covers the period October 1, 2017 through December 8,
2018. Additional IE funds will be made available when the enacted appropriation or another continuing resolution
provides added authority for these expenses.

Pursuant to the allocation summary, this document does not include any funds circuit costs.

 

Approved: 

Kenneth A. Arnold, Director Date

Page 2 of 2

 

 

 

US. Department of Justice Sn ballotment Advice

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff

 

Code umber:
Assets Forfeiture Fund ALLOC Oct FY I 3

Fund Symbol and Title: 15 5042

 

Fiscal Year or Period Covered: Suballotment No.:
FY 2018 2

Suballottee: Director, United States
Marshals Service 

 

 

 

 

You are hereby allotted and authorized to obligate funds from the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) for expenses
expressly authorized in your organization?s most recent allocation summary. No other agency expenses, even if they
are forfeiture-related, will be authorized. Schedule A shows the nettotal of the suballotment, Schedule shows the
distribution of the total suballotment by expense category.

An o?i cer or employee of the United States Government who makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure
exceeding the amount ofthe subaliotment will be in violation of U.S.C. 1514 and 31 U.S.C. 1517(a)(2), and will
be subject to penalties under the Antideticiency Act to include administrative disciplinary action, a ?ne of not more
than $5,000, and imprisonment for not more than two years. Further, obligation of APP funds is subject to statutory
controls under 28 U.S.C. 524 policy controls contained in the Attorney General's Guidelines on Seized and
Forfeited Property, and amplifying policy statements from the Department.

Asset Forfeiture Program participants must maintain proper supporting documentation for all expenses billed to the
AFF and must make such documentation available to AFMS representatives upon request. Documentation must
comprehensively establish the basis for each obligation, including the relationship to expenses approved in the most
recent allocation summary. More speci?cally, AFF participants may be required to provide acquisition documents,
contract invoices, purchase card details, payroll journals, travel vouchers, accounting system cost allocation entries,
and other transaction support for AFF expenditures.

 

A. Funds Allocated By Fiscal Year

 

Prior Amount

Change Amount

Present Amount

 

Fiscal Year 2018

 

555,222,300

 

 

555,222,800

 

B. Funds Allocated By Category of Expense

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category of Expense I Prior Amount Change Amount I Present Amount

Program Operations Expenses
Asset Management and Disposal 35,618,000 - 35,618,000
Victim and Other Third Party Payments 200,000,000 150,000,000 350,000,000
Equitable Sharing Payments 230,000,000 (150,000,000) 80,000,000
Case Related Expenses -
Joint Law Enforcement Operations 29,125,000 - 29,125,000
Special Contract Services 1 1,925,000 - 1,925,000
StoragelDestruction of Controlled Substances - -
information Systems 6,578,000 6,578,000
Training and Printing 1,193,000 1,193,000
Other Program Management 40,730,000 - 40,230,000
Contracts to Identify Assets - - -
Awards Based on Forfeiture - - -
Investigative Costs Leading to Seizures - -

Subtotal 555,169,000 - 555,169,000
Investigative expenses
Purchase of Evidence - 
Equipping of Conveyances 34,400 - 34,400
Awards for information 19,400 - 1 9,400

Subtotal 53,800 - 53,800
Grand Total 555,222,800 - 555,222,800

 

 

 

 

Page 1 of2

 

 

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff FY 2018 USMS Suballotment No. 2

Other Provisions:
On a case-by-case basis, the period of performance for AFF-funded contracts and agreements may be extended
beyond September 30, 2018 upon approval by AFMS.

 

 

Remarks:

This document realign: $150 million from the Equitable Sharing Payments cost category to Victim and Other Third
Party Payments (VTPP) to enable immediate obligation of funds necessary to cover potential victim liabilities
against recently-deposited receipts from the Western Union fraud case. AFMS will seek additional allocations of
Equitable Sharing Payments and VTPP, as necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

Approved= g1?? Wig/'7

rKenneth A. Arnold, Director ate

Page 2 of2

 

U. S. Department of Justice

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff

Suballotment Advice

 

Fund Symbol and Title:

15 5042
Assets Forfeiture Fund

Code Number
Oct FY18

 

Suballottee: Director, United States
Marshals Service (USMS)

 

Fiscal Year or Period Covered:

FY 2018

 

Snballotment No.

3

 

You are hereby allotted and authorized to obligate funds ??om the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) for expenses

expressly authorized in your organization?s most recent allocation summary. No other agency expenses, even if they
are forfeiture-related, will be authorized. Schedule A shows the net total of the suballotment. Schedule shows the
distribution of the total suballotment by expense category.

An of?cer or employee of the United States Government who makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure
exceeding the amount of the suballotment will be in violation of U.S.C. 1514 and 31 U.S.C. and will
be subject to penalties under the Antide?ciency Act to include administrative disciplinary action, a ?ne of not more
than $5,000, and imprisonment for not more than two years. Further, obligation of AFF funds is subject to statutory
controls under 23 U.S.C. 524 policy controls contained in the Attorney General?s Guidelines on Seized and

Forfeited Property, and amplifying policy statements from the Department.

Asset Forfeiture Program participants must maintain proper sopporting documentation for all expenses billed to the
AFF and must make such documentation available to AP MS representatives upon request. Documentation must

comprehensively establish the basis for each obligation, including the relationship to expenses approved in the most
recent allocation summary. More speci?cally, AFF participants may be required to provide acquisition documents,
contract invoices, purchase card details, payroll journals, travel vouchers, accounting system cost allocation entries,
and other transaction support for AFF expenditures.

A. Funds Allocated By Fiscal Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior Amount Change Amount Present amount
Fiscal Year 2018 555,222,800 293,000,000 848,222,800
B. Funds Allocated By Category of Expense
Category of Expense I Prior amount I Change amount 1 Present amount

Program Operations Expent?es
Asset Management and Disposal 3 5,618,000 - 35,618,000
Victim and Other Third Party Payments 350,000,000 143,000,000 493,000,000
Equitable Sharing Payments 80,000,000 150,000,000 230,000,000
Case Related EXpenses - - 
Joint Law Enforcement Task Forces 29,125,000 - 29,125,000
Special Contract Services 1 1,925,000 - 1 1,925,000
Storagel'Destruction of Substances - - -
Information Systems 6,578,000 6,578,000
Training and Printing 1,193,000 1,193,000
Other Program Management 40,730,000 - 40,730,000
Contracts to Identify Assets - - 
Awards Based on Forfeiture - - -
Investig?w Costs Leading to Seizures - -
Subtotal 555,169,000 293,000,000 348,169,000
Investiga?vc Expenses
Purchase of Evidence - - 
Equipping of Conveyances 34,400 34,400
Awards for Infonnation 19,400 - 19,400
Subtotal 53,800 - 53,800
Grand Total 555,222,800 293,000,000

343,222,300

 

Page 1 01'2

 

 

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff FY 2018 USMS Suballotment No. 3

Other Provisions:
On a case-by-case basis, the period of performance for AFF-funded contracts and agreements may be extended beyond
September 30, 2018 upon approval by AFMS.

 

 

Remarks:

 

This document increases the USMS initial Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) allocation for FY 2018 by $293 million, as
approved by the Oi?ce of the Deputy Attorney General. This is to restore $150 million to the allocation for Equitable
Sharing payments, and increase the cost category of Victim and Other Third Party Payments (VTPP) by $143 million to
cover projected FY 2018 costs above those already incurredin the Western Union fraud case.

 

 

 

Approved: e? 2 Date: 

nneth A. Arnold, Director

Pach of2

 

US. Department of Justice

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff

Suballotment Advice

 

 

 

Fund Symbol and Title: Code Number
Assets Forfeiture Fund ALLOC Oct FY18
Suballottee: Director, United States Fiscal Year or Period Covered: Suballotment No.
Marshals Service (USMS) FY 2018 4

 

 

You are hereby allotted and authorized to obligate funds ??om the Assets Forfeiture Fund (APP) for expenses
expressly authorized in your organization?s most recent allocation summary, No other agency expenses, even if they
are forfeiture-related, will be authorized. Schedule A shows the net total of the suballotment. Schedule shows the

distribution of the total suballotment by expense category.

An officer or employee of the United States Government who makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure
exceeding the amount of the suballotment will be in violation of U.S.C. 1514 and 31 U. 3.0 and will
be subject to penalties Under the Antide?ciency Act to include administrative disciplinary action, a ?ne of not more
than $5,000, and imprisonment for not more than two years. Further, obligation of AFF funds is subject to statutory
controls under 28 U.S.C. 524 policy controls contained in the Attorney General's Guidelines on Seized and

Forfeited Property, and amplifying policy statements from the Department.

Asset Forfeiture Program participants must maintain proper supporting documentation for all expenses billed to the
AFF and must make such documentation available to AF MS representatives upon request. Documentation must

comprehensively establish the basis for each obligation, including the relationship to expenses approved in the most
recent allocation summary. More speci?cally, AFF participants may be required to provide acquisition documents,
contract invoices, purchase card details, payroll journals, travel vouchers, accounting system cost allocation entries,

and other transaction support for APP expenditures.

A. Funds Allocated By Fiscal Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior Amount Change Amount Present amount
Fiscal Year 2018 848,222,800 500,000 848,722,800
B. Funds Allocated By Category of Expense
Category of Expense Prior amount Change amount Present amount

Program Operations Expenses
Asset Management and Disposal 35,618,000 - 35,618,000
Tv?ictin-l and Other Third Party Payments 493,000,000 493,000,000
Equitable Sharing Payments 230,000,000 - 230,000,000
Case Related Espenses - - -
Joint Law Enforcement Task Forces 29,125,000 500,000 29,625,000
Special Contract Services 11,925,000 - 1 1,925,000
StoragefDestruction of Substances - - -
Information Systems 6,5 78,000 6,578,000
Training and Printing 1,193,000 - 1,193,000
Other Program Management 40,730,000 - 40,730,000
Contracts to Identify Assets - - -
Awards Based on Forfeiture - - -
investigative Costs Leading to Seizures - - -
Subtotal 848,169,000 5 00,000 848,66 9,000
Investigative Expenses
Purchase of Evidence -
Equipping of Conveyances 3 4,400 - 3 4,400
Awards for Information 19,400 - 19,400
Subtotal 53,800 - 53,800
Grand Total 84 8,222,8 00 500,000 848,? 22,800

 

 

Page 1 of 2

 

 

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff FY 2018 USMS Suballotment No. 4

Other Provisions:

On a case-by-case basis, the period of performance for AFF?funded contracts and agreements may be extended beyond
September 30, 2018 upon approval by AFMS.

 

 

 

Remarks:

This document increases the USMS Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) suballotment for FY 2018 by $500,000 to fund initial
AFF circuit costs within the allocation of Joint Law Enforcement Operations. The initial FY 2018 allocation was
conditional upon USMS providing AFMS reconciliation reports re?ecting all account activity. The USMS CFO
forwarded the State and Local undercover bank statement and reconciliation for October and November, (I: 12/28/17.
The USMS CFO provides assurance that adequate controls are now in place to ensure all expenditures from the account
are limited to costs for state and local of?cers participating on federal task forcu. Further, to support this initial circuit
cost suballotment, the CFO agrees to forward the requested undercover account balance information and to specify the
Itotal amounts of both direct and AFF resources deposited. expended, and accrued to date, to support the FY 2018 circuit
cost program.

 

 

 

 

 



Approved: r?Li?CO?Klt 7" Date: '1 7

 

Kenneth A. Arnold, Director 

Page 2 of2

 

US. Department of Justice Suballotment Advice

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff

 

 

 

Fund Symbol and Title: 15 5042 Code Number:
Assets Forfeiture Fund ALLOC Jan FY13
Suballottee: Director, United Stats Fiscal Year or Period Covered: SuballotmentNo.:
Marshals Service (USMS) FY 2018 5

 

 

You are hereby allotted and authorized to obligate funds from the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AF-F) for expenses
expressly authorized in your organization?s most recent allocation summary. No other agency expenses, even if they
are forfeiture-related, will be authorized. Schedule A shows the net total of the suballotment. Schedule shows the
distribution of the total suballotment by expense category.

An of?cer or employee of the United States Government who makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure

exceeding the amount ofthe suballotment will be in violation 1514 and 3! USE. 1517(a)(2), and will
be subject to penalties underthc Antideficiency Act to include administrative disciplinary action, a ?ne ofnot more
than $5,000, and impnsonment for not more than two years. Further, obligation of AFF funds is subject to statutory

 

controls under 23 U.S.C. 524 policy controls contained in the Attorney General?s Guidelines on Seized and
Forfeited Property, and amplifying policy statements from the Department.

Asset Forfeiture Program participants must maintain proper supporting documentation for all expenses billed to the
AFF and must make such documentation available to AFMS representatives upon request. Documentation must

comprehensively establish the basis for each obligation, including the relationship to expenses approved in the most
recent allocation summary. More speci?cally, AFF participants may be required to provide acquisition documents,
contract invoices, purchase card details, payrolljournals, travel vouchers, accounting system cost allocation entries,
and other trans action support for AFF expenditures.

A. Funds Allocated By Fiscal Year

 

Prior Amount

Change Amount

Present Amount

 

Fiscal Year 2018

848,722,800

 

 

48,147

 

848,770,947

 

B. Funds Allocated By Category of Expense

 

Category of Expense

I Prior Amount I

Change Amount

Present Amo unt

 

Program Operations Expenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asset Management and Disposal 75,0 I 3,000 - 35,618,000
Victim and Other Third Party Payments 493,000,000 - 493,000,000
Equitable Sharing Payments 230,000,000 - 230,000,000
Case Related Expenses - - -
Joint Law Enforcement Operations 29,625,000 - 29,625,000
Special Contract Services 1 1,925,000 - 11,925,000
Storagej?Destruction of Controlled Substances - - -
Information Systems 6,578,000 - 6,578,000
Training and Printing 1,193,000 1,193,000
Other Program Management 40,730,000 - 40,73 0,000
Contracts to Identify Assets - - -
Awards Based on Forfeiture - - 
Investigative Costs Leading to Seizures - - -
Subtotal 848,669,000 - 343,669,000
Investigative Emenses
Purchase of Evidence - - -
Equipping of Conveyances 34,400 30,332 65,232
Awards for Information 19,400 17,315 36,715
Subtotal 53,300 43,147 101,947
Grand Total 348,722,800 48,147 848,770,947

 

 

 

 

Page 1 of 2

 

Asset Forfeiture Management Staff FY 2018 USMS Suballotment No. 5

Other Provisions:

 

On a case-by?case basis, the period of performance for AFF-funded contracts and agreements may be extended
beyond September 30, 2018 upon approval by AFMS.

 

 

 

Remarks:

 

This document increases the USMS allocation for Investigative Expenses to the maximum that can be apportioned
under the FY 2018 Continuing Resolution No. 4 through February 08, 2018.

 

 

 

Approved: 

Kenneth A. Arnold, Director Date

Page 2 of 2

Exhibit 7

June 10, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Sally Quillian Yates
Deputy Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Dear Deputy Attorney General Yates:
This letter follows a series of inquiries made by the Committee regarding
allegations received by dozens of whistleblowers regarding misconduct at the U.S.
Marshals Service.
The Committee appreciates the Department’s intent to cooperate with the
Committee’s continuing inquiry. The Committee is also coordinating its inquiry in
parallel with the Office of Inspector General and expects timely, good faith responses to
document and witness interview requests, as has already been discussed with
Department staff.
Beyond the many allegations that appear to outline a pattern of improper hiring
practices throughout the Marshals Service,1 this letter requests information regarding
additional allegations of mismanagement and misuse of government resources,
including the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF).
Misuse of Government Funds for Private Gain
The Committee has received allegations from multiple whistleblowers with direct
knowledge that senior executives misused government resources for their personal
benefit.

See Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary to Sally Quillian
Yates, Acting Deputy Attorney General (Apr. 23, 2015); 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(5).

1

 Deputy Attorney General Yates
June 10, 2015
Page 2 of 4

According to whistleblowers, while in the process of applying for the position of
Assistant Director (AD) of the Asset Forfeiture Division, then-Acting AD Eben Morales
directed a government contractor to draft a portion of Morales’ application for the
permanent AD position. Each application for a Senior Executive Service (SES)
position—of which the AD position is one—requires applicants to submit Executive Core
Qualification (ECQ) statements. The USMS contractor allegedly billed time spent
drafting Morales’ ECQs to the government. Mr. Morales then allegedly directed a
different government contractor to make corrections to those ECQs. That contractor
allegedly also billed the time to the USMS under that contract.
Additionally, multiple whistleblowers allege that current AD of AFD Kimberly
Beal directed Jennifer Crane and Pam Bass, her government employee subordinates, to
draft Ms. Beal’s ECQs so that Beal could apply for the permanent SES position that she
currently occupies.
The AD of the Judicial Security Division, Noelle Douglas, also allegedly directed a
government employee subordinate to draft her ECQs for her current permanent SES
position.
According to at least one publicly available website, federal government
employees may pay several thousand dollars of their own funds for private contractors
to spend up to two weeks drafting ECQs and other materials for Senior Executive
Service (SES) application packages. These allegations, if true, may amount to serious
ethics violations2 and thousands of dollars in contract fraud.
Assets Forfeiture Fund and Travel
The Committee also has received allegations from multiple whistleblowers that
the USMS AFD uses AFF money to pay for extensive and often unnecessary travel
expenses. For example, as I wrote in my April 23, 2015, letter to the Department,
multiple whistleblowers have alleged that former AD for AFD Eben Morales, now AD of
the Prisoner Operations Division, frequently traveled to Miami on business but spent
much of his time on personal matters.
The AFF also allegedly pays for the travel of certain USMS employees to AFD
headquarters in Arlington, VA to participate in an “Asset Forfeiture Leadership
Council,” according to multiple whistleblowers. Those council meetings allegedly are “a
waste of time” that produce not “one positive benefit” and “never accomplish anything.”
Nevertheless, AFF monies pay for these employees to fly across the country twice a year.
5 C.F.R. § 2635.705(b) (“An employee shall not encourage, direct, coerce, or request a subordinate to use
official time to perform activities other than those required in the performance of official duties or
authorized in accordance with law or regulation.”); see also id. §§ 2635.702, 2635.302.

2

 Deputy Attorney General Yates
June 10, 2015
Page 3 of 4

Assets Forfeiture Fund Salaries for Non-Asset Forfeiture Work
Information obtained by the Committee also strongly suggests that the USMS is
using AFF money not only to pay for luxurious decor, but also to fund regular Marshals
Service activities that have nothing to do with asset forfeiture.
Specifically, information obtained by the Committee demonstrates that the AFD
uses the AFF to fully fund the salaries and benefits of several non-AFD personnel,
including within the USMS Office of General Counsel. However, it is alleged that at
least some of those personnel are not fully engaged in work related to asset forfeiture.
It is not clear that the USMS can demonstrate with any degree of accuracy that
non-asset forfeiture work is precisely offset by asset forfeiture work performed by
employees whose salaries and benefits are not paid out of the AFF. For example,
previously, the USMS allegedly used a tracking system for all district administrative
USMS employees to bill time to specific project codes. Under that system, every hour an
employee worked on asset forfeiture-related matters would be billed to the AFF, while
the hours not spent on asset forfeiture-related matters would be billed to a different
source.
On January, 9, 2013, then-Acting Assistant Director for AFD Kimberly Beal sent a
memorandum to the U.S. Marshals’ district offices informing them that USMS had
“received authority for Asset Forfeiture (AF) positions to be fully billed to the AFF.”
Certain employees who previously billed their time to asset forfeiture could continue
doing asset forfeiture work “as a collateral duty.” And employees fully funded in an “AF
position” could also continue to perform non-AF work as long as they “complete[d] all
AF responsibilities” and “their other [non-AF] duties have been deemed appropriate by
District Management.” It is not clear from the memorandum exactly how AFD planned
to ensure that the true and accurate amount of AFF money was paid to support the
amount of AF work actually performed by the USMS.
The agency’s apparent failure to accurately track and measure the use of AFF
monies to support AF work significantly impairs oversight and accountability for USMS’
use of the fund. This type of lax accounting encourages and perpetuates a culture of
impunity for waste and mismanagement.
Please provide all documents responsive to the following requests by June 24,
2015:
1. All records relating to communications regarding the drafting of ECQs on behalf
of Eben Morales, Kimberly Beal, and Noelle Douglas, by or with the assistance of
any government employee or contractor.

 Deputy Attorney General Yates
June 10, 2015
Page 4 of 4

2. All documentation from FY 2010 to the present for the travel expenses of the
following individuals, including the documentation of the purpose of and funding
source for that travel:
a. Prisoner Operations Division Assistant Director Eben Morales;
b. Asset Forfeiture Leadership Council Chairman and U.S. Marshal for the
District of Arizona David Gonzalez;
3. A list of all USMS employees and contractors, by name and title, that are funded
from AFF resources but that are not specifically assigned to AFD or appearing
within the AFD organizational chart; and
4. A detailed methodology demonstrating precisely how the AFD ensures that all
positions fully funded by the AFF perform work exclusively on asset forfeiture
matters, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 524(c).
Should you have any questions, please contact DeLisa Lay of my Committee staff
at (202) 224-5225. Thank you.
Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

cc:

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
The Honorable Carolyn N. Lerner
Special Counsel
U.S. Office of Special Counsel

 Exhibit 8

March
M
19, 2015
MISSION
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSM
The Honorable Sally Quillian Yaates
Acting Deputy Attorney Generall
United States Department of Justtice
Dear Acting Deputy Attorney Geeneral Yates:
I write with some concern
n regarding allegations
a
of inappropriate hiring ppractices withhin
the United States Marshals Serviices (USMS)) Asset Forfeeiture Division (AFD). Whistleblow
wers
1
with speccific knowledge of the process havee alleged thaat the AFD im
mproperly w
waived
qualification requirements in ord
der to hire Do
onald Lenziee as a Senior Forfeiture F
Financial
Specialist (SFFS), a highly paid contractor
c
position.
Hylton
Information obtained by the Committtee suggests that Directoor Stacia A. H
personally recommen
nded Mr. Leenzie for thiss position andd that Kimberly Beal, thhen AFD Depputy
Assistant Director, influenced su
ubordinates to
o waive conntract qualificcation requirrements in oorder
                                                            
As a reminder, denying or interferiing with emplloyees’ rights to furnish information to Congress is
unlawful, 5 U.S.C. § 7211 (“The rightt of employeees, individual ly or collectively, to petition Congress orr a
Member of Congress, or to furnish information to
o either Housse of Congresss, or to a com
mmittee or Meember
thereof, may not be interfered with or
o denied.”), and obstructiing a Congresssional investiigation is a crrime,
18 U.S.C. § 1505 (“Whoever corruptlly, or by threa
ats or force, or by any threeatening letterr or
communication influences, obstructts, or impedess or endeavo rs to influencee, obstruct, orr impede . . . tthe
u
which aany inquiry or investigation
n is being had
d by
due and proper exercise of the poweer of inquiry under
either House, or any committee of either
e
House or
o any joint co
ommittee of the Congress”” “[s]hall be fiined
under this title, imprisoned not morre than 5 yearrs or, if the o ffense involves internationaal or domestic
terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoneed not more th
han 8 years, or both.”). Fu
urthermore,
federal officials who deny or interferre with emplo
oyees’ rights tto furnish information to C
Congress are n
not
entitled to have their salaries paid by
b taxpayers’ dollars.
d
Conssolidated and Further Conttinuing
Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No.
N 113-235, § 713, 128 Stat.. 2130 (2014).
 
1

 to hire him. It is further alleged that
t Ms. Beaal violated thhese contracting standards in order tto
receive favorable consideration from
f
Directo
or Hylton in Ms. Beal’s effort to become the AFD
D
Assistant Director, a position shee now occupies.
This quid pro quo exchan
nge of favorss, if true, w ould raise serrious doubts about the
operational practices of the USM
MS AFD under Ms. Beal as well as, ffrankly, Ms. Hylton’s
leadership of the USMS.
Accordingly, please provide the Com
mmittee with a complete written expllanation of thhe
circumstances surrounding the hiring of Mr. Lenzie no l ater than Maarch 26, 20155. Please alsso
include in your response the follo
owing inform
mation:
1. The resumes of all ind
dividuals wh
ho have fille d the contractor positionn of SFFS unnder
the USMS AFD contrract with Forrfeiture Sup port Associates (FSA).
vious versionns of the conntract qualifiication
2. A copy of the current and all prev
requirements used to hire SFFS co
ontractors frrom 2010 to the present. Please marrk
each version with the date that it became
b
effective.
Should you have questiions, please contact
c
DeL
Lisa Lay of my Committeee staff at (2202)
224-5225. Thank you.

Sin cerely,

Ch arles E. Grassley
Ch airman
Co mmittee on the Judiciary
Cc:  

The Honorable Michael E.
E Horowitz
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General

 Exhibit 9

April 7, 2 015
MISSION
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSM
The Honorable Sally Quillian Yaates
Acting Deputy Attorney Generall
United States Department of Justtice
Dear Acting Deputy Attorney Geeneral Yates:
On March 19, 2015, I sen
nt a letter to your
y
office eexpressing concern regaarding
whistleblower allegations of imp
proper contraacting practi ces within the Asset Forrfeiture Division
(AFD) of the United States Marsshals Servicee (USMS). S
Specifically, I wrote thatt according tto
information obtained by the Com
mmittee, “Dirrector Staci a A. Hylton personally recommendeed
Donald Lenzie for the contract po
osition of Seenior Forfeitture Financiaal Specialist (SFFS), andd . . .
Kimberly Beal, then Deputy Assistant Directtor of the USMS Asset Forfeiture Diivision (AFD
D),
influenced subordinates to waivee contract qu
ualification reequirements in order to hire him.”
First, I appreciate the tim
meliness of th
he Departmennt’s reply off March 26, 22015, but
accuracy is as important as timeliness. Contrrary to the c onclusory tone of Mr. K
Kadzik’s letteer,
USMS officials informed commiittee staff viaa telephone on March 30th that the U
USMS is acttually
still in the process of conducting a more com
mprehensive internal review of the issues raised iin my
letter. This review includes requ
uests for USM
MS employeee email corrrespondencee and other
information relating to the hiring
g of Mr. Lenzzie. Accorddingly, it is unclear how tthe Office of
Legislative Affairs could conclud
de that no qu
uid pro quo occurred before USMS hhas gatheredd all
the facts.
Second, the Department’ss reply impliies that no quid pro quo occurred beecause Mr.
F
Sp ecialist (FFS) rather thann a Senior
Lenzie was ultimately hired as a Forfeiture Financial
Forfeiture Financial Specialist (S
SFFS) and beecause Mr. Lenzie’s hiring was subject to the

 impartial assessment of a four-person panel of experts. However, documents obtained by the
Committee indicate that USMS was not seeking an individual to fill an FFS role in Boston at the
time Mr. Lenzie was hired, that Ms. Beal was a member of this hiring panel, and that she
travelled to Boston at Government expense in order to interview Mr. Lenzie. USMS officials
also informed committee staff on March 30 that USMS employees are not so thoroughly
involved in all cases in the recruitment and hiring of USMS contractors, which raises concerns
regarding Ms. Beal’s substantial efforts during the hiring process.
Third, the Department notes the almost three years that passed between the hiring of
Lenzie and Ms. Beal’s appointment to the Senior Executive Service to suggest that no exchange
of favors took place. But, the Committee is aware of a number of personnel actions that
occurred, allegedly at the request of Director Hylton, much closer to the time of Lenzie’s hiring
and which clearly benefited Ms. Beal’s candidacy for the position of Assistant Director of the
AFD. For example, the Committee has obtained evidence that Director Hylton made Ms. Beal
the Acting Assistant Director of the AFD on January 25, 2012, shortly after Mr. Lenzie was
hired. It is also alleged that the Assistant Director position was reclassified from 1811 (Criminal
Investigator) to 0301 (Administrator) specifically to accommodate Ms. Beal’s lack of
qualifications.
To further clarify the circumstances of Mr. Lenzie’s recruitment and hiring, please
provide written responses to the following questions by Wednesday, April 22, 2015:
1. Please provide the monthly invoices from the contractor in question, Forfeiture
Support Associates (FSA), for all FSA positions supporting the USMS from the
period two months prior to Mr. Lenzie’s hiring through two months following the
termination of his employment with FSA.
2. Please provide all USMS employee email correspondence concerning the hiring,
onboarding, and resignation of Donald Lenzie as a contract employee with FSA.
3. Did an open position for a Forfeiture Financial Specialist (FFS) exist in or around the
Boston area at the time Mr. Lenzie interviewed?
4. How many other FFS candidates did the panel interview for the position Mr. Lenzie
eventually occupied?
5. Please provide the names and titles of the individuals who sat on the four-member
panel that interviewed Mr. Lenzie.

 6. Please provide the US
SMS policy outlining the role of USMS officialss in recruitinng,
interviewing, and hiriing contract positions. P
Please includde the titles aand positions of
USMS officials involv
ved in thosee hiring proceesses, as well as under w
what
circumstances and in what capaciities those offficials participate in thee hiring proceess
for positions that are in
i fact emplo
oyed by US MS contractors.
Should you have questiions, please contact
c
DeL
Lisa Lay of my Committeee staff at (2202)
224-5225. Thank you.

Sin cerely,

Ch arles E. Grassley
Ch airman
Co mmittee on the Judiciary
Cc:  

The Honorable Michael E.
E Horowitz
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciaary

 Exhibit 10

April 23, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Sally Quillian Yates
Acting Deputy Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Dear Acting Deputy Attorney General Yates:
On March 18th and 19th I sent two letters, one to you and one to U.S. Marshals Service
Director Hylton regarding whistleblower allegations of (1) quid pro quo hiring practices and (2)
waste and misuse of asset forfeiture funds by the U.S. Marshals Service. Although the
Department’s review of these matters continues, more than a half dozen whistleblowers have
contacted the Committee to make additional, troubling allegations since March 18.
First, multiple whistleblowers have now corroborated various aspects of the initial
reports. These whistleblowers have confirmed that Assistant Director of the Asset Forfeiture
Division Kimberly Beal went to unusual lengths to ensure that Donald Lenzie was hired by AFD
contractor Forfeiture Support Associates, allegedly in order to curry favor with Director Hylton,
who knew Mr. Lenzie in college. As I wrote in my April 7, 2015, follow-up letter regarding the
Lenzie matter, Director Hylton placed Ms. Beal in the position of Acting Assistant Director of
the AFD shortly after Mr. Lenzie was hired. The position was allegedly reclassified from 1811
(criminal investigator) to 0301 (administrator) for the purpose of accommodating Ms. Beal’s
lack of law enforcement training. Ms. Beal also retained her position as Acting Assistant
Director for over two years, including while under investigation by the Department of Justice
Office of Inspector General for retaliating against a whistleblower. Her acting position granted
her access to experience that could later support her application for the permanent position and
help exclude other well-qualified candidates.
I appreciate the Department’s initial response to my April 7 follow-up letter
acknowledging that its earlier explanation was inaccurate and providing evidence that, in the
Department’s words, “appears to be inconsistent with representations in our March 26, 2015
letter.” I agree with the Department’s assessment.

 Acting Deputy Attorney General Yates
April 23, 2015
Page 2 of 5

 
 
In its initial March 26 letter, the Department stated: “Mr. Lenzie’s hiring was not unduly
influenced by the Director. After Mr. Lenzie applied for the SFFS position in September 2011,
he e-mailed his resume to the Director, which she forwarded to Ms. Beal for her awareness. The
Director did not recommend Mr. Lenzie for any position . . . .” On April 17, the Department
provided the Committee with an e-mail chain indicating that AD Beal, at the time Deputy
Assistant Director of AFD, received Mr. Lenzie’s resume from Director Hylton’s personal e-mail
address. Ms. Beal then forwarded that resume to then-Assistant Director Eben Morales, stating:
“Director called and has forwarded the resume of a Customs agent that she highly recommends
for the jump team FFS in Boston.” This evidence directly contradicts the Department’s previous
statements and corroborates the whistleblowers’ allegations of a quid pro quo.
The Department’s efforts to correct its earlier inaccurate statements to the Committee
are commendable. However, allowing the USMS to lead a review of itself in this matter seems
unwise. Not only was the Department’s initial response inconsistent with the evidence, but
information obtained by the Committee also clearly shows that this matter was reported to the
USMS Office of General Counsel (OGC) as early as December 2013. Yet, the OGC apparently
failed to take the allegation seriously or take any steps to address it. Moreover, USMS officials
informed my staff that they consulted with OGC about the allegations before the Department’s
initial response was submitted to my office. These facts raise serious questions about whether
and to what extent the USMS OGC reviewed the Department’s initial reply to this Committee
without correcting its inaccuracies.
The more than half dozen whistleblowers who have come forward in the last month have
provided information suggesting that the Lenzie hiring is not an isolated incident. Rather, those
whistleblowers have alleged that improper hiring practices were used in multiple instances to
reward or benefit relatives and friends of senior leadership. The allegations present a troubling
and longstanding pattern of nepotism and quid pro quos in the selection of contractor and
USMS staff positions.
For example, multiple whistleblowers allege that Assistant Director of the Judicial
Security Division, Noelle Douglas, is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice
Office of Inspector General for directing subordinates to offer a lucrative contract position to a
certain individual with whom she allegedly had a personal relationship.
Multiple whistleblowers also have disclosed that as far back as 2009-2010, senior
leadership in other divisions at USMS agreed to “hire each other’s wives.” As a result of this
quid pro quo hiring, the wife of now Associate Director of Operations William Snelson was
allegedly hired by then-Judiciary Security Division Chief Inspector David Sligh, while Mr. Sligh’s
wife was hired by then-Tactical Operations Division Assistant Director Snelson. It is further
alleged that USMS may have violated basic internal controls standards by allowing Mr.
Snelson’s wife, while working in the Justice Security Division, to nevertheless manage the
budget for a TOD program operating under Mr. Snelson at the time. Whistleblowers also allege
that, following Mr. Snelson’s promotion to Associate Director, his wife was hired within the

 Acting Deputy Attorney General Yates
April 23, 2015
Page 3 of 5

 
 
Asset Forfeiture Division, although she allegedly has no experience in asset forfeiture.
Information obtained by the Committee confirms that Mrs. Snelson currently works in AFD.
Whistleblowers also allege that improper hiring practices extend to interns and other
lower-level positions. For example, Ms. Beal allegedly secured an intern position for a relative
and used Department resources to pay for the intern to travel multiple times across the country
to attend trainings and conferences intended for criminal investigators.
These examples are the tip of the iceberg. According to one whistleblower, they
represent the “day-to-day business” of the U.S. Marshals Service.
Multiple whistleblowers also have alleged widespread and systemic waste, misuse, and
abuse of the Assets Forfeiture Fund. These allegations corroborate the lavish spending by
individuals in the Asset Forfeiture Division discussed in the Committee’s March 18, 2015, letter
and again point to a pattern of cavalier use of asset forfeiture money by USMS.
The Committee is continuing to review the USMS response to the March 18 letter on this
topic. However, like the Department’s response to the March 19 letter regarding quid pro quo
allegations, this response is troubling and appears incomplete. For example, the USMS claims
in its response that it cannot provide an exact estimate for the granite installed in the Asset
Forfeiture Academy in Houston, Texas, although it does disclose that the granite covers “five
small surfaces” totaling 57 square feet. The letter also states that the senior officials who
approved the expenditures at issue “retired years ago.” However, information obtained by the
committee indicates that expenditures such as the 57 square feet of granite were approved by
and upon the insistence of Assistant Director Beal, who has not retired. It is further alleged that
this granite was custom cut, “very special,” “top of the line,” and “the most expensive on the
market,” and that when the granite company salesperson suggested cheaper alternatives Ms.
Beal replied that “cost is not a factor.” It is unclear how the USMS does not know, or cannot
otherwise locate, how much it paid for such an expensive and unnecessary luxury.
AD Beal’s alleged insistence on securing the granite for the Asset Forfeiture Academy is
consistent with many whistleblower accounts of a longstanding attitude of AFD leadership that
the fund exists not to support law enforcement but to buy the “best of the best” for that division.
The Committee has received multiple reports, for example, that former AFD AD Eben Morales
frequently traveled to Miami using AFF resources ostensibly for official government business
but spent his time on personal matters. Senior managers, including AD Beal, reportedly justify
lavish spending simply because the Assets Forfeiture Fund is “not appropriated money.”
Unfortunately, like the allegations of improper nepotism and quid pro quos in hiring,
these allegations of waste and abuse of the fund are but a few examples of reports the
Committee has received.
The use of the Assets Forfeiture Fund for purposes Congress certainly did not intend—
along with what appears to be a systemic abuse of power to reward favored insiders and
friends—is unacceptable. The many whistleblowers who have come forward in the last month

 Acting Deputy Attorney General Yates
April 23, 2015
Page 4 of 5

 
 
report that they live in fear of retaliation from USMS senior management for upholding their
duty to report wrongdoing.1 Multiple whistleblowers have alleged not only that they have
experienced reprisal for speaking out, but also that senior leaders submit FOIA requests to seek
information on employees who may have made protected disclosures with the purpose of using
that information to retaliate against them.
The Committee’s investigation into these allegations is ongoing. As an initial matter,
please provide the Committee with the following information by Thursday, May 7, 2015:
1. All USMS e-mail communications regarding the hiring of any individual with whom
AD Douglas allegedly had a personal relationship for a contract position with the
USMS.
2. All USMS e-mail communications regarding the hiring and transfers of the wives of
William Snelson and David Sligh. Please also provide:
a. The current titles, divisions, locations, and resumes of each;
b. A list of all programs in which each has participated or managed in any way
since Mr. Sligh’s wife was hired within the Tactical Operations Division, and
Mr. Snelson’s wife was hired within the Judicial Security Division.
3. All USMS e-mail communications regarding the hiring of any relatives of AD Beal as
interns, as well as all documentation concerning any government-funded travel or
trainings in which those interns participated while employed with the USMS. Please
include:
a. Any budget or funding requests related to the hiring, travel, and training of
those interns, including whether the funds derived from the AFF,
b. The dates and locations of the interns’ employment, travel, and training,
c. The purpose of any travel or training in which the interns participated (for
example, was the training offered for career criminal investigators?),
d. A list of all other interns who participated in government-funded travel and
training from 2010 to the present.
4. A copy of all FOIA requests submitted by Kimberly Beal, or anyone on her behalf, to
DOJ or any component thereof from 2011 to the present.
                                                            
Executive Order 12731 (Oct. 17, 1990) (“Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to
appropriate authorities.”).
1

 Acting Deputy Attorney General Yates
April 23, 2015
Page 5 of 5

 
 
Should you have any questions, please contact DeLisa Lay of my Committee staff at
(202) 224-5225. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
Cc:  

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General

 Exhibit 11

 Department of Justice

United States Marshals Service

 

Of?ce of Congressional and Public Affairs

 

Washington. DC 205 3 0-000]

April 25,2018

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This responds to your letter to the former Acting Director of the United States Marshals
Service (USMS) dated April 24, 2017, regarding the preparation of the Executive Core
Quali?cations (ECQ) portions of the Senior Executive Service (SES) applications. We
apologize for our delay in responding to your letter. We recognize that you have made a number
of inquiries about the USMS and we continue to respond on a rolling basis consistent with
priorities discussed with your staff.

From March 2015 to April 2018, other than the allegations regarding Ms. Beal and Ms.
Douglas that you have written about previously, the USMS Of?ce of Professional Responsibility
(OPR) has documented 1 1 allegations that USMS employees impermissibly assisted in the
preparation of the ECQ portions of the SES applications of other USMS employees.I

The USMS OPR has reviewed and evaluated the 1 allegations and conducted
appropriate factual inquiries, including interviews. Three of the 1 1 matters remain pending; the
others were closed for lack of evidence and/or because the subject of the allegation has retired.
Although it would not be appropriate to comment on the three matters currently under review, as
a general matter, if any of the pending allegations were to result in any finding of misconduct,
the disciplinary authorities within the USMS would generally apply the so?called ?Douglas
Factors? to determine appropriate discipline:

(1) The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee?s duties,
position, and responsibilities, including whether the offense was intentional or
technical or inadvertent, or was committed maliciously or for gain, or was
frequently repeated;

 

?Nine ofthe allegations were made by one individual after the USMS had taken actions to terminate that
individual USMS employment. The same indixidual had previously accepted a disciplinary action by the USMS
after having admitted to a lack of candor an unrelated investigation.

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Page 2

(2)

(3)
(4)

(5)

(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)

(12)

the employee?s job level and type of employment, including supervisory or
?duciary role, contacts with the public, and prominence of the position;

the employee?s past disciplinary record;

the employee?s past work record, including length of service, performance on the
job, ability to get along with fellow workers, and dependability;

the effect of the offense upon the employee?s ability to perform at a satisfactory
level and its effect upon supervisors? confidence in the employee?s work ability to
perform assigned duties;

consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees for the same
or similar offenses;

consistency ofthe penalty with any applicable agency table ofpenalties;

the notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation of the agency;

the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules that were violated in
committing the offense, or had been warned about the conduct in question;

the potential for the employee?s rehabilitation;

mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense such as unusual job tensions,
personality problems, mental impairment, harassment, or bad faith, malice or
provocation on the part of others involved in the matter; and

the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions to deter such conduct in the
future by the employee or others.

In order to ensure that USMS employees follow relevant regulations and policies, since
June 2017 the USMS has included information about ECQ preparation as part of the ethics
training that all USMS employees must complete and acknowledge annually.

We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we
may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter.

Sincerely,


.li . t7
1/ 
at
William Delaney
Chief

cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

The Honorable Michael Horowitz
Inspector General

Exhibit 12

lettd 5mm: 5mm

July 15, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Loretta E. 
Attorney General

United States Department of Justice
950 Avenue, NW
Washington DC. 20530

Dear Attorney General 

The Committee continues its inquiry into allegations of misconduct at the U.S. Marshals
Service. A particularly egregious example involves a whistleblower who reported to the U.S.
Marshals Service Of?ce of Internal Affairs that Deputy U.S. Marshals and task force of?cers in
the Southern District of Indiana used fraudulent subpoenas to acquire telephone records. In
December 2007, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) substantiated
the whistleblower?s allegations.

The OIG determined that Deputy U.S. Marshals and fugitive task force officers in the
Southern District of Indiana ?widely used . . . fraudulent subpoenas? over a 10-year period, from
1995 to 2005.I The OIG found that the Marshals Service routinely customized an electronic
subpoena template and pasted in a digital image of a local judge?s signature obtained from
legitimate court documents, giving the appearance of of?cial judicial approval. This practice
raises signi?cant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns. It also clearly violated agency codes
of conduct and may have violated numerous criminal statutes. According to the OIG,
?approximately 800 of the fraudulent subpoenas were served on telecommunications providers in
order to obtain telephone records of private citizens connected to fugitive investigations.?2

 

1 Of?ce of the Inspector General, U.S. Dep?t of Justice, Report of Investigation, Case No. 2005-0069664.
2 Id.

Attorney General 
July 15, 2015
Page 2 of 3

It is unclear to what extent the Department or the Marshals Service held accountable any
of the Deputy US. Marshals who authored or presented the forged subpoenas to compel phone
records. The Justice Department ?declined criminal prosecution? in the case, and the Marshals
Service issued one letter of reprimand. The deputy who received that letter of reprimand was
reportedly later promoted.

As the Committee continues its investigation, please provide written responses to the
following questions:

1. Provide an explanation for the US. Attorney?s decision to not prosecute the agents and
task force of?cers involved in the fraudulent scheme.

2. Did any other of?ce within the Justice Department, such as the Deputy Attorney General,
review the decision to not prosecute? If not, please explain.

3. Was the OIG report forwarded to the Indiana Attorney General or the Marion County
Prosecuting Attorney?s Of?ce? If not, please explain.

4. Did the US. Marshals Service notify the individuals whose records were obtained
through these fraudulent subpoenas? If not, please explain why not.

5. How many times, if any, did US. Marshals Service deputies use the fraudulent Marion
County Superior Court subpoenas in cases that were not linked to a Marion County court
matter?

6. Provide all records relating to any disciplinary administrative action taken by the agency
in response to the ?ndings. Include the names and positions of the proposing and
deciding of?cials involved, the date of any proposed discipline, and the ?nal disposition,
including a description of any punishment imposed. Where no disciplinary proceedings
were initiated or no punishment was imposed, please explain.

7. Were any of the individuals implicated in the production or use of fraudulent subpoenas
promoted after the OIG Report was released? If so, what justi?cation was given for the
promotion in light of the previous misconduct?

Please provide your written reply no later than August 7, 2015. Thank you for your
cooperation and attention in this matter. If you have any questions please contact DeLisa Lay
with Chairman Grassley?s staff at (202) 224-5225, or Chanda Betourney with Ranking Member
Leahy?s staff at (202) 224-7703.

Attorney General 

July 15. 2015
Page 3 of 3
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary

cc: The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
US. Department of Justice

Exhibit 13

US. Department of Justice

Of?ce of the Inspector General REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

 

SUBJECT CASE NUMBER

 

 

 

OFFICE CONDUCTING INVESTIGATION DOJ COMPONENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chicago Field Of?ce United States Marshals Service
DISTRIBUTION STATUS
f) Field Of?ce CFO OPEN OPEN PENDING PROSECUTION CLOSED
AIGINV HQ PREVIOUS REPORT YES NO
Component USMS Date of Previous Report:
USA
Other
SYNOPSIS

  
  

predicated upon receipt of an allegation that Deputy US. Marshals (DUSMs) in
Wused fraudulent subpoenas to acquire telephone records. According to a source
who wished to remain anon ous co ies of the subpoenas had been uploaded into the network
computers ofthe* and all DUS these

subioenas to obtain records. The source further alle ed that

regarding the lack of authenticity of these subpoenas.

 

     
    
 
    

knew of the circumstances

The OIG investigation determined that fraudulent subpoenas were widely used by DUSMs and task
force of?cers assigned to the District?s Fugitive Task Force between 1995 and 2005. During that ten
year period, approximately 800 of the fraudulent subpoenas were served on telecommunications
providers in order to obtain telephone records of private citizens connected to fuiitive investigations.

The sub oena contained a pre-printed signature purpo be from Judge the

?Superior Court, Criminal Term. udg advised the 016 that he never authorized
the issuance of the subpoenas and was not even assigned to the Criminal Term of the Superior Court
after January 2001.

 
  
 

 
     
  
  

 
 

The OIG investigation was unable to conclusive] identify the ersons who created the fraudulent
subpoenas. Former task force of?cer? and claimed to 

obtained the paper versions of the sub- oenas with the consent of Judg owever, udgeah
denied providing . "oena. Due to a loss of USMS

 

 

 

 

 

 

PREPARED BY SPECIAL AGENT

 

 

     

 

DATE 1 11 7.0} SIGNATURE

 

7

APPROVED BY SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE Edward M, 

   

 

DIG Form (08/08/05} Portions aflhc Report uflm'wtigmian nun-no! be exempt under the Freedom oflnfarmmion Act (5 USC 552) and the l?n?mcyAct (5 USC 5 53a).

computer records, the OIG was unable to identify the person who created the di ital version of the
fraudulent subpoena. The earliest di ?tal ?les were traced to the computer of?

When interviewed?denied creating the digital versions and stated he had been
unaware of the existence of the igita variants.

  

The OIG also found the USMS su ervisors for the unit

and did not adequately review fugitive case ?les, as
required by USMS policy. This lack of review contributed to the failure to detect the extent of the usage
of the fraudulent subpoenas.

The use of the subpoenas was inconsistent with USMS training received by each of the DUSMs. Their
actions violated Sections 19 and 20 of the USMS Code of Professional Responsibility, which
prohibit the use of imprOper investigative techniques by USMS personnel and mandate compliance with
all local, state, and federal laws while performing of?cial duties.

 
 

Following recusal of th
the United States Attorne

this investigation were presented to
or consideration of prosecution.
declined criminal prosecution in favor of

    
 

    
 

  

 

a action yt 

The OIG has completed its investigation and is providing this report to the USMS for 
action.

 

Page 2 of 27

Case Number: -

Date: December 13? 2007

ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS

 

 

Page 3 of 27

Date: December 13. 2007

DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION
Predicatinn
On August 30, 2005, the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Of?ce of Internal Affairs 01A)
received an anonymous allegation that Deputy US. Marshals (DUSM) in used
forged subpoenas to obtain telephone records. These forged subpoenas ha een a age 3; up oaded
into USMS network computers and were in widespread use DUSMs in the of?ce. The forged

   
  
 

  

 

 

were alleged to have knowledge regarding the authenticity of the forged subpoenas and
had been authorizing their usage.

The matter was referred to the OIG for investigation.

Investigative Process

The DIG investigation included the following efforts:

 

 

Page 4 of IT



Date: December 

 

 

Page {11' 27

Number: 

Dale: December l3. 

 

 

01G Subpoenas Issued:

Ameritech (HQ #1347)

SEC Long Distance (HQ #1348)

Cingular Wireless (HQ #1349)

Sprint Spectrum L.P. (HQ #1350)

Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless) (HQ #1351)
Verizon Wireless (HQ #1352)

Examination of Documents

- Fugitive Files maintained by the 

Records Checks/Database Queries
0 AutoTrack XP/ChoicePoint Online
- USMS Warrant Information Network (WIN)
- USMS Justice Detainee Information System (JDIS)

In addition, the following agencies assisted in this OIG investigation:
- USMS Of?ce of Internal Affairs

 

Background

 
  

an
When the task force ?rst began, the USMS was not a participant and the task
force?s primary focus was on the apprehension of county fugitives and probation violators.

Around 2000, the USMS became involved and the task force became known as the US. Marshals
Service Fugitive Task Force. Several DUSMs were assigned to the initiative and the USMS provided
of?ce Space for the task force. Additional agencies, including the -National Guard, provided
personnel. The task force began working federal fugitive investigations as well as continuing to pursue
city, county, and state fugitives. All personnel assigned to the task force were sworn-in as
Special Deputy US. Marshals for the duration of their participation.

 

Page 6 of 27

Dale: December 13, 2007

The Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal in charge of the warrants section was also assigned as the
supervisor of the Fugitive Task Force.

No written agreements or Memorandums of Understanding were completed for th?
Superior Court to provide subpoenas to the task force.

Fraudulent versus Valid Subpoenas and Court Orders

The fraudulent subpoenas typically shared the following characteristics: (1) they did not require the
review or approval of a prosecutor or supervisor; (2) they did not require an accompanying oath or
affidavit by the requesting of?cer; (3) they did not require the review or approval of a judge; (4) they
contained a pre-printed signature of a purported judge; (5) they did not have a tracking or logging
system; and (6) they did not require a return to the court following service.

To prepare a fraudulent subpoena, the DUSM or TFO would place the name and identifying information
of the fugitive into the Space provided; list the name of the telecommunications provider being
subpoenaed; select the type of records required, specifying a date range, if necessary; print out the
document, and serve the document, usually by facsimile, with an accompanying USMS cover sheet.

Valid federal court orders obtained by District personnel typically shared the following characteristics:
(1) they required the review and approval of an Assistant US. Attorney; (2) they were accompanied by
an af?davit outlining the facts justifying issuance of the order; (3) they required the review of a judge,
usually a federal magistrate; (4) they required the requesting of?cer to provide an oath concerning the
accuracy of the information in the af?davit; (5) they were signed by ajudge after review of the
application; (6) they contained a tracking number imprinted on them, unique to the document; (7) they
were logged by the issuing court; and (8) they normally required a return to the court following service.

To obtain a valid federal subpoena or court order, the DUSM or TFO ?rst contacted an Assistant US.
Attorney (AUSA). Then, he/she either appeared before a Grand Jury for issuance of a subpoena, or
provided information for an af?davitjustifying issuance of the order. At times, the af?davit and the
resultant court order were drafted by USMS personnel themselves; other times these documents were
prepared by the US. Attorney?s Of?ce. The DUSM or TFO then appeared with the AUSA before a
federal judge, and swore an oath conceming the accuracy of the information contained in the af?davit.
The judge considered the legality of the request.

If approved, the judge signed the order; if denied, no signature was given and the DUSM or TFO could
revisit the process if additional evidence was obtained. Approved court orders were lOgged by the Clerk
of Court, who retained a cepy of the document. A c0py was also provided to the requesting DUSM or
task force of?cer, who then served it, frequently by facsimile transmission.

In many cases, the DUSM or TFO was required to provide a return on the subpoena to the court. It was
determined, however, that returns were not required in every case.

 

Page 7 of 27

Date: December 13, 2007

Samples of Vaiid Court Orders and Subpoenas

?a samples of valid court orders obtained by USMS personnel in the?

8 of 27

Date: 13. 2007

 

Fr'oudnfent Subpoenas

 
 
 

The I - 160 copies of the fraudulent subpoenas on USMS computer drives in the
The DIG also obtained more than 140 copies of the fraudulent subpoenas
from telecommunication providers who had been served with the fraudulent subpoenas by District
personnel. The OIG noted that District personnel obtained and served numerous valid court orders and
subpoenas for telephone records during the same time period, and USMS computer drives contained
copies of valid court orders and subpoenas along with the fraudulent ones.

 

Some variants of the fraudulent subpoena contained a series of blank lines providing space to write in
information by hand. This variation was designated by the BIG as the ?Paper? or ?Fill in the Blanks"
variant. Some of these documents directed the production of subscriber information; others directed the
production of toll records. Most documents listed multiple options and allowed for the user to select
one or more when completing.

Some variants contained type-written information and matched digital documents on the USMS network
drives, data was entered before the document was printed. The signature on most all these variants
is the same embedded graphic image. This variation was designated by the DIG as the ?Digital? variant.

of Fraudulent trbpoenos Paper/Fifi in the Monks Variants

The below are samples of fraudulent subpoenas paperl? ll in the blanks variant.

 

 

Page 9 of 

Case Hum her: 

Date: December [31 100?

 

Samples of Fraudulent Subpoenas Digital Variants

The below are samples of fraudulent subpoenas digital variants.

Page 10 of 27

Case Number: 

Date: December IS. 2007

 

Characteristics of Fraudulent Subpoenas

The fraudulent subpoenas served by District personnel usually had the following characteristics:

0 No unique tracking number, cause number, or case number was assigned (except for any cause
numbers listed as part of the fugitive?s identifying information).

0 Document length was limited to a single page or the ?nal paragraph rolled over onto a second
page.

0 Header information contained the phrase ?In the?Superior Court? on the top line
and ?Criminal Term? directly beneath. Some brackets were misaligned.

The phrase below the signature line ?Judge? Superior Court, Criminal Term?
appeared to be of a different font than the rest of the document. In those versions containing a
different font, the issuing judge?s name did not appear anywhere on the document, while other
versions contained the phrase Presiding Judge_ Superior Court
Criminal Term.?

0 The signatures on each variant were identical.

USMS Computer Drives

 
  
 

On November 18, 2005 a consent located in the District
warrants section. USMS performed the search
using a Microsoft Windows search utility to ?nd all ?les that contained the word ?subpoena.? 
provided the results to the 010.

The search revealed 160 data ?les of fraudulent subpoenas in text WordPerfect and
Microsoft Word (.doc) formats.

The following USMS and task force of?cers had files containing the fraudulent subpoena documents on
either their assi ned hard drives or on network drives in folders under their names:

A review of the ?les found 16 different telecommunications providers as listed recipients of the
fraudulent subpoenas.

 

Page ll of 27

Date: December 13, 2007

Data pertaini 'es? for the 160 digital ?les provided to the OIG listed the author of the
documents Using a hexadecimal viewer/editor program, each of the 160 ?les was
also found to contain embedded data listing as the creator of the ?le. Below is a
sample of the file properties information from one of the di ital vari nt subpoena:

  
  
 
  

The OIG attempted to obtain network login information for the earliest listed ?le creation dates in an

effort to verif the individual who I ploaded the ?les into the network.
Howeverh advised that the

replaced its computer network in 2002
and network records prior to that date were no longer available.

 

In July 2007, the OIG further tested the existing USMS computer network in the District. The OIG
found the system was programmed to insert the name of the individual logged into the computer at that
time as the author of a newly created Microsoft Word document.

Providers Response to 01G Subpoenas

OIG subpoenas were issued to the ?ve telecommunications providers which had the greatest volume of
digital variants. The OIG subpoenas requested production of copies of all so I court orders

received by the telecommunication rovider which had a response directed to addressed to
either the US. Marshals Service,_ the Fugitive Apprehension Strike Team; or the
US. Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force.

The OIG did not issue subpoenas to the other eleven identi?ed telecommunications providers.

OIG subpoenas were issued to [formerly Ameritech Telephone]; Sprint Spectrum 
Cingular Wireless; and Verizon Wireless. The OIG received the following reSponses:

 

Page 12 of 27

cuscwumbm 

Date: December I3. 2007

 AT&T/SBC/Ameritech provided 162 records. A review of those documents noted 134
fraudulent subpoenas dated from June 17, 2003 to September 12, 2005. advised the OIG
that any records prior to 2003 had been purged and were no longer available.

0 Verizon Wireless provided eight records. A review of these documents noted eight fraudulent
subpoenas dated from March 3 1 2003 to December 22, 2004.

Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless) provided two records, but neither
record was a fraudulent subpoena. Cellco Partnership advised the OIG that any records older
than 2006 were not indexed or digitized, and therefore Cellco would be unable to comply
further.

0 Nothing was received from Sprint Spectrum L.P.

Cingular Wireless noti?ed the OIG they had located at least 27 possible matching records, but could not
release those records without relief from the issuing court.

The OIG determined the response from the above telecommunications providers provided a suf?cient
sample of subpoenas received by the various telecommunications companies. Further records were not
pursued.

Most records had faxed cover sheets accompanying the fraudulent subpoenas, listing the name of the
re uestin DUSM or task force 

 
  

 

Review of USMS Fugitive Files

The 016 reviewed a random selection of fugitive case ?les maintained by the USMSF
The physical review of those files found numerous examples of both frau ent su poenas

and validly obtained court orders or subpoenas maintained within the same case ?les.

 

Page 13 on7

Date: December I3. 2007

Interviews of Current Force Personnel

All current DUSMs and TFOs assigned to the- fugitive task force were interviewed by the
OIG. They admitted using the fraudulent subpoena documents, but each stated they believed the
documents were valid at the time. They stated either that the documents were in existence at the time
they were ?rst assigned to the task force, or they had observed others using the documents to obtain
records, or they had been told by others that a local judge had granted blanket permission for the
documents to be used.

Several employees stated they were given a copy of the fraudulent subpoenas by another DUSM or TFO
as an example or ?go-by,? and assumed the documents to be valid. Most employees stated they could
not speci?cally recall who had shown them the fraudulent subpoenas or who had used the documents in
their presence. All employees agreed that use of the fraudulent documents was widespread and that
nearly all DUSMs, TFOs, and task force support personnel had used the documents at some time.

All personnel who were interviewed by the 01G acknowledged using the fraudulent subpoenas without
first obtainng the approval of a prosecutor, or submitting an accompanying af?davit, or obtaining an
original signature of the judge. In fact, many stated that they preferred it to the process for obtaining a
federal court order, due to the absence of requirements to involve a prosecutor or judge each time.

None of the current USMS personnel or TF Os stated that they had contacted th-
Superior Court to verify the authenticity of the pre-signed subpoenas. Most USMS ersonnel and TFOS
stated the were unaware that the jud listed on the sub enas, the Honorableh had left
th uperior Court, since that time had been
assigned to a separate division in civil court.

   
 

?stated that - ery
dif?cult time in to ettele hone records around 1999. He recalled that forme

came in one day with a pre?
had gotten a judge?s permission to use the

      
  
 
  

 

  

document to obtain phone records.

provided copies of the document to the other task force members, including--
identi?ed the document he received as one of the versions of the ?Paper?/ ?Fill in the Blanks? variant.
initially made 50 cepies of the re-signed subpoena for his own use then made additional c0pies
from a blank each time he ran out? estimated he used approximately 500 pro-signed subpoenas
total during his tenure on the task force.

-stated he was any requirement to contac-Miller each time he used the pre-signed
document. Therefor did not do so.

 

Page of 27

Date: December I3. 2007

_further stated that usage of the pre-signed subpoena by other task force members was very
common. By 2000 or 2001, the document had been re-co ied so many times that the quality of the
copies being produced were faded and very hard to read. stated he did not recall who was
responsible for inputting the document into the USMS computer, but he recalled a computerized version
of the subpoena being created as a result of the legibility issue.

-believed was responsible for inputting the
document into the computer. admitted editing the digital version of the document to include an

instruction that response documents could be sent to the USMS Fugitive Task Force. said he
added this phrase after several telecommunications providers expressed concerns abo

ut ivin the
cane], as the language on the subpoenas originally listed only theh
and the _as recipients.

 
 
 

   
 
  
 
 

Origins of the Pro-signed Subpoena

All current task force personnel denied having created the original ?Paper?/?F ill in the Blanks? variants
of the fraudulent subpoena. Cepies of this variant dated 1995 were found, which indicated the subpoena
was used from the early stages of the task force.

All current task force personnel denied having created the original ?Digital? variants of the fraudulent

. Despite his name appearing on all 160 digital ?les concerning the fraudulent subpoena,
enied creating the electronic versions of the document and provided a sworn affidavit stating
he was unaware of the electronic versions and did not etc assist in creating them. He also denied
scanning or creating the image of the signature of Judge which appears as an embedded graphic
image in each data file.

  
  
  

Task Force Supervisors

and prior task force supervisor
stated they had seen the pre-signed subpoena
used by task force personnel but were unaware of the extent of the wideSpread usage until uncovered by
the 01G. ?and admitted they did not review the USMS case ?les for each closed fugitive
case and tiere ore did not see the volume of the fraudulent subpoenas in the case files. _and
_also stated they were ?too busy? with other assigned duties to take the time to review each page

in the often voluminous fugitive case ?les.

   

  
 
 

 

_stated he had spoken with several current state and local officers assigned to the task force and
had concluded, based on these conversations, that the process for obtaining a subpoena at the county
level was easier than the process for obtainin a federal subpoena or federal court order. This and other
discussions with the various TFOs led clude that usage of the document was acceptable
and that the task force members had Judge permission to use the pre-signed subpoenas.
stated that, at the time, he had no reason to on 1e contention that the documents were valid.

  
 
 
 

 

Page 15 of 27

Case Number: 

Date: December I3, 2007

    
   
  
 

rated he had spoken to_ in rate 1993 an-had told him
Judge anted permission or the task force to use pre-signed subpoenas to obtain telephone

records. said he had concerns about the usage of the pre-signed subpoenas and the lack of
review, but he did not believe at that time the subpoenas were illegal. DeSpite his concerns
stated he did not address the issue with anyone or research the matter on his own.

Both-an-said they did not contact Judge-or thFSuperior Court to
verify the authenticity of the subpoenas or verify the purported continue permission to use pre-signed

subpoenas.

  

       

Interviews of Former Task Force Personnel

Former and former TF_were interviewed by the OIG and

both took responsibility for bringing versions of the fraudulent subpoena to the ta . Each

maintained they had obtained permission to use pre?signed su and had
received one or more blank prewsigned subpoenas from Judge
provided different versions of the circumstances for the use.

_stated that he spoke with Jud around 1995, in the 1 days of the task force
said he and Judg?disaussed the task force?s
vious practice whic involved obtainin a sub oena
through the District Attomey?s Of?ce. said Judge-agreed to give Hm-
subpoenas to use to obtain telep one 1n orination, and that later that da or the owrng ay,

  
   
  

    
 
  
  

  
   
 
 
 
 

 

     
    

    
  

before the involvement of the USMS.
dif?cultly in obtaining telephone rccor
rovided?several pre-signed bla . stated he did not contact
titer usmg pre-signed subpoenas;Wssimp 1 out the document and then
served the subpoena with no requirement to contact the court after receiving the telecommunications
provider?s response.

admitted using about twenty of these ire-siined subioenas between Au ust 1995 and

September 1996 in fugitive cases involving warrants. said other
task force members were aware of the pre-signed subpoenas after seeing him use the
denied providing c0pies of the pre-signed subpoenas to any other task force members.
allow several pre?signed subpoenas to be used on other task force member?s fugitive cases but he
maintained that he alwa 5 ?lled out the subpoenas himself, and onl did so in cases where
felt there was a link to a_ court matter or to th

    
 
      
  
 
 

did

 
   

_stated the unused pre-signed blank subpoenas remained inside his desk upon his departure
from the task force in September 1996, following his off-duty arrest for alcohol related misconduct.

did not know what became of the remaining copies. only recalled ?paper?
variants of the pre-signed subpoenas and was not familiar with any computerized or digitized versions
of the document.

    
 

 

Page l6 of 27

Case Number: 

Date: December 13. 2007

stated he saw_ usin the re-si ned subpoenas in the early ears of the task
force. Afte left the task force,? stated he met with Judge and had a

Wconcemmg the need to expediently obtain telephone records in fugitive cases.

said that as a result of this conversation Jud _granted perrnission and approval to
use pre-signed subpoenas, and then provideddvith several blank pre-signed subpoenas.

_admitted usini the pre-signed subpoenas on an unrecalled nLunber of us to obtain

telephone records. however, maintained that he had contacted Judg telephonically
on each case, discussed the details of the case, and obtained Jud concurrence in the matter,
before completing the pre-signed subpoena and serving it. stated he contacted Judge

before using each pre-signed subpoena, except for several instances where used a
pre-signed subpoena early in the momin or outside of normal business hours. said in
those instances, he contacted Judgeias soon as possible on the following business day and
noti?ed Judg- of the use of the pre-signed subpoena.

 
 
 
  

 

 

 

    
   

 
   
 
  

stated he saw other task force members using the document prior to his departure from the
task force in 2001. _assumed each of the other members were also contacting Judg
by telephone each time one of the pre-signed subpoenas was used.

  
  
 

before his departure from the task force, he and-met with Judge
said he did not remember details of the conversation, but
permission at this meeting to continue using the document.

stated that shortl

on the sub er a issue.

ieved Judge?grante

_said he recalled only the ?paper? variants of the pre-signed subpoenas and was not familiar
with any computerized or digitized version of the document.

Interview of Honorable-

When interviewed by the OIG, Judge stated the last instance where he was involved in a request
for a sub ena or court order concemtng a criminal matter was in 2000 prior to his departure from the
Superior Court, Criminal Term.

 
      

   
  
   

 
 
  

denied ever providing permission to use pre-signed sub oenas to
or an other member of the USMS Fugitive Task Forcep-lenied providin
or any other member of the USMS Fugitive Task Force with pre-signe su poenas.

stated he was
told

signed subpoenas. After
use pre-signed subpoenas

 
 

    

  
  
 
 

etime in the fall of 2005 on this issue.
emory concerning the usage of the pre-
not remember grantng any permission to
id not discuss the matter further with him.

ersonally contacted by
wished to ?refresh?

 
 

 

Page 17 of 27

Case Number: 

Date: December 13. 2007

Potential Obstruction

 

On November 29, 2005 provided the 010 with a lette-
said he found on his desk that morning, and had assumed he was expected to deliver it to the 010 at his
interview that day. the Of?ce of InsPector General sic]? and had been
drafted in the name 0 The letter stated that? had gone to Judge

on an unspeci?ed date, explained the task force had a need to obtain telephone records and
subscriber information in a timely manner, and had received pre-signed subpoenas from Judge -0
obtain telephone records. The pre-signed subpoenas were then copied and given to other members of
the task force.

 

 
 
   

  
 

  
  

 
 
 

When subse uently intervie the OIG,-stated he had contacted and requested
draft the letter. stated that in November 2005, a?e?eamed the OIG was

conductin an investi ation into the use of the pre-signed subpoenas, contacted?and
requestedrdraft a letter for the 016 which explained the origins of the pre-signed

subpoenas. stated that at the time he believed the valid and intended to give the
016 a letter as proof of this. -admitted he e-mailed draft version of the letter which
_nade changes to, printed out, signed, and returned to admitted he made copies

of the letter and left a copy on the desk of each task force member, including

    
 
   
  
  
 

 

  
 
 

   
  

   

-further stated he contacted Judg
re draft a similar letter.

'n person at home concerning the matter, and had
ad responded that he did not recall roviding

    

        

  
  
 

with an re-signed sub oenas, and did not recognize a sample that had brought with
him. Because of response, did not pursue the matter further and did not submit a copy of
the letter directly to the 01G.
-stated his intent in contacting and-was not to interfere with or obstruct the 010

investigation or to conceal any material facts. stated he believed the task force had been using the
pre-signed subpoenas with Judge permissron, and had considered it his responsibility as the
senior member of the task force to attempt to obtain a speedy resolution in the matter-admitted he
was not authorized to conduct internal investigations as part of his job duties, and stated he did not
contemplate how his actions might appear to an outside party.

Judicial Process

 
   
 
 
 
 

Following recusal by th this investigation were presented to
the United States Attome for consideration of prosecution.
Assistant US. Attorney declined criminal prosecution in favor of

administrative action by the USMS. A written declination letter was sent to the OIG on April 19, 2007.

 

Page 18 on7

Case Number: 

Date: December I3, 2007

Administrative Violations

The use of the subpoenas was inconsistent with USMS training received by all DUSMs. The actions of
USMS task force personnel violated Sections 19 and 20 of the USMS Code of Professional
Responsibility, which prohibit the use of improper investigative teclmiques by USMS personnel and
mandate compliance with all local, state and federal laws while perfonning of?cial duties.

Media Interest

 

 

Page 19 

Date: December I3, 2007

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION

The OIG investigation determined from interviews and records that from 1995 and 2005, DUSMS and
TFOs assigned to the fugitive task force in the created and served
approximat subpoenas for telephone records. The fraudulent subpoenas purported to
be from th Su erior Court, Criminal Term, and contained the name and purported
signature of udg The subpoenas were created and served without the review or
approval of an Assistant US. Attorney (AUSA) or ajudge. The OIG determined that Judg
the criminal court in however, task force members continued to use the fraudulent
subpoenas until 2005.

 

 
 
       
   

left

 

DUSMs and TFOs who used the subpoenas stated that they did not know them to be fraudulent at the
time. The 01G found, however, that their statements were not consistent with the USMS training
received by each of them.

The OIG investigation was unable to conclusivel identi the ersons who created the fraudulent
subpoenas. Former and? both took responsibility for
bringing paper versions of the su to the task force and each claimed they received their original
copies from udg- Judge enied providing blank pre-signed subpoenas to any current or
former task force members. Judg also denied granting permission or authority for subpoenas to

be issued in his name without him ?rst conducting a review of the evidence in the case. All di ital
versions of the fraudulent subpoena document were found to contain the name of

however denied res onsibility for creating the digital documents.
told the a former? was responsible for creating the digital versions of the

document. admitted editing the digital version of the document after it had been computerized.

The OIG investigation found that USMS su ervisors for the unit
and did not adequately review fugitive case

?les, as required by USMS policy. This lack of review contributed to the non-detection of the extent to
which the fraudulent subpoenas were used.

 
 
     
   
  
 

  
 
  

 
 
  

    

    

The stigation found evidence that upon learning of the 016 investigation,_contacted
Judge and former TFO to request the submit letters stating the task force had the
judge?s permission to use the pre-signed subpoenas. received suc er from
made cepies of it and provided the cepies to other task force members. denied trying to obstruct
the 010 investigation or conceal any facts. -stated he had believed poenas were valid and

I
had attempted to ut a swift resolution to the OIG investigation. Wtdmitted ceasing his
actions after udg enied providing permission to use the pre?signed subpoenas.

   

 

   
 
   

 

The use of the subpoenas was inconsistent with USMS training received by all DUSMs. The actions of
the USMS task force personnel violated Sections 19 and 20 of the USMS Code of Professional
Responsibility, which prohibit the use of improper investigative techniques by USMS personnel and
mandate compliance with all local, state and federal laws while performing of?cial duties.

 

Page 20 of 27

Date: December I3, 2007

 
  
  
  

the details of this investigation were presented to
for consideration of prosecution.
declined criminal prosecution in favor of

Following recusal by th
the United States Attorney,
Assistant United States Attome
administrative action by the USMS.

The 010 has completed its investigation and is providing this report to the USMS for 
action.

 

Page 2] 01'27

enswumber: 

Date: December l3. 2007

Exhibit 14

U.S. Department of Justice

Of?ce of Legislative Affairs

 

 

Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530

November 3, 2015

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Patrick J. Lcahy
Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy:

This responds to your letter to the Attorney General dated July 15, 2015, concerning the
alleged use of fraudulent subpoenas by certain Deputy U.S. Marshals and Task Force Of?cers in
the Southern District of Indiana from 1995 to 2005. We apologize for our delay in responding to
your letter.

As you know, the investigation into the alleged use of fraudulent subpoenas was
investigated by the Department of Justice Of?ce of the Inspector General (010). The Report of
Investigation (IG Report), Case Number 2005-006966-1, was issued in December 2007, and it
focused on Supervisory Deputy U.S. Marshal (SDUSM) - Chief Deputy U.S.
Marshal (CDUSM) Senior Inspector (SI) and Deputy U.S. 
Marshals (DU SMs) and - Since then, all ?ve employees have retired
from the United States Marshals Service (USMS).

     
 

At the time of this matter, the USMS had a different discipline process than
today?s full-time Proposing Of?cials, who individually review cases and make disciplinary
proposals to the ?ill-time Deciding Of?cial. At that time, when the USMS received an
OIG report that detailed misconduct that may be subject to discipline, the USMS Of?ce of
Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined whether any additional investigative steps were
necessary before forwarding the OIG report to the Discipline Panel. The Discipline Panel was
responsible for proposing any discipline based on the information it received from OPR,
consistent with statutory due process requirements. Finally, the Deciding Of?cial would
determine the appropriate discipline to impose based on a number of factors, including the
underlying 016 report, the recommendation from the Discipline Panel/Proposing Of?cials, and
information provided directly from the subject employee.l

 

1 Although the disciplinary process has changed, the standard of review by the Deciding Of?cial has not.

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Page Two

In this matter, OPR forwarded the 1G Report to the Discipline Panel without further
investigation. On December 8, 2008, the Discipline Panel proposed a Letter of Reprimand for
SDUSM -, and the Deciding Of?cial issued the Letter of Reprimand on January 27, 2009.
Allegations against DUSMS- and- were not substantiated by the Discipline Panel
and, therefore, no discipline was imposed. CDUSM - and SI - retired from the
USMS on May 3, 2008, and February 29, 2008, reSpectively, prior to any potential disciplinary
action.

In response to your request for the promotion history of the ?ve USMS employees listed
above, the USMS has provided the following information. SDUSM - applied for a
position through the USMS promotion process and was selected for a promotion to a 4
Supervisory Criminal Investigator in July 2012; he was not promoted between 2007 and 201 1.
SDUSM - retired from the USMS onJune 27, 2015. DUSM - applied for a
position through the USMS promotion process and was selected for a promotion to a 68?1 3
Criminal Investigator in October 2011; he was not promoted between 2007 and 2010. DUSM
- retired from the USMS on January 10, 2015. As noted above, CDUSM - and SI

retired from the USMS on May 3, 2008, and February 29, 2008, respectively, and they

did not receive promotions between issuance of the 1G Report and their retirements from the
USMS. DUSM - did not receive a promotion between 2007 and March 31, 2011, when he
retired.

 

In response to your additional questions, we understand from the USMS that it did not
notify the individuals named in the subpoenas and is unaware of whether OIG informed any
affected individuals. We are similarly unaware of whether OIG forwarded its report to the
Indiana Attorney General or the Marion County Prosecutor?s Of?ce, or the number of fraudulent
subpoenas that may have been used in cases not linked to a Marion County court matter. We
respectfully refer you to OIG regarding these queries and for other specific details about its
investigation.

Finally, the United States Attorneys? Of?ces (USAOS) carefully review potential cases in
light of the guidelines set forth in the Principles for Federal Prosecution. USAOS review all
relevant information and, as necessary, confer with other parts of the Department of Justice,
including the Of?ce of the Deputy Attorney General, on a case by case basis. As a general
matter, federal prosecutions may be declined for a variety of reasons including, but not limited
to, situations in which a person is subject to prosecution in another jurisdiction or another
alternative to prosecution is available. Regarding this matter, as the OIG Report notes, following
recusal of the the details of this investigation were presented to the
US. Attorney, for consideration of prosecution. The -
USAO declined criminal prosecution in favor of administrative action by
the USMS. Consistent with longstanding Department policy, we cannot discuss the speci?c
reasons for particular declinations.

 
  
    
 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Page Three

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,

WA

Peter J. Kadzik
Assistant Attorney General

cc: The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
US. Department of Justice

Exhibit 15

US. Department ofJustice

()llk'c llic Inspector 

 

May 16, 2017

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

224 Dirksen Senate Of?ce Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing in response to your letter dated March 17, 2017, in which
you requested, on behalf of the Committee, Department of Justice Of?ce of the
Inspector General (OIG) reports of investigation regarding allegations of
misconduct by US. Marshals Service personnel in Mexico. Enclosed is an OIG
report responsive to your request.

Please note that the report contains personnel information, and therefore
we request that it be handled with appropriate sensitivity. The enclosed copy
of the OlG?s report includes redactions to maintain con?dentiality of
complainants and witnesses, and of allegations that are not responsive to your
request. With regard to information pertaining to any disciplinary actions
taken in response to an 010 investigation, such actions are determined and
handled by the Department or its component and therefore a request for that
information should be directed to the Department.

We hope that this information is helpful for the Committee?s purposes. If
you have further questions, please feel free to contact me, or Greg Sabina,

Advisor for Legislative Affairs, at

Sincerely,

Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General

Enclosure
cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

US. Department of Justlee

Of?ce of the Inspector General ABBREVIATED REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

 

SUMECT CASE NUMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE INVESTIGATION DOJ COMPONENT
Atlanta Area Of?ce United States Marshals Service
DISTRIBUTION STATUS
l-?ield omre MFO OPEN II OPEN PENDING PROSECUTION INI CLOSED
AIGINV PREVIOUS REPORT SUBMITTED: ll YES NO
Component USMS Date of Prerlous Report:
ll USA
ll Other
SYNOPSIS

The Of?ce of the Inspector General 010 initiated this investigation It on the receipt of an anonymous letter in
which it was alleged that and United States Marshals

Service (USMS), engaged in sexual misconduct while detailed to
a vetted USMS a artment occu ied by

   
    
    
   
    

The re onderance of evidence supports a ?nding by the 010 tha- -anc_ solicited prostitutes in

Speci?cally, their conduct and relevant witness testimon is consistent with and su arts
the alle ations that the did.

.old the 010 that In ,while detailed to
unidenti?ed female to an apartment that he shared with

a tcle hone call from USMS at approximate] 3:00 am. asking if
i could bring the female to his a artment, and he agreed to the arrangement. i stated that he did not
know if the female was a prostitute, if hngaged in sex with the female, or how long they stayed at his

apartment, because he returned to his bedroom after they entered his apartment-an -and

   

   

he allowed- -to bring an
said he recalled receiving

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE February 23, 2016 
PREPA RED DY SPECIAL AGENT

 

 

 

 

one February 23, 20 I6 SIGNATURE

 

 

arrnovao ursracw. AGENT IN CHARGE 7 Robert A Bourbon

 

OIC Fem Ill-Ila? 016 Form 07).

0m mr not be arm Freedom Olin/mien Ar! (1 USC 353) and Primer Art (3 (EC 5529).

 
  
 

statement to the 010 regarding- accompanying a female t?
denied that the female was a prostitute or that they engaged in sex,

statement to the 010 in which he said the female was a stitute.

ta prostitute to artment and n?rmed ement.
told the 010 that he did not personally know tint he had no knowledge of them

gm 3 prostitutes to the apartment he shared with

also told the 010 that on the same night tha- went to


tute, he saw leave the bar with a prostitute. Furthermore,
recalled a second occasion in when he propositioned a rostitute in the Spanish lan for
ed to a date wi and she followed him, . and

said that on the following day. ave him his
escort the woman from and pay at?
reimbursed him for the he gave to pro tute.

account of events con?icted with statements to the 010 when
proposition a prostitute on his behalf or that he reimbursed
to the prostitute. admitted to the DIG that i he allowed an

  
  
 
 

a artment with the
said he

   
   
     
 

   
   
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  

 
  
  
 

 
  
 

  
 
 

  
   

night in his room at th hotel and that removed the
female from his room the following momin at his request. However, - denied the woman was a
prostitute or that the en ed in sex. told the 016 that he had no knowledge of liciting
prostitutes. and all refused to submit to a voluntary OIG red

polygraph examination regarding their assertions to the 010.

 

   

As reported above, the re nderance of evidence supports a ?nding by the 016 that? and-
soliclted prostitutes ink Their conduct and relevant witness testimony 3 consistent with
and supports the allegations that they did. The 010 based this conclusion on the following:

told the 010 that on the date in question, be arranged sometime around 3 am. for
to take a prostitute to the - apartment;

 

Page I

cum": -

Date: 20I6

 
   

admitted taking an unknown woman to the apartment sometime after midnight.
'ed to the 010 that the woman was a pro tute, his testimony is contradicted by

told the 010 that on a prior occasion, he had assisted- in procuring and paying

or a 
- told the OIG that on the same ni ht he ed for to take a prostitute to
?Mt vy? 

and he messe- leaving a bar
with another prostitute;

The 010 found that testimony to the 016 was more credible than that provided by
- and use aclmowledged his own role in assisting his colleagues
in the un roper conduct, and 016 ound no evidence of ill will, animcsity, or bias by

en 
Hmward either- or to lain his roviding inculpatory evidence
against em. Al 0 the 016 does not condone

 
 
       
 
 
   

   
  
 

 

  
 

  

conduct in facilitating the
association by and with prosti was forthcoming and acknowledged his actions
in exposing the wrong oing colleagues. candor mitigates his own potential
misconduct
The 016 concluded that and solicitation ofprostitutec in% likely violated
USMS Policy Directive .2, of Pro sional Responsibility, Section E. paragra - on uct. which

states that: Avoid any criminal, infamous. dishonest, immoral. or notoriously disgrace?l conduct, including use
of intoxicanis and illicit drugs.

 

The 010 has completed its investigation and is providing this report to the USMS for appropriate action.

 

Page}

-

Date: February 23. 2M6

ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS

 
 

 

Paged

Cue Numbct: -

Dam Febnury 2.3. 20?

Exhibit 16

US. Department of Justice

United States Marshals Service

 

Office and Public Affairs

 

'us/Iingmn, 20530-0001

October 3, 2017

The Honorable Charles E. 
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This responds to your letter to the United States Marshals Service (USMS) dated May 31,
2017, regarding actions taken by the USMS following issuance of the US. Department of Justice
Office of Inspector General Report, Case No. 2015-007158.

Please be assured that the USMS shares your concerns about the alleged misconduct
detailed in the 016 report. As you know, the misconduct occurred in 2010 and was referred to
the USMS by the 010 in 2016. All three employees involved in this case were disciplined, with
punishments ranging from three to seven days suspension. The term of suspension was different
for each employee based on the facts and circumstances of his individual conduct.

The 010 ?ndings were forwarded to the USMS Of?ce of Security Programs (OSP), and
the facts of each individual case were reviewed. It was determined that all three employees
involved in this incident should receive security clearance warning letters. While checking their
documentation to assist in preparation of this response, OSP con?rmed that two employees had
received and acknowledged their waming letters but discovered that no waming letter had yet
been issued for one of the employees, an error that has been rectified.

Sexual misconduct is incompatible with the values we expect of those who are privileged
to carry the USMS badge. In recent years, the Department ofJustice (the Department), including
the USMS, has taken a number of steps to ensure that this conduct does not recur. In 2015, the
Attorney General delivered a memorandum to all Department personnel that made clear that
solicitation of prostitution is prohibited and that Department employees who violate the
prohibition will be subject to suspension or termination. Last year, Acting Director Harlow
promulgated USMS Policy Directive 14.21 ?Conduct in Foreign Countries" in order to ensure
that USMS personnel who serve overseas clearly understand that prohibited activities such as

patronizing prostitutes are contrary to USMS policy and will subject an employee to discipline,
including removal and/or the loss of the employee?s security clearance. Copies of both
documents are enclosed for your awareness. The USMS also now conducts pre-deployment
training to all employees assigned outside the United States in order to ensure that the directive is
communicated regularly and consistently.

We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we
may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter.

Sincerely,

60.2% 
William Delaney
Chief

Enclosures

(Effie: of the Attorney (?rmral
Washington. 33. s. 205311

   

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL

FROM: Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General

SUBJECT: Prohibition on the Solicitation of Prostitution

The Department of Justice is measured by the conduct of those who work on its behalf.
The solicitation of prostitution threatens the core mission of the Department, not simply because
it invites extortion, blackmail, and leaks of sensitive or classi?ed information, but also because it
undermines the Department?s efforts to eradicate the scourge of human traf?cking. Regardless
of whether prostitution is legal or tolerated in a particularjurisdiction, soliciting prostitutes
creates a greater demand for human trafficking victims and a consequent increase in the number
of minor and adult persons traf?cked into commercial sex slavery.

For these reasons, I want to reiterate to all Department personnel, including attorneys and
law enforcement of?cers, that they are prohibited from soliciting, procuring, or accepting
commercial sex. This rule applies at all times during an individual?s employment, including
while off duty or on personal leave, and applies regardless of whether the activity is legal or
tolerated in a particular jurisdiction, foreign or domestic.

Department employees who violate these prohibitions will be subject to suspension or
termination. Supervisors and managers are subject to discipline for failing to report suspected
violations. Suspected violations by Department employees must be immediately reported to the
internal affairs personnel of the relevant componentis headquarters (or, for those without an
internal affairs department, an equivalent entity). Allegations determined to be non-frivolous
also must be reported to the component?s security personnel. The Department also expects
adherence to these standards by its contractors and sub?contractors, grant recipients and sub-
grant recipients, and cooperative agreement holders, who are subject to all remedies available by
statute and regulation when such standards are not met.

       

.


1.1-

1 United States Marshals Service POLICY DIRECTIVES

TRAINING
CONDUCT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Proponent: Training Division (TD).

Purpose: Duties, missions, of?cial and personal travel frequently place United States Marshals
Service (USMS) personnel within foreign countries. Some countries have local laws and customs
that permit or allow various activities that are prohibited or restricted by the laws of the United
States and policies of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Maintaining high standards of conduct,
ensuring a strong and disciplined team, maintaining personal health and safety, and adhering to
the core values expected of the USMS are essential to preserve positive relations with our host
nations and ensure the success of missions. Activities prohibited by this policy create signi?cant
risk to operational and information security and could subject an employee to discipline, including
removal and/or the loss of the employee's security clearance. Furthermore, these incidents have
the potential to adversely affect United States foreign policy and the USMS Director?s goals and
objectives.

Authority: The Director?s authority to issue written directives is set forth in 28 U.S.C. 566.
DOJ Assistant Attorney General for Administration and Designated Agency Ethics Of?cial
Memorandum dated January 29, 2016, Off-Duty Conduct, requires the USMS implementation of
the Of?ce of Inspector General?s (OIG) recommendations regarding policies and training
governing off-duty conduct in other countries.

Policy: It is the responsibility of USMS management to ensure employees are familiar with this
policy prior to any foreign travel. For of?cial travel, USMS management must coordinate with the
Regional Security Of?cer (RSO) in order to follow country clearance procedures and the
procedures described in this policy. Employees must ensure that they are familiar with the list of
prohibited activities as it applies to both of?cial and personal travel in foreign countries. Should
there be an allegation of any prohibited activity. it is critical that the responsible USMS supervisor
completes all applicable steps listed in the reporting process. In the event that a USMS
supervisor is not available in the foreign country, the USMS employee must report the prohibited
activity as soon as possible to their district, division. and/or staff of?ce. While the below activities
could subject an employee to discipline regardless of where the activity occurred. the risks posed
to the USMS and USMS employees are greater if these prohibited activities occur in a foreign
country. As such, it is possible that an employee could face removal from employment and/or
the loss of the employee?s security clearance for even a ?rst offense. While it is not an all-
inclusive listing, the following prohibited activities are emphasized by this policy.

1. Prohibited Activities:

a. it is prohibited to engage in any conduct that is illegal in the United States even if
it is legal in the foreign country.

b. It is prohibited to introduce, purchase, possess, use. sell. transfer. manufacture,
or consume any controlled substances without a valid prescription. unless
speci?cally authorized for an of?cial purpose (such as the authorized transport of

USMS Policy Directive 14.21. Conduct in Foreign Countries Page 1 of 6
Effective: 7/29/2016

military medical supplies). Prescription drugs must be accompanied by the
originat prescription iabel which identi?es the prescribing medicai or
authority.

It is prohibited to knowingly enter into contact with a prostitute or a person who
provides commercial sex services. If a person subject to this poiicy unknowingiy
enters into contact with a prostitute or a person who provides commercial sex
services, other than a passing, unwanted solicitation by the other person, the
person is required to immediately cease the contact and report the incident to
their supervisor.

It is prohibited to patronize a prostitute or receive commercial sex services.

It is prohibited to directiy or indirectly arrange for a prostitute or commercial sex
service provider to come to an employee's hotel room or other quarters, or to the
hotel room or other quarters occupied by any other person.

it is prohibited to use commercial escort services.

it is prohibited to enter an establishment that has been designated by the Chief of
Mission as off-limits or where it is known by the person subject to this poiicy that
any of the following are present or habitually present: prostitution, commercial
sex services, or illicit drug use. if a person subject to this policy unknowingly
enters any establishment that is off-limits or where prostitution, commercial sex
services, or drug use are present or habitually present, that person is required to
immediately leave the establishment and report the incident to their supervisor.

it is prohibited to participate in any sexual activity that would subject the
employee to coercion, expioitation, or duress. Sexual behavior of a pubiic nature
or that reflects a lack of discretion or judgment is also prohibited.

It is prohibited to remove, possess, sell, deface, or destroy archeological artifacts
or national treasures.

it is prohibited to sell, barter, or exchange any currency other than at the official
host-nation exchange rate or commerciai rate commonty available at hotels or
banks.

it is prohibited to pay a bribe to any of?cial of a foreign country.

It is prohibited to contact any foreign intelligence service. Any inadvertent or
suspected contact must be reported to the Of?ce of Security Programs (OSP),
Tacticai Operations Division (TOD).

It is prohibited to apply for, receive, request, or in any other way attempt to gain
foreign citizenship, a foreign passport, or otherwise declare allegiance to a
foreign country.

It is prohibited to reveal national security information. Any suspected or
inadvertent disclosures or attempts to attain national security information by a
foreign national or government must be reported to OSP, TOD.

It is prohibited to reveal any sensitive information that appears on the critical
information iist, excluding information which is required to compiete the mission.

USMS Policy Directive 14.21, Conduct in Foreign Countries Page 2 of 6

Effective: 7f29f2016

2. While Participating in Training Missions, or Specified Operations During Duty

Hours:

a. It is prohibited to introduce, purchase, consume, sell, or transfer alcohol during
duty hours.

b. If closed containers of alcohol are acquired before or after on-duty hours or as an

unsolicited gift from a partner nation representative, they shouid not interfere with
of?cial business and must be consumed during off-duty hours.

0. It is prohibited to introduce, purchase. possess, use. or sell privately owned
?rearms, ammunition, or explosives, unless authorized for of?cial duty.

d. it is prohibited to knowingly violate the Chief of Mission?s guidance on off-limit
establishments or areas.

e. it is prohibited to knowingly violate the Chief of Mission?s guidance that seeks to
avoid the embarrassment of the United States or the host foreign government.

E. Responsibilities:
1. TD:
a. Training Development: TD is responsible for providing the oversight and

guidance to develop, maintain, and deliver courses (operational and
administrative). Specialized training provided to personnel regarding foreign off-
duty conduct includes the following:

1) Provide USMS conduct brie?ng materials to participants upon initial
enrollment in foreign off-duty conduct brie?ng program;

2) Ensure performance standards are addressed and emphasized;

3) Ensure USMS policies. procedures, and regulations are thoroughly
covered during instruction;

4) Management, administration. supervision. personnel policies, and
support services relative to the function.

2. United States DirectorsIAssistant Directors:
a. Ensure that supervisors and managers are aware of this policy by periodically
discussing with all supervisors and managers the standards of conduct and the
USMS Tabie of Penalties.

b. Ensure that employees are made available for training related to this policy prior
to travel to a foreign country.

c. Must report any alleged prohibited activity to Of?ce of Professional Responsibility
Internal Affairs (OPR-IA).

USMS Policy Directive 14.21, Conduct in Foreign Countries Page 3 of 6
Effective: 7i29r2016

3. immediate Supervisor (or Designee):

 

a. Notify the appropriate of?ces of any allegations of prohibited activity violations of
this policy, including the 

b. Complete all required forms or documentation.

c. Determine whether the local party is responsible for comprehensive knowledge
of Foreign Off-Duty policy.

d. Periodically discuss standards of conduct and share with all employees the
USMS Table of Penalties.

e. In the absence of a USMS Attache, coordinate any investigative activity with
OPR-IA.

4. Country/Regional Attache: The Country Attache or Regional Attache serves as the

principal USMS representative assigned to a foreign post, and is responsible for
supervising and directing the activities of USMS foreign ?eld of?ces or other USMS
activities in a foreign country.

 

a. Manage and oversee the reporting and documentation of any incidents.

b. Coordinate the investigation of any allegation of prohibited activity with the Chief,


0. Form a recommendation based upon available facts and circumstances of
whether or not an employee alleged to have engaged in a prohibited activity
should leave the foreign country. The Attache should coordinate with the R80
and Chief of Mission as appropriate to protect the safety of the employee and to
limit further embarrassment.

d. Notify the Human Resources Division (HRD) of any employee removed from the
foreign country pursuant to this policy.

5. HRD: Will determine whether or not an employee removed from a foreign country
pursuant to this policy is entitled to continue receiving any cost of living allowance or
special pay.

6. OPR:

a. Process allegations of prohibited activities as described in this policy in
accordance with USMS Policy Directive 2.2, Misconduct investigations.

b. Notify the Chief, Of?ce of Personnel Security (OPS), TOD, of any allegation of

prohibited activity.

7. OSP, TOD:

a. Determine whether an employee's security clearance should be suspended
pending the conclusion of an investigation into a prohibited activity.
USMS Policy Directive 14.21. Conduct in Foreign Countries Page 4 of 6

Effective: 7i2912016

b.

Evaluate the status of an employee's clearance after the conclusion of an
investigation by OPR-IA, and/or adjudication of discipline by OPR?Discipline
Management.

8. USMS Employees:

a.

F. Procedures:

Comply with this policy directive on of?cial and personal travel in foreign
countries.

Have a duty to report allegations of prohibited activities to responsible
management officials and OPR-IA in a timeiy manner.

1. Guidance:

a.

All employees must comply with this policy, the Standards of Conduct for Federal
Employees (5 C.F.R. Part 2635), and the USMS Code of Professional
Responsibility while in a foreign country on of?cial or personal travel.

When traveling abroad for training or operations, supervisors must coordinate
with the R80 to ensure compliance with the country clearance process and with
the speci?c country restrictions on ?rearms and other items.

Violations of this policy must be immediately reported by USMS employees to a
USMS management of?cial in the foreign country; if one is not available, the
incident should be reported to the employee's district, division, and/or staff of?ce.

2. Reporting Procedures:

a.

Immediately upon discovery of a prohibited activity, the district. division, and/or
staff of?ce responsible for the individual involved with the prohibited activity will
immediately report it to:

1) The USMS Communications Center, as designated in Policy Directive
17.17, Sianificant incident Reportina. The Communications Center will
notify the Chief of Staff, Of?ce of the Director; Chief of Chief of
International Investigations Branch, Investigative Operations Division; the
Chief of International Training, TD. The district, division, and/or staff
of?ce of the responsible party must prepare a Regon? of Significant
incident within 24 hours of this noti?cation.

2) The USMS Attache.

Formal reporting of the incident including all facts and allegations should be
reported immediately to OPR-IA in accordance with Policy Directive 2.2,
Misconduct lnvestiqations. The report should include at a minimum:

1) Statement of the allegation and any ascertainable facts;

2) Any available documents, including police reports and press reporting;
and

3) Contact information for the USMS Attache and/or the R80.

USMS Policy Directive 14.21, Conduct in Foreign Countries Page 5 of 6

Effective: 712912016

G. Definitions:

1. Prohibited Activity: Any action by an employee, which by its very nature, would call into
question the integrity of an employee and potentially cause embarrassment to the United
States Government or damage its relations with foreign governments. This includes any
activity that constitutes a violation of United States law or DOJ Policy.

2. Commercial Sex Services: The exchange of any sex service on account of which
anything of value is given to or received by any person.

3. Regional Security Officer (R80): The R80 is the principal security attache and advisor
to the US. Ambassador at American Embassies and consulates.
H. References:
1. Executive Order 12731 . Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Officers and

 

Emgloyees, dated October 17, 1990.

 

 

2. Policy Directive 1.2, Code of Professional Responsibility.
3. Policy Directive 2.2, Misconduct investigations.
4. Policy Directive 17.17, Signi?cant incident Reporting.

 

l. Cancellation: This is a new policy directive and remains in effect until superseded.

J. Authorization and Date of Approval:
By Order of: Effective Date:
Isl 7129/2016

 

David L. Harlow
Deputy Director
US. Marshals Service

USMS Policy Directive 14.21. Conduct in Foreign Countries Page 6 of 8
Effective: 7i29l2016

Exhibit 17

it-o?dLES I: Git-35319.1, UH 

33:1?. h. 'A-l ilii?lhi-i 1.. Ji-Z?lhl
. .ww 
must: mm IINCIS
-s. -5: alAH sH:t;;Mm snarl:

   

5% .
net. sass: "l [5 
.LW ARIZORA HF, 
:39: mm lit-gar 3 TTF -
Huv "Jo-t K. awe20513-6275

\cusi L. Linc! and Star: 
.l-I?l ?=55 A, .mp- Sm?in

May 31, 2017
VIA leg; TRAN 2N

David Harlow

Acting Director

US Marshals Service
Washington, DC. 20530-00001

Dear Acting Director Harlow:

On February 23, 2016, the Department of Justice Of?ce of Inspector General
concluded that in 2010, two US. Marshals Service Chief Inspectors solicited prostitutes
while on detail in Mexico and engaged in sexual relations with them in a
taxpayer-funded apartment.1 The OIG concluded that the chief inspectors violated
Marshals Service policy prohibiting ?criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or
notoriously disgraceful conduct.?2 The OIG has previously noted that Department of
Justice employees who engage in prostitution, even in jurisdictions where it is legal,
undermine the Department?s ability to effectively combat human traf?cking, ?a crime
that DOJ seeks to eradicate.?3 Further, such conduct can pose signi?cant security risks.
employees who participate in prostitution can be compromised and made
vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.?4 OIG has also found that USMS in
the past has failed to report solicitation of a prostitute by an employee oversees to
security personnel, even though security personnel believed the behavior was potentially
disqualifying for the holder of a security clearance.5

The report was provided to this Committee in the midst of numerous
allegations of a signi?cant accountability gap within the USMS. Whistleblowers from
multiple districts and divisions across the agency have alleged that the USMS does not
hold its senior leaders and their friends accountable to the same standard as lower level

 

1 US. Dep?t of Justice Of?ce of Inspector General, Case No. 2015-007158 (Feb. 23, 2016) (see Attachment

1).

2 See also 5 C.F.R. 735.203, de?ning ?notoriously disgraceful conduct? as ?conduct which, were it to

become widely known, would embarrass, discredit, or subject to opprobrium the perpetrator, the Foreign

Service, and the United States.?

3 US. Dep?t of Justice Of?ce of the Inspector General, Review of Policies and Training Governing Off-

Duty Conduct by Department Employees Working in Foreign Countries (Jan. 2015), available at:



4 Id.

5 US Dep?t of Justice Of?ce of the Inspector General, The Handling of Sexual Harassment and

Misconduct Allegations by the Department?s Law Enforcement Components at 32 (Mar. 2015), available
oi .'ustice. ov re orts 201 e1 0 . df

Acting Director Harlow

May 31, 2017
Page 2 of 3

employees, those not in favor with leadership, and particularly those who have raised
issues of waste, fraud, abuse, and other misconduct. It is alleged that at least one of
these chief inspectors continues to travel on TDY to Mexico and continues to hold a
security clearance with no requirement to mitigate the potential risks.6 Further,
whistleblowers allege that the chief inspectors received only a short suspension for this
behavior. This was reportedly the same level of discipline as that imposed on another
employee under their supervision and authority who was asked to assist in soliciting and
paying one of these prostitutes and who the OIG found to be forthcoming—unlike the
chief inspectors, who the OIG found less credible. If the reports of USMS handling of
these allegations are true, they are troubling and send the message to other employees
that the agency does not take these matters seriously.
In order to better understand the agency’s practices of holding employees
accountable for misconduct and ensuring those employees do not pose unnecessary
security risks to law enforcement operations overseas, please respond to the following
questions by June 14, 2017. Please number your answers according to their
corresponding questions.
1. What disciplinary actions has the USMS taken against the chief inspectors in this
case, or against any other individual for conduct related to this case?
2. Did the USMS report these findings to its security personnel?
3. If not, why not? If so, what steps if any has the USMS taken to mitigate security
risks associated with this behavior and to ensure it does not recur?
Thank you for you cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please
contact DeLisa Lay of my committee staff at (202) 224-5225.
Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
cc:

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member

6 See id. at 32 (In a prior incident, a USMS employee solicited a prostitute in Thailand. USMS security
personnel, after they were finally notified of this conduct, “required the DUSM to admit the conduct to the
DUSM’s spouse in order to mitigate potential security risks, such as potential exposure to coercion,
extortion, and blackmail.”).

 Acting Director Harlow

May 31, 2017
Page 3 of 3

The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
The Honorable Michael Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice

 US. Department of Justice

Of?ce of the Inspector General ABBREVIATED REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

 

SUMECT CASE NUMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE CONDUCTING INVESTIGATION DOJ COMPONENT
Atlanta Area Of?ce United States Marshals Service
DISTRIBUTION STATUS
l-?icld 0mm MFO OPEN II OPEN PENDING PROSECUTION INI CLOSED
AIGINV PREVIOUS REPORT ll YES NO
Component USMS Date of Report:
ll USA
ll Other
SYNOPSIS

   
    
    
   
      

The Of?ce of the Inspector General 010 initialed this investigation it on the receipt of an anonymous letter in
which it was alleged that and United States Marshals
Service (USMS), engaged in sexual misconduct while detailed to 

a vetted USMS a artment occu ied by

The re onderance of evidence supports a ?nding by the OIO tha- -anc_ solicited prostitutes in

Speci?cally, their conduct and relevant witness testimon is consistent with and su arts
the alle ations that the did.

.old the 010 that April 2010, while detailed to
unidenti?ed female to an apartment that he shared with

a tcle hone call from USMS

i could bring the female to his a artment, and he agreed to the arrangement. stated that he did not
know if the female was a prostitute, if hngaged in sex with the female, or how long they stayed at his
apartment, because he returned to his bedroom after they entered his apartmenL-an -and

   

 

he allowed- -to bring an
said he recalled receiving

at approximateli 3:00 am. asking if

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE February 23, 2016 
PREPARED BY SPECIAL AGENT

 

 

 

one February 23, 20 I6 SIGNATURE

 

 

 

arrnovaa ursrecme AGENT CHARGE 71101,? A Bourbon

 

OIC Fem Ill-Ila? 016 Form 07).

9m mv not be arm under the Freedom ofquarmran Au (1 USC 353) and the Primer Arr (5 (EC 5529).

   
 

statement to the 010 regarding- accompanying a female tm
denied that the female we a prostitute or that they engaged in sex,

statement to the 010 in which he said the female was a stitute.
denied to the 0 ro ta prostitute to artment and n?rmed ement.
told the 010 that he did not personally know tint he had no knowledge of them
prostitutes to the apartment he shared with

also told the 010 that on the same night tha- went to


tute, he saw - leave the bar with a prostitute. Furthermore,
recalled a second occasion in 2009 or 2010 when he propositioned a rostitute in the Spanish [an for
H. said the woman a ed to a date wi and she followed him, . and

ate

bac to their Marriott hotel. said that on the following day. ave him his
and uested escort the woman from and pay or?
reimbursed him for the he gave to pro tute.

account of events con?icted with statements to the 010 when
proposition a prostitute on his behalf or that he reimbursed

- admitted to the 010 that in 2009 he allowed an
night in his room at the Marriott hotel and that removed the
female ?nm his room the following momin at his request. However, - denied the woman was a
prostitute or that the en ed in sex. told the 016 that he had no knowledge of liciting
prostitutes. and all refused to submit to a voluntary OIG red

  
  
 

a artment with the
said he

   
   
   
  

 

      
  

  
     
 
 
 
  
 
   

 
  
  
 

 

  
   

polygraph examination regarding their asse one to the 010.

 

   

As reported above, the re nderance of evidence supports a ?nding by the 016 that? and-
solicited prostitutes ink Their conduct and relevant witness testimony 3 consistent with
and supports the allegations that they did. The 010 based this conclusion on the following:

told the 010 that on the date in question, be arranged sometime around 3 am. for
to take a prostitute to the apanment;

 

Page 2

0?"th 

Date: Febmuy?. 20I6

 
   

admitted taking an unknown woman to the apartment sometime after midnight.
'ed to the 016 that the woman was a pro tute, his testimony is contradicted by

told the 010 that on a prior occasion, he had assisted- in procuring and paying

or a 
0 mm the OIG that on the same ni ht he ed for to take a prostitute to
mm by 8%

and he messe- leaving a bar
with another prostitute;

The 010 found that testimony to the 016 was more credible than that provided by
- and use aclmowledged his own role in assisting his colleagues
in the am roper conduct, and 016 ound no evidence of ill will, animcsity, or bias by

en 
Hmward either- or to lain his roviding inculpatory evidence
against em. Al 0 the 016 does not condone

 
 
       
 
 
   

   
  
 

 

  
 

  

conduct in facilitating the
association by and with pmsti was forthcoming and acknowledged his actions
in exposing the wrong oing colleagues. candor mitigates his own potential
misconduct
The concluded that and solicitation ofprostitutes in% likely violated
USMS Policy Directive .2, of Pro sional Responsibility, Section E. paragra - on act. which

states that: Avoid any criminal, infamous. dishonest, immoral. or notoriously disgraee?l conduct, including use
of intoxicanls and Illicit drugs.

 

The 010 has completed its investigation and is providing this report to the USMS for appropriate action.

 

Page}

cum-r- -

Date: PM 23. 2M6

ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS

 
 

 

Paged

Cue Numbct: -

Dam Runny 2.3. 20K

Exhibit 18

July 5, 2017

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
David Harlow
Acting Director
United States Marshals Service
United States Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Acting Director Harlow:
On April 26, 2017, you testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary’s
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. In your written
testimony, you stated that “in 2014 we researched and developed a program for the cyclical
replacement of body armor, which ensures that all body armor is replaced on a 5-year cycle to
take advantage of advances in protective technologies.”1 The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)
awarded a 5-year, $12.49 million contract in February 2016 for this purpose.
The USMS supplies operational employees with body armor kits. The kits include
multiple items, such as carriers (vests), concealable vests (worn under the clothes), ballistic
inserts (soft body armor, designed to withstand pistol-caliber ammunition), and ceramic rifle
plates (designed to withstand rifle rounds). The armor expires every five years. An April 16,
2014, “Body Armor Committee Meeting” memorandum to then-Assistant Director of the
Training Division William Fallon memorializes the USMS “replacement plan for body armor,
ballistic shields, and TASERs®,” designed “to normalize the budget process to ensure the ability
to replace this critical equipment on a regular basis.”2 According to that memorandum, most
operational employees received their current equipment in Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012, and that
equipment, such as ballistic panels and plates, “would need to be replaced by 2017.”3

1
See also Memorandum from David Anderson, Deputy Assistant Director, Training Division, U.S. Marshals
Service to William T. Fallon, Assistant Director, Training Division, U.S. Marshals Service, Body Armor Committee
Meeting Memo (Apr. 16, 2014).
2
Id.
3
Id. at 2-3.  

 Acting Director Harlow
July 5, 2017
Page 2 of 5

Despite this 5-year cycle replacement plan, according to documents obtained by the
Committee, the USMS began replacing only two items from the operational employees’ armor
kits—ballistic inserts (soft armor) and concealable vests—in November 2014. The USMS
largely has not replaced other equipment in those kits, such as the rifle plates. According to
documents obtained by the Committee, as of February 2017, the USMS had replaced only 1,761
ballistic inserts and vests. The USMS has more than 3,900 operational employees, most with
armor expiration dates in 2016 and 2017.
Accordingly, more than 1,400 operational U.S. Marshals Service employees reportedly
were wearing expired soft body armor at the end of June. At the time of the April hearing, more
than 2,000 were scheduled to be wearing expired armor by the end of 2017. According to the
USMS Congressional Budget Justification for FY 2017, tests of the expired soft body armor
“resulted in 11 penetrations out of 84 shots taken, and sufficient back-face deformation,” which
“would create significant blunt force trauma to the person wearing the armor.”4
Information about the amount of expired body armor worn by operational employees was
compiled at the request of the Assistant Director for the Training Division for the express
purpose of raising body armor as a “mission challenge” in a call with you in February 2017. But
when a member of the House Subcommittee asked you about expired equipment on April 26,
you stated you were not aware of it.5
Your written testimony to the House Judiciary Committee also states that the USMS
“ensure[s] that all personnel receive officer safety training on a continuous basis” and remarked
on several training courses including “Deputy Trauma Medicine.” These remarks echo those of
Associate Director for Operations William Snelson at the USMS headquarters opening on
December 15, 2016, an event attended by the Deputy Attorney General. ADO Snelson stated at
that time that all operational staff have attended the Deputy Trauma Course. He also said “every
deputy” has been issued a “trauma kit” for medical emergencies, along with “countless” task
force officers.
However according to documents obtained by the Committee and contrary to the public
statements, numerous operational and task force employees have not attended this course and
have not received trauma kits. Moreover, two critical elements in those kits expired at least two
years ago. These failures to fully support USMS personnel have allegedly been raised—
repeatedly—to agency leadership to no avail.
During the hearing, you mentioned the need to “refocus” the agency’s budget and
“reprogram priorities.” The agency’s budget justifications for FY 2017 and FY 2018 asked for
approximately $1.3 million for body armor replacement. However, leadership was reportedly
told that $1.3 million per year would be insufficient to carry out the agency’s 5-year cycle
4
United States Marshals Service, FY 2017 Performance Budget, President’s Budget, Salaries & Expenses and
Construction Appropriations at 72 (Feb. 2016), available at: https://www.justice.gov/jmd/file/821041/download; see
also Body Armor Committee Meeting Memorandum at 2.
5
Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service: Hearing of the Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations of the House Committee on the Judiciary (Apr. 26, 2017)
(statement of David Harlow, Acting Director, U.S. Marshals Service).

 Acting Director Harlow
July 5, 2017
Page 3 of 5

replacement plan. This amount is also about half the annualized amount allocated under the
February 2016 contract for body armor. The plan reportedly would actually have required
approximately $10 million to replace all the equipment purchased in 2011-2012. This suggests
the agency knowingly underfunded the plan, resulting in expired armor that the agency knew had
a significant failure rate.
These funds also fall under the agency’s lump sum appropriations for salaries and
expenses, and it appears the agency has had discretion to reallocate funds in that account to pay
for the body armor replacement. Apparently, the agency chose not to do so. And only recently,
after being informed that an employee communicated these concerns to the Committee, and after
they were raised in the House hearing, has the agency made efforts to provide additional funds.6
The USMS is also, however, set to “establish[] a new [Regional Fugitive Task Force]
structure.7 According to the Federal Managers Association, that new “structure” was originally
planned as an across-the-board promotion for potentially more than 60 operational employees,
doing essentially the same job as numerous deputy marshals around the country. After the FMA
raised concerns about the method of elevating these roles, the USMS decided to advertise them
through the traditional hiring process consistent with merit system principles.
It is troubling that the agency was ready to expend the funds to promote 60 people with
no competition, while ignoring pleas to replace body armor with a 13% failure rate currently
worn by thousands of operational employees across the agency whose daily job it is to apprehend
violent fugitives.
In addition to the records requested in my letter of March 27, 2017, please also provide
by July 19, 2017, all Marshals Service records relating to expired officer safety equipment or to
the future expiration of officer safety equipment, including body armor, trauma kits, helmets,
shields, tasers, and any other equipment, from 2016 to the present. Please do not wait to produce
the information requested on March 27 until you have gathered the information requested in this
letter. Please also answer the following questions, numbering your responses in accordance
with the corresponding questions.
1. When you testified before the House Judiciary Committee:
a. Were you aware that USMS employees were wearing and/or carrying expired
equipment? In your answer, please explain when you first learned of it.
b. Were you aware that many more were set to be wearing and/or carrying
expired equipment in the coming months and year? In your answer, please
explain when you first learned of it.

6

Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary to Jeff Sessions, Attorney General,
U.S. Dep’t of Justice and David Harlow, Acting Director, U.S. Marshals Service (Mar. 27, 2017);
https://www.justice.gov/file/968196/download.
7
Letter from David Harlow, Acting Director, U.S. Marshals Service to David Barnes, Chapter President, Federal
Managers Association (May 4, 2017).

 Acting Director Harlow
July 5, 2017
Page 4 of 5

c. Did you have a call or meeting in February 2017, or at any other time, with
senior staff where the Assistant Director for the Training Division raised
funding issues for body armor replacement?
2. Please provide all slides and other records prepared for Quarterly Performance
Reviews from January 2014 to the present that mention body armor or other officer
safety equipment.
3. Who else among senior leadership in the Marshals Service knew that concerns had
been raised regarding expired equipment? When were they first made aware of these
issues? What was the response to those concerns?
4. Why has the Marshals Service for so long failed to fund its body armor replacement
reprogram?
5. Has the agency informed its employees that they are carrying expired equipment and
disclosed to them its demonstrated failure rate? When? If not, why not?
6. Why did the Marshals Service request only $1.3 million for body armor replacement
in FY 2017 and FY 2018?
7. When did the Department of Justice determine to request an additional $12 million
for body armor and for SOG training? How much will actually be allocated toward
replacing body armor? Trauma kits?
Thank you for your cooperation in this important request. Please contact DeLisa Lay of
my Committee staff with any questions at (202) 224-5225.
Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

cc:

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Trey Gowdy
Chairman
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations
House Committee on the Judiciary

 Acting Director Harlow
July 5, 2017
Page 5 of 5

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations
House Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
Adam Miles
Acting Special Counsel
Office of Special Counsel

 Exhibit 19

U.S. Department ofJustice

United States Marshals Service

 

Olfice Q/?szgressional and Public Allah?s

 

I'Vashinglon. DC 20530-0001

March 8, 2018

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This responds to your letter to the then Acting Director of the United States Marshals
Service (USMS) dated July 5, 2017, regarding the replacement of body armor. We apologize for
our delay in responding to your letter. We recognize that you have made a number of inquiries
regarding the USMS and we are responding on a rolling basis consistent with the priorities the
Department of Justice (the Department) has discussed with your staff.

We appreciate your continuing interest in the safety of the men and women of the USMS.
In your letter, you expressed concern that USMS operational employees were using ?expired?
armor. There are no de?nitive data on how long an armor vest will last before it needs to be
replaced.l Although many manufacturers offer a ?ve-year warranty, this is not indicative of the
useful lifespan of an armor vest.2 Because other factors, such as the level of care and
maintenance for the equipment, as well as the have a greater impact than age on the
effectiveness of the body armor,3 the USMS issues guidance on the proper care and maintenance
of body armor to all operational employees and instructs district and division leadership on how
to conduct consistent inspection of body armor.

Documents marked Bates SJC-BA-00001-02112 are being transmitted to you with this
letter. These documents were gathered by the USMS by requesting voluntary production from
the individuals likely to have responsive information and may not include all responsive
documents in the custody of every USMS employee. The Department has reviewed documents
provided by the USMS. Material that is hereby produced in redacted form, or that has not been
included in this production, includes information that the Department has identi?ed as non-
responsive, or containing sensitive procurement information, or internal pre-decisional

 

1 See Congressional Research Service, ?Body Armor for Law Enforcement O?icers: In Brief? (2016), at 5.
1 Id.
3 Id.

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page 2

deliberative materials, the disclosure of which would chill the candid analysis essential to sound
decision?making in law enforcement matters. Additional documents related to your request for
?Quarterly Performance Review? slides are available for an in camera review at your
convenience. Please contact the Department?s Of?ce of Legislative Affairs to make
arrangements for that review.

Following the last large purchase of body armor in 2012, the USMS developed a plan for
the cyclical replacement of body armor on a continuing basis. The USMS began the cyclical
replacement of some of the 2012 body armor in 2015. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, the USMS
awarded a new body armor contract, allowing introduction of new technologies that reduce the
weight of the vests by 33 percent, dramatically increasing ?exibility and wearability, and
speci?cally targeting likely ballistic threats to USMS personnel. When the USMS received its
FY17 appropriations funding in June 2017, $6 million was designated to fully fund completion
of the armor replacement plan. Promptl thereafter, the USMS completed a contract
modification and placed an order for over 2,000 body armor replacements.4 Much of the new
armor has been delivered and, under the terms of the contract, final deliveries are due in April
2013. Upon ful?llment of this order, we expect that the body armor of every operational Deputy
U.S. Marshal will be under active warranty.

We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we can

be of additional assistance regarding this or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Mu; any

William Delaney
Chief

 

Please be assured that, prior to this time, the USMS had not ?ignor{ed] pleas to replace body armor with a 13%
failure rate currently wom by thousands of operations employees across the agency whose daily job is to apprehend
violent fugitives.? The 13% ?gure that you referenced relates to testing done on an earlier generation of USMS
body armor, not the armor purchased in 2012. See download at 72 (2013
testing was performed on armor which was already ?over 5 years old"). In 2008, the National Institute of Justice
(NU) updated, and made more stringent, body armor standards. This more stringent protective standard was
used when the USMS purchased the 2012 body armor that is referred to in your letter as ?expired.?

 

 

Exhibit 20

U.S. Department of Justice
United States Marshals Service
Training Division
Glynco, GA 31524

03 May 2017

MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:

SUBJECT:

David Anderson
Assistant Director- U.S. Marshals Service, Training Division
Armor and Protective Equipment Program Manager
Body Armor Data Call

The United States Marshals Service (USMS), Body Armor Program is now in its third
year of the cyclical replacement plan to normalize the budgetary process and ensure the ability to
replace this critical equipment on a regular basis. This five (5) year plan offers the capability to
purchase components of an entire body armor kit instead of replacing an entire kit for each
deputy all at one time. The most important of these components are the ballistic panels of which
have a manufacturer's suggested expiration date of 5 years.
The last body armor issuance to the agency began in late 201 1 and the majority of the
agency kits were distributed in 2012, and finalized in 2013, as annotated below:
•
•
•

201 1-756
2012-3565
2013 -74

Total of -4395

With this in mind, the USMS currently has approximately 3925 operational employees
(including DEOs, AEOs and USMs). This current replacement began in November of 2014 and
is only accounts for the ballistic inserts for the tactical carrier and the concealable vest. To date
we have replaced the ballistic panels and concealable vest for the numbers listed below:
•
•
•

FY15-894 (18 Districts/2 BDUSM)
FYl 6-825 (26 Districts/2 BDUSM)
FYl 7-52 (2 AEOs/2 BDUSM)

Total of -1771

To date we have approximately 2,154 (55%) of the agency's operational force that will have
expired ballistic panels in their tactical vest and in their concealable vest by the end of FYl 7.
o 52 of the 96 districts have not been actioned for replacement.
o No Divisions have been actioned for replacement.
1
SJC-BA-00350

  A multi?year contract was awarded in February 2016 for new body armor for the 
the total awarded under this 5-year contract is $12,493,994.92

0 Over that contract period the program would require MM annually to execute the
contract to its fullest.

FY15 - was received (difference of 
FY16 was received (difference of 

FY18 

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact Armor and Protective

Equipment Program Manager, 

  



Exhibit 21



rrom: (USMS)

Sent: Wednesday,April 26, 2017 1:30 PM

To: (USMS)

Subject: FW: Agency Ballistic Panel Replacement
inportance: High

Chief,

Below you will find the email chain about the armor to each of my past three managers (2 where acting) dating back to
November of 2016.

VR

Armor and Protective Equipment Program Manager

(Mobile)

(USMS)

Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 10:49 AM

To: (USMS)

Subject: RE: Agency Ballistic Panel Replacement
Importance: High

(A) Chief-,

I've just completed an in-depth analysis of body armor and the operational force, and these are the latest findings
(including BDUSM 702 if all 17 complete the program).

0 We have 1783 deputies that have received updated armor:

I ADS lnc. Contract for body armor awarded 9MAY2013
I 51 Deputies
I 94 BD USMs

I Armor Express Contract for body armor JSD contract modified SSEPT2014
I 760 Deputies
- 134 BDUSMs

I ADS inc. Contract for body armor awarded 24FE32016
I To date, 677 Deputies
I 77 BDUSMs

0 We have 2185 deputies that have expired armor in the ?eld:
I 640 Division Operational Deputies
I 1545 District Deputies

have received numerous emails and phone calls from district and division management in reference to expired body
armor and the need to keep our operational force safe and ready to face the missions of which they are assigned. if
possible, can you ask for an update on funding for the program from TD management and a tentative t'meframe as to
when and if it will be received? Thanks in advance.

SJC-BA-00288

VR

Armor and Protective Equipment Program Manager

(Mobile)

From: (USMS)

Sen . ember 30, 2016 5:17 PM
<us~s>

Su . Cy Ballistic Panel Replacement
Importance: High

(A) Chief-,

Below you will find an email I sent to (A) DAD-about 2 weeks ago. I have yet to receive any funding for my
program at this point. I usually have a small allocation offunds by now and the longer I wait, the further I will be
behind on the replacement. Also, the funding itself is minuet compared to what I really need to achieve the
replacement.

One of my worst fears is not being about to save a life due to not voicing my concerns in every forum I'm able to
have a voice. Thanks again for your support.

VR

Armor and Protective Equipment Program Manager

?<Mobi1e>

Sent: ber 14, 2016 11:32 AM

rm? (usms)
Subject: Agency Ballistic Panel Replacement

Chief,

Listed below are the most accurate estimated umbers for ballistic panel distributed, to date:

1730 District ballistic panels have been replaced thus far 

398 District sizing sheets will be available for the manufacturer Friday, 18NOV 2016 

1074 District operational employees that have not been measured and outfitted 
694 Division operational employees that have not been measued and outfitted (1.3M)



0 These numbers we based on an estimated 3896 Operational USMS employees, per HRD IA U62016)

With the entire agency/s ballistic pmels expiring between FEBZO IGMAYZO 17, I foresee a time period next year at which
there will be numerous operational District and Division employees that will have expired ballistic panels unless a
substantial increase in funding is actieved. An estimate ofat least will ?nish out?tting our operational force with
ballistic panels by the end of FY 17. This fundng will need to be out I ofany additional funding for BDUSM classes.



Armor and Protective Equipment Program Manager
US. Marshals Service, Training Divilsion

SJC-BA-00289

O?ice? . Mobile?

Visit the NEW USMS Body Armor Intranet Page:
t: et.usm ov/si es/h es/Bod' mor.as 

 

SJC-BA-00290

Exhibit 22

 

From: (USMS)

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 10:07 AM

To: Creasy, Stephanie (USMS)

Cc: (USMS)

Subject: Expired Body Armor

Attachments: RFTF Body Armor Expiration 05.01 .2017.docx
Importance: High

DAD Creasy,

lam sending this to you for awareness and to request your help (if possible). Prior to your promotion I had
conversations with Training Division (TD) staff regarding RFTF personnel having expired (or close to expired)
body armor and requested support from the TD to ensure those folks body armor would be replaced in a
timely manner. Understanding that monitoring and replacing body armor for the entire agency is a
monumental task, I asked Domestic Chief_ to compile a list of RFTF personnel with expired body
armor. That list is attached. As you will see it is far more extensive than I believed with many ofthe body
armor expiring in April of 2016 and some as old as April of 2011.

The RFTF personnel are on the street everyday arresting the most violent fugitives so it is criticalfor risk
mitigation and agency liability that the body armor they are wearing NOT be expired. I believe the TD was in
the process of issuing body armor from west coast to east coast and that the were to be included in that
process. However, as you can see in the attached chart there are 12 members ofthe are
currently expired.

I am requesting your help to outfit the RFTF personnel with body armor that is up to date. Please let me know
what you need from me or IOD to facilitate this process.

Thanks in advance for your assistance with this critical matter.

Regards

Investigative Operations Division
US. Marshals Service

Of?ce
?Cell

1 SJC-BA-00600

Domestic Investigation

United States Marshals Sewic

 

Investigative (,lperations Division

mgr/77? 70/6/2/ (ii/77w

 

Body Armor Expiration Dates

Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force

Position
Commander
Asst. Commander
rviso Ins
In tor
Su erviso
7 Inspector
Su rviso
Inspector
rviso
Ins tor

rviso
In "tor
. Superwy Ins
,Ins tor

In
In

Ins

Ins

Position
Commander
Assistant Commander

ector
Commander
rviso I ctor
Commander
tor

Ins

De
Su

Ins

erviso I

ctor



Of?ce
Washin on DC
rin leld VA

DC

Washin 0 DC
Baltimore MD 
Baltimor MD
Salisbu MD
Salisbu MD
01 VA
Spring?el VA
rin cl VA
Richmond, VA
H. Lee VA

Norfolk, VA

Greenbelt, MD

 

Of?ce
Orlando FL .


Pensacola FL
Tallahassee FL
Jacksonville, FL
Orla FL
Gainesville FL 

 

Orlando,_ 

DOMESTIC INVESTIGATIONS BRANCH

Ex iration Date

lorida/Caribbean Regional Fugitive Task Force

iration Date

SJC-BA-00601

Su erviso Ins tor
Ins tor
Sllnerviso
Ins tor

Ins tor

Inspector

erviso Ins ector
Supervisory Inspector
erviso Ins ector

Orlando, FL
Orlando FL
'I?ampa, FL
Ft. rs FL
Ft. I?ie FL

West Palm Beach,


Ft. Lauderda
Miami FL

 

Gulf Coast Regional Fugitive ask Force

FL,

 

Ex iration Date

 

 

Jun-202]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Deputy Commander

Position Office
Commander _Birmingham, AL
Supervisory Inspector Birmingham, AL
Supervisory Inspector Birmingl1am,__AL__
Supervisory Inspector Birmingham, 
Ins motor 7 Birmingham, AL
Inspector Birmingham, AL.
Inspector Birmingham, AL
Supervisory Inspector Oxford, MS
Inspector Oxford, 
_ln_sp_e_ctor Oxford, MS,
Oxfo_rd MS

Jackson, MS

Se 

     

 

inspector

Jackson, MS

 

Supervisory Inspector
Inspector
Supervisory Inspector

Jackson, M?f
Jackson, MS

 

I

 

Crul [pork MS

 

Inspector

 

Supervisory Inspector

Huntsville, AL

 

1.1131760th 

Huntsville, AI,

(in 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supervisory Inspector Montgomery, AL
Inspector _Mo_ntgomcrl, Al,
Inspector Montgomery, AL
Supervisory Inspector Mobile, AL 
Lispegor Mobile, A 
Inspector Mobile, A 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Great Lakes Regional Fugitive Task Force

 

 

Name

Position

Of?ce iration Date

 

Assistant Commander

Chicago ?2

 

Deputy Commander

Chicago, IL

 

Supervisory Inspector

Chicago, II,

 

Supervisory Inspector

Chicago, IL

 

 


Supervisory Inspector

_Hammond, IN 
Indianapolis, IN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Inspector 

Inspector ?nmond, IN 
I Inspector Chicago, IL

Inspector Chicago, IL

Inspector Chicago, IL
Inspector Chicago, IL

Inspector _Chicago, IL Feb-2020
Inspector Chicago, IL

 

 

 

 

 

Name

New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force

Position
Commander
Assistant Commander
Supervisory Inspector

tor
rviso
Inspector 7

ut Commander
Inspector
Ins tor

Su iso Ins
Ins tor
In ?tor
Su '50
Inspecto_r_
In tor

Ins tor

tor
tor

Inspector

 

Central 1in


7 Ex iration Date 7

Office
Cam NJ
New ions, NY.
Camden, NJ
Cam NJ
Newar NJ
Newark, NJ 7
Trent NJ
Trenton NJ
Atlantic NJ
New York NY
New NY
New York NY
New NY
NY

Central Iin 

SJC-BA-00603

Paci?c Southwest Regional Fugitive Task Force

Position Of?ce Ex iration Date

Commander Los?geles, CA

Assistant Commander Los An 165 CA Jan?2018

Su Los Angeles,_ CA ..

De ul Commander Los An [65 CA

Su rviso In tor Los An eles CA Jam-2020

Ins tor Los eles CA

Ins tor Los An eles, CA

Ins tor Los An eles CA

 

{01? Los An [63, CA Fob-2020
tor

'30 In_ deter Riverside CA

tor 
Inspector Riverside, CA
Ins ?tor Santa An CA Jul ~2017
Ins [01? Santa Ana, CA

Southeast Regional Fugitive Task Force

Position Office Ex iration Date
Commander Atlanta, GA
Assistant Commander Atlanta, GA
Su erviso Ins tor Atlanta GA
ut Commander Macon,_ GA
'iso I [01' Macon. GA

5 M80 ln?P?9t9r 
Inspector Atlanta, GA
Ins ector Atlanta, GA
In. ector Atlant GA

Ins tor Atlantai GA
Ins 
tor Maco GA

 



Exhibit 23

 

From: Drector Sends (USMS)

Sent: Friday, July 7. 2017 3:52 PM

To: USMS-ALL

Subject: Message from Acting Director Harlow Re: Officer Safety Equ'pmmt and Tra 

This week,l received two letters from the Chairman of the Senate Iudiciary Committee inquiring about our of?cer safety training program
and equipment provided to our operational employees. Today the Washington Post published an article on the same topics.

As I have stated several times and in my message to the Agency this pastIanuary, my top priority remains my commitment to officer
safety. Every day we are all reminded that our job is extremely dangerous. I take these inquiries very seriously and look forward to

responding to the Chairman's questions.

We are aware of the concern regarding the replacement of body armor. To ensure that our operational employees had the necessary
equipment to safelyexecute the mission, in fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2012 we supplied body armor to approximately 3,900 Deputy United
States Marshals That body armor had a 5-year manufacturer's warranty; therefore, the Training Division developed a cyclical replacement
plan. In 2014, we were able to initiate replacingbody armor with a $1.2 million purchase. Our FY 2017 President's budget request included
cyclical replacement of body armor; however, we wereconstrained continuing resolutions whichlimited our spending by time and
amount. On May 5th of this year. the President approved the FY 2017 appropriation and last month the Agencywas able to provide $6
million in funding for body armor replacement. The Training Division started to process this large order immediately thereafter.

Once we receive ?nal approval of our FY 2017 spend plan by the Of?ce of Management and Budget and Congress, the Training Division will
have a base amount of annual funding for cyclical replacement of safety equipment. While we continue to have funding challenges, we
always appreciate the Administration and Congress' support for our mission requirements.

While some body armor is exceedingits warranty period, this is not the actual lifespan of the armor. As detailed in the Mawm,
EMBLEM. from former Assistant Director William Fallon of the Training Division, research overwhelmingly indicates that the 5-year
mark is merely the end of the manuf'acturers? liability on the product, not the actual lifespan of the armor. Further, if the armor is in good
condition and has been properly cared for, the Training Division believes it retains its full ballistic capabilities as you await your replacement
armor even though the manufacturer period has expired. If the armor shows signs of excessive creasing, wear and tear, or exposure to

corrosives, discontinue its use and contact? fora remedy.

Regarding training, we have invested a lot of time and resources developing the High Risk Fugitive Apprehension training
program. ltruly believe that we are providing the best training available. 1 have heard from many United States Marshals, Chief Deputy



SJC-BA-01034

United States Marshals, Deputy United States Marshals, and our state and local partners that HRFA was the best training they have received
in their careers. And as you know, students are required to submit critiques aftereach HRPA class. The HRFA Program critiques indicate an
overwhelmingly positive consensus regarding the quality of training and instruction. Many of the Task Force Of?cers have stated how
thankful theyare to be given this training because their own agency offers no such course. Our goal to have all operational personnel in the
USMS receive 40 hours of of?cer safety training annually through our Tactical Training Of?cer program remains, and we continue to make

progress in meeting that goal.

Maintaining the highest level of training is an ongoing process. There are many in our Agency who have expertise and valuable experience in
fugitive apprehensions and I welcome constructive observations on how we can continually improve our training. We do best when
considering all points of view in how to improve our training programs. We have been made aware of concerns raised regarding the training
and continue the process of reviewing the HRFA training program.

I would like to thank the Training Division staff for the work they have done and continue to do to enhance the safety of our personnel.

Thankyou for what you do and for taking on the dangerous mission of keeping our communities safe. Please remain vigilant as you go
about your daily work.

Stay safe.

David L. Harlow
Acting Director



US. Department of Justice

 

United States Marshals Service

Training Division

 

:llexumlria 2230/
May 30. 2012

MEMORANDUM TO: United States Marshals
Chief Deputy United States Marshals

Assistant Directors
Staff Offices

WW
FROM: William . allon .

Assistant Director

SUBJECT: Body Armor Replacement

The Training Division (TD) is pleased to announce that more than fifty percent of the body
armor replacement to the ?eld is now complete. To date, approximately 1,927 armor kits have
been received by 57 Districts and 8 Divisional components with approximately 1.652 remaining
kits to be delivered by by June 2012.

The majority of the armbr previously issued by the USMS (RBR) was manufactured in 2007
and is being replaced very close to the 5-year manufacturer?s warranty end. Extensive research
ins been compiled by the TD into the lifecycle and proper replacement protocols for body armor.
This research has involved National Institute of Justice, the Department of Defense
Aberdeen Test Center, US. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering
Center (NSR DEC), as well as several of the major federal, state and local law enforcement
agencies.

This research overwhelmingly indicates that the 5?year mark is merely the end of the
manufacturer?s liability on the product, not the actual lifespan of the armor. In fact, many
manufacturers start the 5-year warranty at the time of purchase, with no regard for the many
months the armor may have remained unsold by the manufacturer. Guidance given by NSRDEC
includes the statement:

?if the armor is properly cared for, shows no visible flaws or defects, still properly fits
the of?cer, and still provides an adequate level of protection based upon a current
assessment of the threats encountered, then it should be reasonable to presume that unit of
armor is still serviceable.?

A poll of several major law enforcement agencies by the TD shows that the overwhelming

rmjority of agencies believe the 5-year mark to be a benchmark rather than a ?hard and fast"
indicator of the end of a vcst?s effective lifecycle. The research and testing facilities, as well as



the agencies polled by the TD. all indicated that the care and maintenance and wear and tear on a
particular piece of armor were far more indicative of its true service life.

As we continue to work with UNICOR to get the remaining armor to the ?eld. please inspect
any armor approaching (or beyond) the 5-year warranty end point for signs of excessive wear
and tear of the actual ballistic panels. Experts have relayed that excessive creasing and folding
ol'the armor is of particular detriment to the ballistic capabilities ol'~ soft. body amtor. If the
armor is in good condition and has been properly cared for. the TD believes it retains its full
ballistic capabilities as you await your replacement armor from UNICOR by unc 2012. If the
armor shows signs of excessive creasing. war and tear, or exposure to corrosives, please

discontinue its use and contact for a remedy.

The USMS is currently soliciting vests that are 5 years and older from various regions of the
country For a scienti?c study to be performed by HP White Laboratories. These vests will be
tested/shot to the exact speci?cations that the vests were designed to withstand at purchase. If
you wish to participate by donating a vest in the 6-8 year old range, please contact
for further information. This scienti?c study will serve
to further the con?dence in armor over 5 years old. and bolster information anecdotally gained
l?rom informal range testing throughout the USMS. wherein such vests have retained their full
ballistic capabilities.

Visit the TD Body Armor wcbpagc at 

for further infomiation on body armor. the delivery process. inspection protocols, and most
importantly, care and maintenance of your armor. Thank you for your continued support and
patience with this armor replacement initiative.

SJC-BA-01037

Exhibit 24

From: 

 

To:
I
II 3.29 - Ill . II 3.2.- mwmtl'l- 
mm. .11. I593 u-[95mm 3 LELI 
. .919 ?mm-1? 3 
mini);
Imam
II ., 
I 3.29
mamas! [mama
. 3
[Imam 
"nan-II ?mu-38 [Imagg
0mm? 1" [cani? 
max - Imam ?mm-3n Imam
m- II I "up
"new! Imam! Bantam II mil-3H
?m 1 - m- 
um; ?uo- i
(USES) 
?mun Ill- I 
II 3n.? II 3
[my .- I'm-uni gunman manna 
llama! [II-3mm! 
.Im -
lill 
(g3. lawn! [Inna] 1'13??
I3a3?Wa1K2L.n.a. II 3m I 
?ma-3 I I 
am Inna (I39 3-
?mm ?mm Imam] 
Cc.- I In - Anagram.
3'
Subject: Body Armor: POC Request, New Meaurement Form, and Inspection Reminder
Date: Monday, Juty 10, 2017 5:53:00 PM
Attadments? 




 

Chiefs and Deputy Assistant Directors,

I have attached a copy of the Body Armor Point of Contact (POC) list. Please review the list and verify
that the POC listed is the correct POC for your district or division. If the POC listed is not correct
please provide the correct POC and phone number t? by Friday, July
14, 2017.

The Training Division (TD) began sending mails about body armor replacement to some of those
needing new body armor. Many deputies who have already received an e-mail and completed the
old form will receive a new Body Armor measurement form created by MSD and that will allow
all ofthe data they enter to loadinto a spreadsheet that can be submitted directly to the provider
forfaster and more ef?cient ordering. The Body Armor Program Manager,-, will mail a
notification and the link to the new form to all deputies needing new body armor. The TD has a list
of deputies needing new body armor and expects the link to be sent to them tomorrow, but no later
than Friday, July 14, 2017. If a deputy doesn?t receive a notification by Friday evening please have
them contact Please note even those that have already submitted
an old form within the past two weeks will need to complete the new form. They will not have to
measure again. The information is the 5811 e.

 

As a reminder each deputy should be inspecting their body armor on a routine basis. Information on
body armor inspection is attached, but can be found on the Body Armor Program intranet site at

Body Armor POC responsibilities:

?District and Division POCs are responsible for keeping the Body Armor Program Manager, TD,
aware of any changes in personnel, retirements, transfers in or out of the district or division, and/or
change in POCs. POCs are also responsible for issuance, tracking by serial number, replacement, and
disposal of USMS issued body armor." USMS Directive 14.8 Body Armor, Section E.3

Please let Body Armor Program Manager,-, or me know if you need additional information.

Thank you,
Stephanie

Greasy
Deputy Assistant Di rector

Training Division

Cell
Of?ce

 

SJC-BA-01087

BODY ARMOR CARE, INSPECTION, CLEANING AND STORAGE

Frequent inspections and proper care, cleaning and storage of body armor help maintain the
integrity of ballistic panels and the carrier.

Note: The covers of the armor panels should not be opened for any reason.
Care

Ensure armor panels ?t properly into carriers with the strike face and wear face correctly
oriented. Con?rm the correct orientation by referring to the panel label, which will indicate the
strike face or wear face.

You should not needlessly ?ex, bend, compress or crease ?exible armor panels when handling,
as this may contribute to degradation of the ballistic materials over time.

llandle rigid body armor panels, particularly those incorporating ceramic materials, carefully as
they are fragile. Ceramic materials are extremely brittle and such armor should not be dropped
upon hard surfaces, as this may cause cracks or breaks, which can have an adverse effect on
performance.

Inspection

You should routinely, visually inspect the ?exible armor panel covers for cuts, tears, stitching
separation, sealing problems and excessive wear, all of which could expose the ballistic materials
to moisture and other potential degrading factors. Additional guidelines are provided below:

0 Never attempt to repair armor panels under any circumstances; rather, report your
?ndings to your District or Division Body Armor Point of Contact (BA POC).

Carriers which rub the panel covers as a result of normal flexing can wear through the
cover and expose the armor to moisture penetration.

Visually inspect rigid armor panels before each use to ensure that no surface cracks or
other signs of damage are present which could degrade ballistic performance.

0 Report any such signs of damage to the BA POC immediately.

0 Periodically inspect the condition of the label on the armor panel. Once the label becomes
illegible or shows signs of excessive wear, notify BA POC immediately. It is important to
identify the model and protection level of armor in the event of a safety recall.

Cleaning

Improper cleaning can damage the ballistic panels or carrier, causing the body armor to fail.
Each model of body armor which complies with NIJ Standard-0101.06 is required to have
supplier-recommended care instructions label. Armor panels are not to be dry cleaned, machine
washed or machine dried, either in the home or commercially. Detergents, dry-cleaning solvents
and laundry equipment can cause damage or degrade panels.

SJC-BA-01088

The general industry procedure for cleaning armor panels:

Storage

Remove the panels from the carrier.

Wipe the outer panel cover using a damp sponge or soft cloth and cold water.
Air-dry the panels ?at, avoiding folding or creasing the armor while it dries.

Insert the dry panels back into the carrier with each panel strike or wear face correctly
oriented.

No chemicals, other than those speci?ed by the manufacturer, should be used when
cleaning the panels. Bleach or starch, even when highly diluted, may reduce the
protection level.

Refrain from rinsing, soaking, submerging or spraying the ballistic panels. Any
super?cial smudges, marks or soiling remaining on the outer covering should not
harm the ballistic panel integrity.

Never dry flexible armor panels outside, even in the shade, as exposure to ultraviolet
light is known to cause degradation of certain types of ballistic materials.

Remove detachable straps and fasteners from the carrier. If straps and fasteners are
not detachable, place them in their secured position.

[land-wash the carrier with cold water using a mild detergent for delicate fabrics.
Rinse the carrier thoroughly and hang up indoors to air dry.

Air drying will have less impact on the integrity of the carrier.

Body armor should be stored as recommended by the supplier and consistent with Agency

Standards.

Additional guidelines are provided below:

Armor should be stored ?at at room temperature in a dry, shaded place that
minimizes exposure to direct light.

You may hang armor from a specially designed robust hanger made for body armor.
Wire or some wooden hangers will break or buckle under the weight of the armor.
You should not hang armor by the carrier straps, as this may cause the straps to
stretch and lose their original shape and 

Turn the body armor inside out or open and lay flat to allow moisture to evaporate
Air dry damp armor prior to storage.

Armor should not be stored for extended periods of time in a low airflow
environment, such as the bottom of a locker, nor in a potentially extreme hot/cold
environment, such as the trunk of a vehicle.

089

Exhibit 25

 

From: Director Sends (USMS)

Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 3:52 PM

To: USMS-ALL

Subject Message from Acting Director Harlow -- Re: Of?cer Safety Equipment and Training

This week, I received two letters from the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee inquiring about
our of?cer safety training program and equipment provided to our operational employees. Today the
Washington Post published an article on the same topics.

As I have stated several times and in my message to the Agency this past January, my top priority remains
my commitment to officer safety. Every day we are all reminded that our job is extremely dangerous. 1
take these inquiries very seriously and look forward to responding to the Chairman's questions.

We are aware of the concern regarding the replacement of body armor. To ensure that our operational
employees had the necessary equipment to safely execute the mission, in fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2012
we supplied body armor to approximately 3,900 Deputy United States Marshals. That body armor had a
5-year manufacturer's warranty, therefore, the Training Division developed a cyclical replacement

plan. In 2014, we were able to initiate replacing body armorwith a $1.2 million purchase. Our FY 2017
President?s budget request included cyclical replacement of body armor; however, we were constrained
by three continuing resolutions which limited our spending by time and amount. On May 5th of this year,
the President approved the FY 2017 appropriation and last month the Agency was able to provide $6
million in funding for body armor replacement. The Training Division started to process this large order
immediately thereafter.

Once we receive ?nal approval of our FY 2017 spend plan by the Of?ce of Management and Budget and
Congress, the Training Division will have a base amount of annual funding for cyclical replacement of
safety equipment. While we continue to have funding challenges, we always appreciate the
Administration and Congress' support for our mission requirements.

While some body armor is exceeding its warranty period, this is not the actual lifespan of the armor. As
detailed in the Ma 1 30; 2011 memorandum from former Assistant Director William Fallon of the
Training Division, research overwhelmingly indicates that the 5-year mark is merely the end of the
manufacturers? liability on the product, not the actual lifespan of the armor. Further, if the armor is in
good condition and has been properly cared for, the Training Division believes it retains its full ballistic
capabilities as you await your replacement armor even though the manufacturer period has expired. If

the armor ear and tear, or exposure to corrosives, discontinue its use
and contact for a remedy.

Regarding training, we have invested a lot of time and resources developing the High Risk Fugitive
Apprehension (HRFA) training program. I truly believe that we are providing the best training

available. [have heard from many United States Marshals, Chief Deputy United States Marshals, Deputy
United States Marshals, and our state and local partners that HRFA was the best training they have
received in their careers. And as you know, students are required to submit critiques after eadi HRFA
class. The HRFA Program critiques indicate an overwhelmingly positive consensus regarding the quality
of training and instruction. Many of the Task Force Of?cers have stated how thankful they are to be given
this training because their own agency offers no such course. Our goal to have all operational personnel

1
SJ C-BA-01 942

in the USMS receive 40 hours of officer safety training annually through our Tactical Training Officer
program remains, and we continue to make progress in meeting that goal.
Maintaining the highest level of training is an ongoing process. There are many in our Agency who have
expertise and valuable experience in fugitive apprehensions and I welcome constructive observations on
how we can continually improve our training. We do best when considering all points of view in how to
improve our training programs. We have been made aware of concerns raised regarding the training and
continue the process of reviewing the H RFA training program.
I would like to thank the Training Division staff for the work they have done and continue to do to
enhance the safety of our personnel.
Thank you for what you do and for taking on the dangerous mission of keeping our communities
safe. Please remain vigilant as you go about your daily work.
Stay safe.
David L. Harlow
Acting Director

2
SJC-BA-01943

 Exhibit 26

US. Department of Justice

United States Marshals Service

 

Office of Congressional and Public A?hirs

 

DC 20530-0001

June 15, 2018

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This responds to your letter to the fonner Acting Director of the United States Marshals
Service (USMS) dated July 5, 2017, regarding the High Risk Fugitive Apprehension (HRFA)
program. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letter.

The USMS apprehends nearly 90,000 fugitives a year, many of whom are violent career
criminals whose apprehension makes our communities immediately safer. As noted in your
letter, the USMS suffered a series of tragic deaths in 201 1, when two deputy US Marshals and
seven USMS task force of?cers lost their lives bringing violent ?Jgitives to justice. In response,
a group of the most experienced fugitive-hunting experts in the USMS, supplemented by
distinguished and social scientists, developed standardized, enhanced procedures
for arresting the ?worst of the worst? fugitives while mitigating risks to law enforcement
personnel. The end result of this initiative was the HRFA program, which was rapidly
disseminated throughout the USMS operational community in 2012 and 2013, and has evolved
into a model program.

At the inception of HRFA, the tactical training of?cers (TTOs), the experts who would be
teaching the program in the ?eld, were to be chosen based on a combination of their ?eld
experience and training skills. USMS leadership at the time took into account that some smaller
judicial districts did not have personnel with speci?c quali?cations such as ?ve consecutive
years of fugitive apprehension experience. Because other factors, such as the amount oftactical
training and a demonstrated ability to teach and train others, were also essential to the success of
the TTO model, the US MS implemented the TTO program based on existing levels of
experience and training. We have enclosed the TTO application (Enclosure 1) and USMS Policy
Directive 14.13 Law Enforcement Safety Program Tactical Training Of?cer (Enclosure 2) to
assist your understanding of how TTOs are currently selected.

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page 2

The USMS Special Operations Group (SOG) is a competitively selected group of
approximately 100 deputies who have additional tactical training and who conduct specialty
operations spanning the range of federal law enforcement missions. These deputies can
assemble on short notice for tactical operations, and they are located in districts nationwide so
that they can disseminate their tactical expertise to their district colleagues. In response to your
speci?c question, current USMS leadership has not considered disbanding SOG, and we are not
aware of any preposals by senior leaders in the recent past to do so.

When the USMS began implementing HRFA in 2012, SOG deputies were called upon to
help roll out HRFA training because they had already completed a highly competitive selection
process with hundreds of hours of additional arduous tactical training. SOG experts vetted and
chose approximately 50 deputies to become TTOs to support the initial HRFA training program.
Since the program was created, there have been a total of 208 TTOs certi?ed, of which 69 are
current or former SOG deputies.

You inquired about a request to extend the mandatory retirement of an experienced
inspector who worked on HRFA training. In response to emergent operational needs, that
inspector?s retirement was extended on March 29, 2013, so that he could become Acting U.S.
Marshal of the Northern District of Illinois. His previous position in the Investigative Operations
Division was not immediately ?lled due to budget sequestration and a hiring freeze. By June
2014, as the HRFA program matured, HRFA activities previously handled by this inspector were
consolidated within the Training Division under the Chief of Law Enforcement Safety.

You inquired about the release of information related to the loss of life which sometimes
occurs during fugitive apprehensions. When considering whether to release information in these
sensitive situations, there are several factors that we consider. There are often legal proceedings
such as criminal investigations that inhibit broad release of speci?c shooting information.
Moreover, we want to be respectful to those who have lost loved ones. Appropriate individuals
in leadership are made aware of the ?ndings. Any lessons learned are typically disseminated to
operational personnel during HRFA through renewed emphasis on training on the relevant
issues. In most cases, issues that are identi?ed in a critical incident such as a shooting are
already covered in HRFA training. The USMS Training Division is currently working on a
project to evaluate the best way to use after action information to enhance of?cer safety.

We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we can
be of additional assistance regarding this or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Wm 

William Delaney
Chief

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page 3

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Dianne einstein
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

The Honorable Michel E. Horowitz
Inspector General
US. Department of Justice

Exhibit 27

US. Department of Justice

Of?ce of Legislative Affairs

 

 

Of?ce of the Assistant Attorney General Washington. D. C. 20530

March 26, 2015

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This responds to your letter to Acting Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates.
dated March 19, 2015, regarding allegations of inappropriate hiring practices at the US.
Marshals Service (USMS). We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.

Upon receipt of your letter, the Director of the USMS (the Director) instructed the
Associate Director for Administration to work with the USMS Of?ce of General Counsel to
review the allegations in your letter. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the circumstances
surrounding Mr. Lenzie?s hiring. Mr. Lenzie applied in September 201 for a Senior Forfeiture
Financial Specialist (SFFS) position with Forfeiture Support Associates (FSA), a contractor that
supports the Department. He was not hired for that position, however, because he did not
possess the requisite quali?cations. A four-member interview panel consisting of personnel
from the USMS. the US. Attomey?s Of?ce for the District of Boston. and FSA unanimously
recommended another individual for the SFFS position, and that individual accepted the position.

Mr. Lenzie was highly quali?ed for a different position, however, and the same four-
member panel unanimously recommended him for a Forfeiture Financial Specialist (FFS)
position. Following the interview process, FSA offered Mr. Lenzie the FS position, which he
accepted. USMS did not waive any contract quali?cation requirements in making this hiring
decision and proceeded in the usual course in hiring Mr. Lenzie.

Mr. Lenzie?s hiring was not unduly in?uenced by the Director. A?er Mr. Lenzie applied
for the SFF position in September 2011, he emailed his resume to the Director, which she
forwarded to Ms. Bea] for her awareness. The Director did not recommend Mr. Lenzie for any
position, nor did she instruct Ms. Bea], or anyone else at the USMS or within the Department, to
take any action, of?cially or otherwise, on behalf of Mr. Lenzie. Mr. Lenzie was an experienced
federal employee with ample quali?cations. Furthermore, these noted events had no bearing on
the unanimous recommendation by a three-member senior executive interview panel for
Ms. Beal?s selection as Assistant Director of the Asset Forfeiture Division in August 2014,
nearly three years later.

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page Two

As to the materials requested in your letter, we have enclosed the labor category
quali?cation requirements used to hire SFFS and FFS contractors from 2010 to the present. We
have also enclosed the resumes of all individuals who have ?lled the SFFS and FFS contractor
positions for FSA from 2010 to the present. In order to protect their privacy, we have redacted
the names, phone numbers, email addresses, and home addresses of these employees.

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,

Peter J. Kadzik
Assistant Attorney General

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General

Department of Justice

Of?ce of the Inspector General

Exhibit 28

June 3, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Sally Quillian Yates
Deputy Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Dear Deputy Attorney General Yates:
To date, I have sent five letters to you and to the U.S. Marshals Service inquiring
about improper hiring practices and questionable spending of the Assets Forfeiture
Fund (AFF). In response, I have received four letters—three from your office, and one
from the Marshals Service. Half of these letters reported incorrect and misleading
information to Congress.1
The Marshals Service’s poor track record in providing accurate information to the
Department and to this Committee raises significant concerns about that agency’s
ability to investigate itself. So, it is a good sign that the Department now supports an
independent investigation from within the Executive Branch. However, given the
separate Legislative Branch interests implicated, this Committee must continue its own
parallel inquiry.
Documents obtained by the Committee show that as early as December 2013, an
employee reported the quid pro quo hiring allegation involving Director Stacia Hylton
and Assistant Director of the Asset Forfeiture Division (AFD) Kimberly Beal to the
USMS Office of General Counsel. It is also clear that the General Counsel’s Office was
consulted about the reply to the Committee’s inquiry before the Department sent its
letter denying any wrongdoing. Marshals Service officials admitted that the Office of
1 Letter from Peter J. Kadzik, Assistant Attorney General to Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate
Committee on the Judiciary (Mar. 26, 2015); Letter from William Delaney, Chief of Congressional and
Public Affairs, U.S. Marshals Service to Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the
Judiciary (Apr. 3, 2015).

 Deputy Attorney General Yates
June 3, 2015
Page 2 of 4

General Counsel had “e-mail traffic” that was “tied to a grievance” related to the
Committee’s inquiry. Thus it appears that the General Counsel’s office failed to ensure
that the Department’s reply was accurate and complete, despite possessing the
information necessary to do so.
I appreciate that your staff has acknowledged the Committee’s interest in
understanding more specifically why the Department initially provided inaccurate
information and is working with my staff to schedule interviews of Office of General
Counsel attorneys Lisa Dickinson and Harvey Smith. Documents obtained by the
Committee show that Mr. Smith received the December 2013 employee allegations and
supporting documentation of a quid pro quo between Director Hylton and Assistant
Director Beal. Ms. Dickinson is the Principal Deputy General Counsel for the Marshals
Service, the second most senior position within the Office of General Counsel,
responsible for “overseeing operations” of that office and “respond[ing] to inquiries
from other federal agencies and members of the public.”2 Documents obtained by the
Committee show that Ms. Dickinson also had previously received information that
appears to corroborate whistleblower allegations of the quid pro quo. Please ensure that
these interviews are scheduled as soon as possible.
It is also critical that the Committee receive documents responsive to its requests
related to these interviews prior to the interviews occurring. Your good faith
cooperation with the Committee’s inquiry will be essential to a timely and orderly review
of the underlying allegations as well as our review of the circumstances that led to the
initial inaccurate reply. Your staff has indicated that document production will begin on
a rolling basis in parallel to the Inspector General’s inquiry and in consultation with my
staff about priorities, custodians, and search terms. I would appreciate your assistance
in ensuring that the document productions are timely, thorough, and complete.
Unfortunately, the Marshals Service’s reaction to previous incidents of serious
misconduct suggests it is unwilling to hold officials accountable even when presented
with findings from the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
For example, in July 2012, the OIG found that individuals within the Justice
Management Division (JMD), including former JMD FASS Deputy Director Michael
Clay, violated ethics standards by engaging in improper hiring practices and nepotism.3
The OIG found that Clay had induced another Justice Department employee to hire his

Main Justice, 62nd Annual Attorney General’s Awards (Oct. 16, 2014), available at:
http://www.mainjustice.com/2014/10/16/62nd-annual-attorney-generals-awards-complete-list-ofwinners/.
3 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Report Regarding Investigation of Improper
Hiring Practices in the Justice Management Division (July 2012)[Hereinafter Justice Management
Division OIG Report].
2

 Deputy Attorney General Yates
June 3, 2015
Page 3 of 4

daughter, and in return “instructed a subordinate to attempt to find a job” for that
individual’s brother.4 The OIG referred the Deputy Director to JMD for disciplinary
action. He is now the Deputy Assistant Director for the Management Support Division
at the U.S. Marshals Service.
In February 2015, the OIG found5 that several individuals, including Blair Deem
(at the time a Marshals Service detailee working as the Chief of Staff for INTERPOL
Washington), violated Section 702 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct6 by using their
positions of authority “to benefit their acquaintances by placing them . . . in unpaid
intern positions at INTERPOL Washington.” The OIG referred the Marshals Service
detailee and another individual to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General for review
and disciplinary action.
Ironically, according to documents obtained by the Committee, as of April 16,
2015, Deem was listed as the Deputy Assistant Director for the U.S. Marshals Service
Office of Professional Responsibility, the very office charged with ensuring the integrity
of the agency. Multiple whistleblowers have asserted that the USMS OPR is not an
appropriate position for an individual found to have violated ethics rules.
The Committee also previously noted that multiple whistleblowers reported that
the OIG currently is investigating Judicial Security Division Assistant Director Noelle
Douglas for her efforts to ensure a USMS contractor hired an individual with whom she
allegedly has a personal relationship. Whistleblowers now assert that the U.S. Marshals
Service intends to simply relocate Ms. Douglas to the Justice Department’s Asset
Forfeiture Management Staff, where she will retain her current grade as a Senior
Executive Service employee. It is hardly a deterrent to engage in waste, fraud, and
abuse if the only discipline meted out for such behavior is a game of agency musical
chairs.
Moreover, it is unacceptable that the U.S. Marshals Service reportedly continues
to try to track down the whistleblowers who have made protected disclosures to
Congress. In the last two months, multiple whistleblowers have alleged that USMS
managers 1) use Freedom of Information Act requests to identify employees who have
made protected disclosures and to use that information to retaliate against them; 2)
maintain lists of employees suspected of being whistleblowers and assess who is most
likely responsible for the various allegations; and 3) openly threaten employees with
Id. at 6. 
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Investigation of Allegations of Improper
Hiring Practices at INTERPOL Washington (Feb. 2015) [Hereinafter “INTERPOL Washington OIG
Report”].
6 See 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 (“An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the
endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons
with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity . . . .”)
4
5

 Deputy Attorney General Yates
June 3, 2015
Page 4 of 4

retaliation for speaking to independent investigators. These actions, if true, would
clearly chill further protected disclosures and obstruct the Committee’s investigation.
As the Committee continues its investigation, please provide written responses to
the following questions:
1. For each instance of OIG findings of ethics violations in hiring discussed above,

please describe all efforts taken by the Department and the U.S. Marshals Service
to discipline employees and the outcome of those efforts. 
 
2. Please list the names of the proposing and deciding officials in each case, the date

of any proposed discipline, and the final disposition, including a description of
any punishment imposed. 
For any case where no disciplinary proceedings were initiated or no punishment
was imposed, please explain why not. 
Please provide your written reply no later than June 17, 2015. If you have any
questions about this request, please have your staff call DeLisa Lay at (202) 224-5225.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

cc:

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
The Honorable Carolyn N. Lerner
Special Counsel
U.S. Office of Special Counsel

 Exhibit 29

 

October 14, 2016

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC. 20530
Dear Inspector General Horowitz:
As you know, over the last two years, my office has received numerous
whistleblower allegations regarding the U.S. Marshals Service. Of those reports, a
significant number allege they have experienced reprisal in return for engaging in
protected activity, including for making protected disclosures of waste, fraud, and
abuse. The alleged reprisal takes many forms, including retaliatory and pre-textual
internal affairs investigations and discipline.
Suspensions and removals reportedly have been proposed and imposed following
internal investigations against employees who have disclosed public safety concerns,
questioned the treatment of prisoners within Marshals Service custody, disclosed
wrongdoing to or participated in government investigations conducted by the Inspector
General, the Department of Justice (including the FBI), the Office of Special Counsel, or
even the Marshals Service’s own OPR,1 and simply testified on behalf of their colleagues
in any forum—be it during Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) investigations or in
federal court.2
These employees have informed my office that in return for their efforts to
disclose wrongdoing and protect themselves, they have been subjected to, among other
things, explicit and implicit threats, hostile and unsafe working environments, warnings
to disengage from protected activities, and frivolous or vindictive misconduct
investigations for actions that never took place, occurred a year or more in the past, are
not subject to the same level of scrutiny for other employees, or were already counseled.
                                                            
1

Policy requires USMS managers and supervisors to “immediately report all misconduct complaints to IA.” USMS
Operations Policy, Misconduct Investigations 2.2(F)(1)(f).
2
Retaliation for making protected disclosures or otherwise engaging in protected activity is unlawful. 5 U.S.C. §§
2302(b)(8),(9).

 More than 20 percent of individuals who have made a protected disclosure to this
Committee since this inquiry began in March 2015 have reported instances like these.
In at least one case, the USMS Office of Professional Responsibility (USMS OPR)
seized private, non-government property with no effort to demonstrate its behavior
would not pierce employees’ privileged and protected communications with counsel and
with Congress.3 In another case, a Deputy U.S. Marshal in California has been proposed
for removal following years of engaging in protected activity, including testifying in
fellow employees’ EEO cases, reporting threats to public safety created by his superiors
and others in the transportation of dangerous fugitives, reporting a hostile work
environment, including fear for his own safety, filing his own EEO complaints, sharing
concerns with management in management meetings, and disclosing concerns about
public safety, abuse of authority, and reprisal to my office.
The Deputy U.S. Marshal says, among other things, he was specifically
threatened by his management to avoid associating with other employees who had
raised concerns; treated as a criminal suspect by his management in meetings; ordered
to sign resignation forms; inappropriately questioned by management about his family
life; questioned by a supervisor during an internal investigation about the substance of
an EEO complaint; charged with AWOL while on sick leave to care for an ill child and
despite providing proper documentation; harassed and threatened with discipline after
requesting FMLA to care for his terminally ill mother; and physically threatened for
sending an e-mail to a superior stating he felt he was experiencing retaliation.
The Deputy U.S. Marshal attempted to report ongoing reprisal and other
misconduct by management to the OIG on June 7, 2016, and the OIG declined to
investigate, asserting that it did not have jurisdiction. The OIG, however, does have
jurisdiction in retaliation cases, even if the OSC more routinely handles them. Further,
OIG has the right of first refusal for law enforcement misconduct allegations, and likely
received the myriad of prior internal, allegedly retaliatory allegations against the deputy,
before it received his own complaint. It is unclear whether the OIG had the ability to
cross reference the deputy’s complaint against its own records of USMS misconduct
notices. With that more complete picture, the OIG could have more thoroughly
evaluated the deputy’s allegations of a history of retaliatory investigations, which, if
true, could point to a larger problem within the USMS regarding the use of internal
affairs investigations in cases where employees have engaged in protected activity.
To assist the Committee in better understanding the role of the OIG in reports of
retaliatory investigations, please respond to the follow questions by October 28, 2016.
1. Did the OIG receive notice and opportunity to exercise its right of first refusal
from the U.S. Marshals Service OPR regarding allegations against Deputy U.S.
                                                            
3

Letter from Charles E. Grassley and Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman and Ranking Member, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the
Judiciary to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (July 31, 2015); Office of Management and
Budget, Memorandum for Chief Information Officers and General Counsels, “Office of Special Counsel
Memorandum on Agency Monitoring Policies and Confidential Whistleblower Disclosures” (June 20, 2012). 

 Marshal
it was received.

? If so, when? Please describe each allegation and when

2. Upon receipt of DUSM
June 7, 2016 complaint of reprisal and
misconduct by USMS officials, did the OIG seek to verify his claims of prior
internal affairs investigations?
3. Please describe any and all limitations which prevent or hinder OIG from
determining whether misconduct cases received from Department of Justice
components may be retaliatory in nature.
4. Does the OIG have any available tools to monitor how components handle
internal misconduct complaints that follow protected activity, to ensure those
complaints do not have a retaliatory effect?
5. In your view, does the OIG have jurisdiction over claims such as those filed by
DUSM
? Why or why not?
Please contact DeLisa Lay of my committee staff at (202) 224-5225 with any
questions.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
cc:

Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Sally Quillian Yates
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
David Harlow
Deputy Director
U.S. Marshals Service

 Exhibit 30

July 31, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro
Comptroller General
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, N.W., Room 7100
Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Comptroller General Dodaro:
In recent years, my office has received multiple allegations from whistleblowers in both
the United States Marshals Service (USMS) and Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF) that the misconduct process in their respective agencies has been subverted for improper
purposes—to harass, intimidate, and threaten employees who come forward to report
wrongdoing, retaliation, and discrimination.
Whistleblowers have alleged that one of the primary tools of retaliation is the use of
internal affairs investigations and disciplinary action by managers to punish employees who
report wrongdoing. To the extent this is occurring, the situation can be exacerbated if agency
policies allow conflicts of interest to go unchecked. For example, misconduct offenses can be
investigated by the same local management against whom wrongdoing has been reported. In
addition, employees at USMS reported that participation in the Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) process has led to misconduct allegations being levied against participants, which USMS
management then proposed to settle in return for dismissing the EEO complaint. Similarly,
employees at ATF reported that compliance with the Internal Affairs process has resulted in
threats of discipline such as being placed on administrative leave. If true, this type of
management behavior is disturbing, as it unjustly punishes employees who come forward to

 The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro
July 31, 2017
Page 2 of 2
report bad behavior or comply with internal investigations, chills additional reporting, and
fundamentally undermines the core missions of these critical agencies.
In order to understand the operations and controls these agencies have in place to ensure
that such retaliatory investigations and disciplinary actions are not occurring, I request that the
Government Accountability Office assess:
1. What are ATF and USMS policies and processes for filing complaints of misconduct and
for investigating and adjudicating misconduct cases?
2. To what extent, do ATF and USMS follow its policies and processes for reviewing
complaints of misconduct and for investigating and adjudicating misconduct
allegations? Do the agencies have sufficient policies and processes?
3. What internal controls do ATF and USMS have in place to ensure that
a. District and division management comply with policies and processes for filing
complaints of misconduct, and
b. Officials responsible for investigating and adjudicating misconduct allegations
remain independent and avoid conflicts of interest, and
c. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General is given the right of
first refusal on all internal affairs investigations?
4. To what extent do ATF and USMS ensure the integrity of its process for filing,
investigating, and adjudicating misconduct cases when employees under investigation are
involved in other proceedings, such EEO proceedings?
Thank you for your help in addressing these issues. In addition, I would appreciate
ongoing briefings for my staff as you conduct your work. If you have any questions concerning
this request, please contact DeLisa Lay and Katherine Nikas of my Committee staff at (202) 2245225.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

 Exhibit 31

US. Department ofjusticc

f" a 
it. v' -- :f 
um" Ounce ul llic Inspector (.cucml



 

October 23, 2018

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

224 Dirksen Senate Of?ce Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing in response to your letter dated October 18, 2018, which we
recognize to be a request, on behalf of the Committee, for the Department of
Justice (Department) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report of
investigation associated with a recent investigative summary posted on our web
site titled, ?Findings of Misconduct by US. Marshals Service Management for
Committing Gross Mismanagement Resulting in a Gross Waste of Taxpayer
Funds in its Handling of Serious Misconduct Allegations Against a Chief
Deputy U.S. Marshal.?

The attached redacted version of the 016?s report is responsive to your
request. Please note that the report contains personnel information, and
therefore we request that it be handled with appropriate sensitivity. The
enclosed copy of the 016?s report includes redactions to maintain the
confidentiality of the investigating agent and line level and civilian attorneys.
Additionally, private medical information has also been redacted.

We hope that this information is helpful for the Committee?s purposes. If
you have further questions, please feel free to contact me, or Adam Miles,

Counselor to the Inspector General, at 

Sincerely,

   
 
   

Michael E. Horowi
Inspector General

Enclosure

cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

US. Department of Justice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of?ce of the Inspector General REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
SUBJECT CASE NUMBER
Unidenti?ed, United States Marshals Service -
Headquarters
Arlington. Virginia
OFFICE CON DUCTINCINVESTICATION DOJ COMPONENT
Washington Field Office United States Marshals Service
DISTRIBUTION STATUS
a Field Oi?cc CI OPEN OPEN PENDING PROSECUTION IS CLOSED
AICINV PREVIOUS REPORT SUBMITTED: :1 Es 8 no
a Component USMS Date of Previous Report:
El usa
Other

 

 

SYNOPSIS

The Of?ce of the Inspector General (010) initiated this investigation upon the receipt of information
from the United States Of?ce ol'Special Counsel (OSC) on March 24, 2017. The OSC alleged that the

United States Marshals Service USMS violated three olieies in deciding to rescind a preposed removal
0 and allow him to retire under a settlement

  

agreement.

 

-had been servin when.- he
was accused ol'serious misconduct, resulting in 010 investigatio During the courii il

that misconduct investigation, the and the OSC separately initiated concurrc rations
into allegations of retaliation and others against USMS employees in th ho were

cooperating with the 010 in the original misconduct investigation.

 

while the retaliation investigations by the 010 and OSC were still ongoing, the 010
completed its ?rst investigation and issued a report to the USMS ?nding serious misconduct 

including that he engaged in sexual harassment of a subordinate contract employee. misused his USMS
cell phone. misused his USMS GOV, gave out inappropriate and offensive awards ofa sexual nature at a
USMS retreat, and that he lacked candor during an interview. Six months lawn-based
on these 010 misconduct ?ndings, the USMS proposed that-be removed from federal service
within 30 days and placed him on aid administrative leave. However. rather than being removed within
30 days, the USMS allowed to remain in paid administrative leave status for about 6 months
Then.? the USMS entered into a settlement agreement with-that rescinded the

 

DATE September 4, 20 8 SIGNATURE
men-mm nv SFMOR 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE September 4, 2018 I SIGNATURE 
- a . WM
APPROVED BY SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE We? Dale 2018.09.0? 14 43:58

Michael P. Tompkins .oa'oo'
UIC Furm Form Ill-307 4/ ((14 23 200.7}
l?nrrimrsu} (in Report mat rm: he err/up: Frat-time tr: (5 (SC .luIJ OSC 552(1)

proposed removal penalty, imposed no discipline whatsoever on-l'or the serious misconduct that
both the 010 and USMS had found, and allowed 0 use a combination ofsick leave. annual leave,
and unpaid leave for a period of an additional 9 months until when he became eligible to
retire with a full pension.

ln? while-was still employed by the USMS pursuant to the settlement agreement and
four months before retirement date, the issued its investigative report to the

USMS regarding the retaliation allegations against- In this report. the 010 found that had
retaliated against USMS employees who coo erated with the 010 in the first miscon uet
investigation. Three months latchihe USMS again proposed that be removed, this
time for his retaliatory conduct against USMS employees. However the USMS failed to take any action
to impose the removal penalty against-and instead allowed 0 retire in ith his
full pension pursuant to the earlier settlement agreement.

   

  

 

   

The complaint ?led by the OSC with the 010 on March 24. 20 7. included the following three
allegations:

I. That the USMS violated Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Merit Systems Protection
g-to be on paid administrative leave from 
following ltis proposed removal.

2. That the USMS violated 5 C.F.R. (Granting Sick Leave) by allowing-to use his
accrued sick leave. pending his retirement.

   
 

3. That the USMS violated U.S.C. l2]4(t) (Investigation of Prohibited Personnel Practices 
failing to notify osc or seek approval orits decision in_to rescind
proposed removal and allow -to retire with no disciplinary record.

The 010 investigation did not substantiate these three allegations. However, the OIG found that USMS
management committed gross mismanagement that resulted in a gross waste of taxpayer funds by: 
failing to hold-accountable for the sexual harassment, lack of candor. and other serious misconduct
as outlined in the 010's Octobcrzo 5 misconduct report; failing to hold-iccounlable for his
retaliation against USMS employees for cooperating with the investigation as outlined in the 
February 2017 misconduct report; and entering into a settlement agreement with -that allowed
to avoid any discipline whatsoever for his established serious misconduct, and permitted use of
various leave mechanisms that enabled him to reach his full retirement date. Speci?cally, the USMS:

   

- took roughly 6 months to determine the appropriate discipline for- for his serious
misconduct in connection with the first investigation;

9 placed paid administrative leave for about six months for the purpose of
completing administrative discipline process in connection with the first 010
investigation;

a failed to timely carry out its proposed removal decision in connection with the tirst 
investigation;

0 entered into a settlement agreement with -in connection with the first 010
investigation imposing no discipline whatsoever and allowing to remain in a leave
status for 9 months so that he could reach his eligible retirement date

0 toolt almost 3 months to determine the appropriate discipline for or retaliating
against a USMS employee who cooperated with the ?rst 010 investigation; and

  
   

 

US. Department PAGE: 2 of it
Offth ofthc Inspector Genital CHE NUMBER:

DATE: September 4. 20l8

   
 

- did not properly serve ith its proposed removal decision for his retaliatory
conduct, resulting in being allowed to retire with no discipline.

Timeline of Events

To assist the reader in following the sequence of signi?cant dates and events, the following timeline was
established using actual and approximated dates:

The received a misconduct allegation against- and initiated
The UK) noti?ed USMS of the investigation.

A Deputy U.S. Marshal (DUSM) ?led complaint with OSC.

The 010 received a retaliation allegatio
relating to the alleged retaliation

   
   
 

  
  

and initiated a second
The 010 noti?ed USMS of

  
    
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
      
 
  

investigation 0
the investi 'ation.

OSC ?rst informed the USM - that
was initiating an ?investigation of two complaints from employees in

re Iardin several DUSMs and supervisory personnel and requested a POC at USMS.

OSC provided an of?cial notice to USMS regarding ?an of?cial law enforcement
investigation into allegations that the United States Marshals Service (USMS) engaged in one or
more prohibited personnel practices." The notice did not speci?cally name the subjects ol'the

 

issued a Report of Investigation to the USMS in the ?rst misconduct
that substantiated serious misconduct by- including misuse ofa
government vehicle, conduct unbecoming a CDUSM, failure to properly supervise, interfering with

misuse of govemment property, and lack of candor.
noti?ed of his proposed 1 within 30 days pursuant to 'ngs
In investigatior? USMS puts?aon paid administrative leave. 
seeks to a eal the proposed removal MS Deciding Of?cial.
USMS informs OSC of?proposed removal as a result ofOlG investigation

USMS Requests the use ofAdministmtive Leave from JMD.

DOJ AAG Mari Barr Santangclo Barr issued the first ofthree granting

aut ortzation and subsequent extensions to the USMS to allow USMS to keep on paid
Administrative Leave.
my mimic-(USMS Deciding Of?cial) in
responset proposed removal. Tie cttera cges ?undue in?uence" in the disciplinary
process by referencing statements or actions by Senator Lankford, Senator Grassley, and US. District
Court .Iud re DeGiusti.
Oral response fro to ro osed removal, and subsequent e-mail from 
Of?ce of General Counsel (DOC) to USMS General Counsel Auerbach, OGC Deputy
General Counsel Dickenson, and USMS Acting Director Harlow, which ap cared to be ?rst proposal
to settle the matter. -wrote to Auerbach that USMS Deciding Of?cial said ?there are

Si 'ni?cant gaps in the report" and she ?will ask OPR to perform a supplemental investigation."
?noted thaticounsel cited possible 010 de?ciencies in the OlG?s investigation and that
time would be needed for supplemental investigation- also noted timeliness considerations and
that was on Administrative Leave)
SMS Requests the extension of Administrative Leave from 
DOJ AAG Mari Barr Santangelo Barr issued the ?rst of two memos granting
extensions to the USMS f0 use ofAdministrative Leave.

  
    
  
 

      

 

      

    

   
    
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

US. Department PACE: 30f 
Ollitc of Inspector General CASE NUMBER:

DATE: September 4. ZUIH

  
 

Framer-#2 

icial) in response to proposed removal. The letter alleged de?ciencies in the OlG's

investiuation.

 

   
   
  
  
  
 
   
 

USMS Requests the extension of Administrative Leave from JMD.
DOJ AAG Mari Barr Santangelo Barr issued the second ol'two memos granting

cxtensrons to the USMS l?orHse olAdministrative Leave.
USM. ecu mg Ol'l'tcial sustained the removal penalty against -to be

ecttve
eat an e-mail to-the da before removal date. proposing a
.?propose tiat se leave without

initiating MSPB litigation
IS removed (SFSZ dated

 

    

 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
   

      
 

settlement to avoid
LWOP).

     

     
 

noting Acting Director Harlow

E-mail from Diekenson to Auerbaeh and
use ol sick leave with proper

use ol'annual leave, but will only approve

documentation.

 
 
 

emorandum on letterhead ol~

US MS receives a draft settlement agreement from
he USMS and enter into a Settlement Agreement wherein the removal

pena ty was resem ed. no discipline was to be imposed on- and to lwnin ing

annual leave. sick nd leave Without pay until he was elirrible to retire in
is reinstated, e??eetive?GFSZ dated
0 The 010 issued a Report ol [m esttgatton to USMS in the re a

ubstantiating the retaliation allegations against-
USMS notilied OSC that the retaliation case had been referred to the proposing

 

   
 



    
  

 

   
  
 
  
  
   
 
 
   
  
 
   
 
 
 

 

 

 

  
 
 


USMS advised OSC that proposed discipline a iainst 'as forthcoming and that
su mitted his retirement application. cl?l?cetivc? USMS failed to disclose its
cment with to OSC.
- SC advised USMS via e-mail that OSC had ?no ob'ection to proposed removal? of
or so stantiated retaliation in DIG investigation
0 USMS Discipline Management Stafl?transmirte a proposal to-manager that
removed from the USMS for retaliating against USMS employees in connection with the
rim OIG investigation. However was on leave and was not served
0 ?The USMS issuelt incomplete proposed removal. Supporting documents
ere not provided to
0 SMS sent 'omplele removal proposal. which was delivered on
0 -etired from lederal service without any discipline havmg been imposed.

USMS Settlement Agreement ??ith a. nd Three Allegations

 

Settlement Agreement with -Follmving the First 016 Investigation

On_ased on the facts outlined in 010 investigation_ the USMS substantiated

iindings intseonduct against lUl.

 

PACE: 4of 8

US. Department ofJusticc
oftlu Inspector Genera CASE NUMBER:
DATE: September 4. 20 Ill

- Misuse ofa Govemment Vehicle, (2) speci?cations.

0 Conduct Unbecoming ofa CDUSM. (1) speci?cation

0 Failure to Properly Supervise, (I) speci?cation

- Misuse ofGovernment Property (IT System), (2) speci?cations
0 Lack ofCandor, (4) speci?cations

for removal from the USMS within 30 days. - appealed the decision
the USMS Deciding Of?cial sustained the removal penalty to be effective

  

  

In response to the removal decisio attomey.?raised several arguments and told
the USMS he would appeal the removal at the MSPB. Per USMS General Counsel, Gerry Auerhach,
those arguments included claim of?political interference? from James Lankford?s staff,
and input from the Chief go in the district. The USMS believed thatm'ould attempt to take
depositions from Senator Lankford and the ChiefJudge. who is alle 'edlv friends with Senator Lankford,
and is the father ot?onc ofthe DUS M?s whom the foun retaliated against during the ?rst
010 investigation. The USMS expressed concern that ?ritv could have been construed as an
appeasement to Senator Lankford.

 

  
    

ln explaining their rationale for entering into the settlement agreement instead ofcontinuing 
removal proceedings, including the above terms, witnesses for the USMS described potential negative
outcomes and MSPB app tion obstacles the USMS may have faced had they not entered into the
settlement agreement wit The USMS also believed the MSI?Bjudge would be critical of them
for not agreeing to a settlement. The USMS told the OIG they were most concerned that the MSPB
could reverse the termination, which would have required the USMS to return 0 federal
service with the USMS, possibly to his original position, and would have extende mandatory
retirement date to account for any federal service time he had lost. We were told by USMS of?cials that
this would have been completely unacceptable to the USMS and that this was the motivating factor that
led them to enter into the settlement agreement.

 
  
 

016? and 05 Investigations ochta/t'ation by-

On ?prior to the 010?s completion of its ?rst investigatio the OIG opened
a second investigatio?in res nse to alle ations that retaliated against USMS

witnesses in the ?rst 010 investi the OIG noti?ed the USMS via email ol?the
OlG?s retaliation investigation nd two other DUSMs as subjects for
alleged retaliation and other miseon uct re ated to 0105 ?rst investigation.

 

    
 

 

noti?ed 09C ol-itolmsed removal in connection ith the ?nding

ofthe OlG?s ?rst, non-retaliation investigatio The USMS provided this notice in

 

Department ofJustice PACE: 50f 8
Of?ce lnspeJor Gent-ml CASE 

DATE: September 4, 2018

    

response to an OSC document request dated asking the USMS to identify all cases
regarding any USMS mp oyees isciplincd for "providing misleading
infomtation" and/or ?failure to follow supervisory instructions" from January I, 2012, to the present.
The USMS did not subsequently notify OSC that it entered into a settlement agreement with
withdrawing the proposed remo al, and OSC learned of the settlement agreement on fter
requesting an update oniproposed removal.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

he USMS proposed removal of
in mg retaliation by-and others.
in orme SMS that it ?consented" to the preposed

removal a complete al notification packet [mm the USMS.
However . pursuant to the earlier settlement
agreement.

OSC '5 Three Allegations Regarding USIWS Handling 0.030

In its first allegation, the OSC alleged that the USMS violated Government Accountability Of ficc (GAO)
and MSPB precedent by allowing-to be on paid administrative leave from?intil
ollowing his proposed removal in connection to the 010?s first misconduct
investigation, The OIG determined that, consistent with Department procedures, the
USMS requested and was twice granted permission by Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) for
Human Resources Administration Mari Barr Santangelo to extend -paid administrative leave
during the resolution of his personnel action. In making this request, the USMS cited to enior
and prominent position in the USMS and a lack of alternative work assi Tnments within the USMS to
which they could assign- The USMS stated further that retumingito USMS service would be
unduly disruptive, and not in the interests of the USMS and the The USMS request contained
relevant facts about the misconduct ?nding against-letailed in the completed investigation,
including sexual harassment and misuse of his government vehicle for personal business. The 010 did
not find that the USMS requests or the Department?s approvals violated GAO or MSPB precedent, or
Department policies and procedures.

 
    

In its second allegation, the OSC alleged that the USMS violated 5 C.F.R. 630.40] (Granting Sick
Leave) by allowing-to use his accrued sick leave, pending his retirement. The USMS provided the
with a letterhead memorandum statement from

 
 
  
   

 

 

equested to
eave to in at care. 1c IS a permissr use 0 Sic cave under federal law and
regulations. The OIG therefore determined that -use ofsick leave was consistent with the rules
set forth in 5 C.F.R. which states that an agency must grant sick leave to an employee
who provides care for a family member.

  

     

In its third allegation. the OSC alleged that the USMS violated 5 U.S.C. l2l4(l) (Investigation of
Prohibited Personnel Practices) by failing to notil? OSC or seek OSC's approval ol?the decision
to rescind the proposed removal Odin connection to the 010?s initial misconduct
investigation,_and allow him to retire with no disciplinary record. However. 5 U.S.C. 

12 [4(0 applies to investigations of prohibited personnel practices and provides that ?During any
investigation initiated under this subchapter, no disciplinary action shall be taken against any employee
for anv alleged prohibited activity under investigation or for any related activitv without the approval of

the Special Counsel.? As noted above, the USMS settlement a vreement with pertained to the
serious misconduct substantiated in 010 investigation ?hat resu te in roposcd

 

US. Department of Justice PAGE: 6 of 3

Oflicc ofthc Inspector General CASE NUMBER: 

DATE: September 4. 20 Ill

removal. The settlement agreement did not concern the retaliation allegations agains- which the
substantiated as the result of a separate investigation and in an 010 report issued in Februarv 20l 7
or the alle rations of rohibited ersonnel tactiees then under OSC investi ration.

   
   

The USMS Settlement Agreement with
Resulted in a Cross Waste of Taxpayer Funds

vas Gross Mismanagement and

  

USMS management failed to tim? dicate the OlG?s ?ndings of serious misconduct by-and
failed in its responsibility to hold accountable for his serious misconduct by entering into a
settlement agreement that allowed him to retire without any discipline whatsoever. In doing so. we Found
that the committed gross mismanagement that resulted in a gross waste oftaxpayer funds. While
we recognize that leaders, managers, and lawyers need to assess litigation risks in determining
whether and how to settle potential litigation matters, including personnel matters, in doing so they need
to act responsibly and consistent with their management res . onsibility. For the reasons discussed below,
we believe the actions ofthe USMS and the terms of agreement were so clearly not
reasonable that they amounted to gross mismanagement.

    

First, the USMS took approximately one ear from the date ofthe ?rst report ?nding serious
misconduct by to propose that be removed from l?ederal service and to decide tha-
appeal should be rejected and that-should be removed from federal service. However, rather than
implement the removal penalty, the USMS then took another month before entering into a settiem
agreement with -that withdrew the removal penalty and imposed no discipline whatsoever 01*
for his serious misconduct.

 

On October 27, 2015, the 010 issued a Report ol?lnvestigation to the USMS in the ?rst misconduct

investigation? that substantiated serious misconduct b_ including misuse ofa
government vc re e. eon uet unbecoming a CDUSM, failure to properly supervise, interfering with an
investigation misuse ol'govemment property, and lack ofeandor. It was not until nearly six months
later, on_that the USMS notified fhis proposed removal within 30 days pursuant to
the ?ndings in the OIG investigation. Atthat time, the USMS put-on inistrative leave and
- sought to appeal the proposed removal to the USMS Decidin Of?cial. remained on paid
administrative leave for about the next six months, fromiuntil his proposed removal date
of? for the purpose of completing the administrative discipline process. During that
timeframe the USMS made one initial and two subsequent extension requests for 'v 
vision (JMD). Administrative leave was granted 0
he does not believe 1t was reasonable for the USMS to take
approxrmate mont to propose discipline of an employee for sustained serious misconduct and then
take another 6 months to consider and reject the employee?s appeal ofthe discipline penalty while the
employee is on paid administrative leave. We found the USMS failed to carry out its proposed removal
decision in connection with the ?rst 010 investigation in a timely manner resulting in a gross waste of
taxpayer funds. We are separately issuing a Procedural Reform Recommendation to the USMS to
address this concern.

Second, o?the USMS entered into a settlement agreement witI-in connection

with the ?rst investigation which imposed no discipline whatsoever on-r he settlement

US. Department ofJusticc PAGE: '1 of 8
omel- ofthe Inspector General CASE NUMBER: 

DATE: September 4. 20m

  
 

 
    
  

agreement allowed to use AL, SL, and LWOP for?) additional months so that he could reach his

eligible law enforcement retirement date ianoided any punishment for his serious
tan I he had been proposed for a lesser punishment. such as a

misconduct and in some ways fared 
period of suspension without pay. While vas required to retire as part ofthe settlement agreement,
perhaps earlier than he had originally inten vas paid his full salary and accrued bene?ts.
including annual leave and sick leave, during an approximately 14 month period, from

without doing any work. indeed, from the time the 

provided the USMS with its first report ofserious misconduct by-n October 2015, until the date
-retired in_ We concluded that this was gross mismanagement
by the USMS that resu te a gross waste 0 taxpayer funds.

Third, in response to the OK) retaliation investigation, it took the USMS almost 3 months to determine
the appropriate discipline for for retaliating against a USMS employee who cooperated with the
first investigation. On February 20l 7, the OIG Dallas Field Of?ce issued a Report of

Investigation to the US MS in the retaliation investination substantiating the retaliation
allegations against .t was not until ?lm the USMS Discipline Management Staff
transmitted a removal proposal t?anager. However,-was on leave and was not served.

0 the USMS issued an incomplete proposed removal. The USMS failed to

provr If the ro er su orting documents at that time. id not receive a complete
removal proposal untilHEight days later, on tired with an immediate
and full law enforcement retirement under the terms ofthe prevrous ement. The failure of the USMS
to timely and properly handle the disciplinary proceedings for the retaliation finding against vas
particularl egregious in light ofthe nature and seriousness ofthe misconduct and the USM awareness
of ?nor serious misconduct. We found the actions to be amount to gross
mismanagement.

  
 
 
 
  

 

 
      
   
  
 

 
 
      
   
 

-valked away from federal service unscathed after two separate investigations determined that-
engaged in serious misconduct that warranted his removal from federal service, including:

0 Conduct Unbecoming ofa CDUSM

0 Failure to Properly Supervise

Misuse ofa Government Vehicle

Misuse of Government Property (lT System)

0 Lack of Candor, and

- Retaliation against USMS employees for reporting serious violations

Given the serious nature ofthe sustained allegations against Fad the lack of any sus ension or
other discipline whatsoever. the OIG determined that the US tailed to properly hold

accountable for his serious misconduct. Not only did -etire with a full law enforcement pension
and no discipline, these management failures and the settlement potentially send a message to USMS
employees that senior USMS of?cials will not be held to account for their serious misconduct, thereby
possibly dissuading USMS employees from coming forward to report misconduct by USMS of?cials.
We find this to be wholly unacceptable and antithetical to the interests ofaccountability for USMS
employees.

The has completed its investigation and provided its report to the USMS for its review and to
consider whether disciplinary or performance action against the USMS personnel involved in the
management failures is appropriate.

 

US. Department of.lustirc PACE: it of 8
Office ol?the Inspector Gem-nil CASE Nl MBER:

DATE: 4. 20I8

Exhibit 32

 Department ofjuslicc

()llicc [he 

 

February 23, 2017

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

224 Dirksen Senate Of?ce Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing to follow up my previous letters dated February 26, 2016,
and August 11, 2015, regarding your request on behalf of the Committee for
the Department of Justice Of?ce of the Inspector General (OIG) report of
investigation regarding allegations of retaliation against employees of the
United States Marshals Service in the Western District of Oklahoma who
cooperated with a prior OIG investigation. Enclosed is the OIG report
responsive to your request.

Please note that the report contains personnel information, and
information relevant to an ongoing investigation being conducted by the US.
Of?ce of Special Counsel. We request that it be handled with appropriate
sensitivity. The enclosed copy of the report includes redactions to
maintain con?dentiality of complainants and witnesses.

We hope that this information is helpful for the Committee?s purposes. If
you have further questions, please feel free to contact me, or Gre Sabina,
Advisor to the Inspector General for Legislative Affairs, at 

Sincerely,



Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General

Enclosure

cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

The Honorable James Lankford
United States Senate

 Department ofJustice

Of?ce of the Inspector General REPORT OF 

 

SIBJECT CASE NUMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE CONDUCTING INVESTIGATION DOJ COMPONENT
United States Marshals Service
DISTRIBUTION ST 
Field Of?ce DFO OPEN OPEN PENDING CLOSED
[x1 PREVIOUS REPORT SUBMITTED: [1 YES No
Component Date of Pren?ous Report:

ODAG
SYNOPSIS

The Office of the Ins ector General (OIG) initiated this investigation 11 on the recei of a com laint from
alleging that
net De uty L.S Marshal retire Sernor Inspector an current Tas
retaliated in numerous ways against various employees in the due to management?s
perception rat ie employees had cooperated with an OIG investigation. a eged that while OIG
agents were conducting interviews pursuant to OIG case in October 2014. and
held staff meetings and made retaliatory comments and assignment decisions in an effort to interfere
Wit tre investigation. The OIG substantiated that. . . and Supervisory Deputy US.
Marsha? retaliated against employees in connection with an OIG investigation. in that. (1)
pressure a so or mate employee by suggesting that she should disclose to her level of involvement with
an OIG investigation. in violation of the USMS Code of Professional Policv (CPR). Department of Justice (DOJ)
regulations. and Section 7(c) of the Inspector General Act of 1978: (2) directed a subordinate employee to
restrict work assignments. in violation of Section 7(c) of 1e Inspector General Act of 1978 and 5
2302(b)(8): (3) made threatening statements directed towards employees perceived to have
cooperated with the OIG. rn vrolation of the USMS CPR. DOJ regulations. and Section 7(c) of the Inspector
General Act of 1978; and (4) retaliatory statements to dissuade employees from
cooperating with the OIG investigation. in violation of the USMS CPR. DOJ regulations. and Section 7(c) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978. The OIG also concluded that- and- lacked candor diu'ing their

  
  

  
      

    
 
 
   

Force or rcer

 
  
 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 13. 2017 
PREPARED BY SPECIAL AGENT -
- - 0.9 Ity) (minnow: CASON
DATE Februarv 3. 201 7 SIGNATI RE OM :uszws Government ou=Dept3t
ILLAM.

 

 

 



?ax/?ff? a M1 a.

0319' 201 707] 3 0600'

APPROVED BY SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE RIOHIC Cason

OIG Fonn 2102 ?Superscding OIG Form 111 307348) (04 33 07!

Portions oflhe Report oflnresnganun Ina) nor be (11 amp! under the Freedom Ac! (5 US 55:) and the Puma} Ar! (5 552:1)

respective 016 interviews by denying statements they had made in the presence of employees. in violation of
CPR and DOJ regulations.

   

During the 016 investigation.

     
 
   

retaliated against him bv denving him an i )oitunitv to

     
  

The 016 substantiated the allegation that retaliated

artici ating in training with the rest of the district.

        
 
 
  

against by restricting him from

 

The OIG did tmd. however. that in connection with
reassignment to the sub-of?ce. improperly directet to claim work hours during his daily
commute in violation of ITSMS travel policy and (?ode of Federal Regulations.

 

      

 

The OIG has completed its investigation and is providing this report to the USMS and to the Of?ce of the Deputy
Attorney General for appropriate action. The 016 is referring its retaliation ?ndings to the US. Of?ce of Special

Counsel.

 

Page 2

Case Number: -

Date; February 13. 2017

ADDITIONAL 

 

 

Page 3

Case Numbel: 

Dane; Febmzuy 13? 2017

DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION
Predication

The Office of the Ins )ector General (016) initiated this investigation 11 )on the recei )t ofa com
alleging that
.. . ars ial . an( retire Senior ispector anc current Task
Force Of?cer retaliated in numerous ways against various employees in the due to
management?s perception that the employees had cooperated with an OIG investigation alleged that
while OIG agents were conducting interviews pursuant to OIG case in October 201-1.

and? held staff meetings and made retaliatory comments and assigmnent decisions in an effort to
interfere Wit 1 the 016?s investigation.

  
 
       

  
   
   

)laint front

 

    
        

 

Investigative Process

The 016?s investigative efforts consisted of reviewing of?cial e-mails. text messages. and USMS policies and
directives. The OIG conducted interviews ofthe following USMS personnel;

  
   
  
   

. US. Marshal
. Chief De )utv U.S. Marshal

Senior Ins ector (retired). Task Force Officer (current)

De iutv I IS. Marshal

 

Page 4

Case Numbel: -

Date; February 13. 2017

Standard Applied in Reaching OIG Conclusions Regarding Retaliation

Under the Whistleblower Protection Act. 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)t8)( B). to establish a retaliation claim. an employee
bears the initial burden ofshowing that the protected disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency?s decision
to take the adverse personnel action against the employee. To make this showing. an employee must only show
that the deciding official knew ofthe protected disclosure and that the action was initiated within a reasonable
time after the disclosure. Once an employee makes this showing. the burden shifts to the agency to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that it would have taken the personnel action even in the absence ofthe protected
disclosure. Evidence such as responsiveness to the suggestions in a protected disclosure or lack ofanimus against
the employee may support an agency?s rebuttal position. See Keir/er v. Dep of Hon/r11 and Human Services. 153
F.3d 1357. 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The OIG applied this legal standard in analyzing each ofthe retaliation claims
addressed in this investigation.

- and- Made Threatening Statements;_ Lack of (?andor

alleged that on October 16. 2014. the day the 016 came to the district to interview senior management
(in connection with OIG case number . and several days before an office meeting
held by about the 016?s investigation. Su eiyisory Deputy L.S. Marsha? held a squad room
meeting an told employees that- and had the right to face their aeeusers trough FOIA requests.

Additionally. during this same meeting. Senior Inspector was alleged to have made a statement to the

   

 

   

   

effect that those who c0o Jerated with the 016. ?would regret the dav we ever came to the Western District of
Oklahoma.?

 

  
   
 

The 016 inteiyiewe

   

       

of 1011) ia(
Their testimony on these topics is sunmrarized below:

. row 0( ge concerning 1e
alleged statements made by

  
  
  
  
    
 

 

  
   

     
    
 

    
 
 

heard state in the meeting that he knew who the alleged whistleblowers were and would
never trust them again. However. he did not recall making anv statement to the effect that those
who coo )erated with the OIG would regret coming to the

recalled that during this meeting. stated that had the ability to determine em lovee
testimony to the 010. but she did not perceive his statement as a threat. denied hearing make
a statement to the effect that the alleged whistleblowers would regret coming to the

heard make a statement that had the ability tln?ough the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) to fill out who was involved in the OIG investigation: however. he did not
statement as a threat.

  
  

 

Page 5

Case Number: 

Date; February 13. 2017

    
 

 

  
   
  
 
 
   

  

     

 

 
   
 

   
  
    
   
   

  

 
  

   

recalled that FOLK was mentioned in the meeting. but he could not recall if or
made reference to in connection with a statement aboutq able to identify those cooperating
with the 016. and in any event. he did not perceive the statements a out FOIA as a threat.
0
However. 
as the alleged whistleblowcrs. and saying that if the alleged whistleblowers
?survive? the OIG investigation. they should. ?start looking for a new home? adding that they would regret
coming to the
0 said that told employees that they needed to be truthful in any )otential OIG interview. a
statement that id not )er'ceive as a threat.
0 recalled describing the as a family and any issues the office was going tlu'ough
1011 re discusse openly. with a caveat rat and would have the ability to review any witness
testimony thronglr FOIA.
recalled making a statement that those who went to the ()lG )issed him oft? and he ho red

     
 

those involved in the investigation would regret coming to the

 
  
 
 

   
    

said he believed that was a messenger for upper management and his

statements were retaliatory in nature.

-mail and Text Review

 
    

not provide evidence that or personally made or were aware of other employees making the above
statements. or any other statements rrected towards those perceived to have cooperated with the 016
investigation.

- Response

The 016 conducted a comprehensive review of-and- of?cial e-mails and text messages which did

\Vhen interviewed by the 016.

  
  

said that he learned oftlre allegation through the 016
investigation ant was unsure ot its origins. turther told the 016 he never was made aware that
made any directed towards employees indicating that he arrd- had the ability to review witness
testimony related to the OIG investigation through FOIA. .

- Response

denied hearing anv allegation that nrade tln?eatening statements directed toward e111 lovees:

 

told the
as a matter of "speculation

   

016 that he recalled discussing reviewing witness testimony through FOIA with

 

Page 6

Case Number: -

Date; February 13. 2017

about. you know. who inside in the out?t. or who outside the out?t. or who. you know. what?s this all about?;
however. he denied ever making any threats directed toward employees regarding FOLA matters.

\Vhen interviewed by the OIG. denied making the statement to the effect that those em lovees who
coo cratcd with the OIG would regret coming to 

 
  

 
 
  

 
    

further denied that he or made statements that

1a re a 1 1ty rroug 1 FULA to rscover ernp testimony to the 016.

- Response

told the OIG that during the squad meeting denigrated the OIG investigation and said that those
em ovees who coo erated with the 010 would regret coming to the

   

   
    
  

    
 
 

te mg ernp oyees rat 1a the rig it to face rerr
accusers through FOLA requests. but said his statements were not intended to be retaliatory. He explained that he
was simply advising enrrlovees to tell the truth if questioned by the OIG. further stated that he was not

directed by or to make the statements to employees to in?uence reir testimony to the OIG.

 

 

  

01 ?5 Conclusion

     

evidence to substantiate tha both made other highly inappropriate statements to employees
at the squad room meeting on the same day that the 016 was undertaking interviews in the of?ce. The 016
found those statements could reasonably be viewed as discouraging cooperation with the 016 investigation and
tln?eatening retaliation against those prospective witnesses who did cooperate with the OIG. contrary to
employees obligation under regulation and order.

       

At least ?ve witnesses. including heard make a statement to the effect that those who
cooperated with the would regret coming to the and a ?fth witness referenced a separate derogatory

statement made by! towards whistleblowers. The OIG also found that! lacked candor during
1e erned making such statements. a violation of28 Code 01 Pet era Regulations (C FR)

    

his interview when
45.13. addressing duty to cooperate in an of?cial investigation and USMS Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR). Section Paragraphs 23. 26. 28. and 29 statement of fact. personal activities. conduct. and
high standards.

By his own admission to the OIG. - told employees that- and- had the right to face their
accusers and learn the identit of the whistleblowers through FOIA re ucsts. This was con?rmed by several
witnesses. who said that i made clear at the squad meeting that had the ability to determine what
employees said to the 010 during the investigation. Similar to the 016 concluded that! made
highly inappropriate statements to employees. which could reasona viewed as discouraging rem trom
cooperating with the 016 or from making any derogatory comments about- to the OIG. contrary to

   
 
 
    
   

 

Page 7

Case Number: -

Date; February 13.2017

ernployees? obligation under DOJ regulation and order. Moreover. - took rro action at the squad nreeting. or
afterwards. to address highly inappro riate and arguably even more threatening comments. despite the
fact that he was supervisor. As sueli.P- was responsible for_ and his
inaction could on _v rave sent the unmistakable message to attendees that he was supportive of-
staternents. In contrast to however- was candid during his 016 interview about his own
conduct and that of which may serye to mitigate the consequences for his actions. The OIG
determined misconduct violated Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Section 
Paragraphs 26. 28. and 29 addressing personal activities. conduct. and high standards. The 016 further concluded
that both and violated the Inspector General Act of 1978. Section which
prohibits any who has authority to take. direct others to take. recommend. or approve any personnel
action. from taking or threatening to take any action against any employee as a reprisal for making a complaint or
disclosing information to an Inspector General. and 5 ITSC 2302 (R) (R) which prohibits any employee who
has authority to take. direct others to take. recommend. or approve any personnel action. from taking or
threatening to take any action against any employee as a reprisal for disclosing information to the Special Counsel
or Inspector General

   

 
 
  
  

   

 

Page 8

Case Number: -

Date; February 13. 2017

Page 9

Case Numbel: -

Dane; 13? 2017

 

Page 10

Case Numbel: -

Dane; 13? 2017

 

Page 11

Case Numbel: -

Dane; 13? 2017

 

 

Page 12

Case Numbel: -

Dane; 13? 2017

Page 13

Case Numbel: -

Dane; 13? 2017

 

 

 

Page 14

Case Numbel: -

Dane; 13? 2017

 

 

Page 15

Case Numbel: -

Dane; 13? 2017

 

   

- in- Presence, Intimidated-; - Lack of (Tandor
reported tha

by during which
stated that. following her meeting with
support special assignment details.

  

    
    
  

witnessed

con?ded in him about an ??iurcomtortable? meeting she had with
questioned her regarding her involvement in the 016 investigation.
and

 

was one of the few deputies that allowed to

     

    
   
   
 

 
   

told the 016 that. in March 2015. she had a conversation with
who told her tha confided in him about a meeting had with According to
expressed that she was summoned to the basement area of the ottrce by and
iere they both began to as about her level of involvement. if any. in the OIG investigation.
on to say also told that both- and- told her that she needed to approach

give him her support if she wished to be assigned to any future special details.

a told the 016 that confided in him about the meeting she had with! and- in which
tiev I asked where 1er ovalties lie and whose side she was on regarding 1e 0 (j investigation.
said told him that. suggested tell

good deputy. said that he could not recall if

      

  
  
  

 

went
and

 

 
  
  
 

   
   
 

that she was 011 his side and that she was a
told him who initiated the meeting.

  
 

  
 

 

- told the 016 that sometime in February 2015. she felt increasingly frustrated because! denied several
requests to support her counter surveillance collateral dutv assignments. while other de uties [11 re district were

given the ortunities to su ort their collateral duties.
said that on one occasion. 5 1e spoke to about her concerns and

made the decision not to send employees out on special assigrunents; however. he would talk to
about her request. - said later that day! came to her and said. ?let?s take a walk.?
rat 5 1e and walked to a vacant cafe down in re )asernent of the building where- met rem.
allegedly told that was present as a witness because he did not know who he could trust in the
district. a statement which she assumed was related to the 016 investigation.

     

 
 
 
   

  

said

   

said

    
  

 
     

told that the ensuing conversation was not to leave the room. adding that her name was continuously
up in 1e OIG investigation as a person who might be involved. - expressed to- that she was
not involved in the 01G investigation. to which - replied that he believed there were employees who were

 

Page 16

Case Number: -

Date; February 13. 2017

involved and other employees who are ?sitting on the sidelines watching the show getting a kick out of it."
Regarding supporting special assigmnents. said that- asked her why he should reward employees who
are involved with the OIG investigation with special assignment details. to which responded that her
collateral duties were her job and not a special favor. said that- told her rat he needed to know where
her loyalties lie regarding the OIG investigation. adding that- needed to hear her say something to that
effect. said that she told that she was loyal to the district. had a good work experience in the of?ce.
and if asked by the OIG. she would state she never witnessed any sexual harassment. misuse of any goverrnnent
vehicles. or time and attendance fraud. which- expressed to the 016 was the truth. said that told
her that she needed to let know that she was a ?team player? and thank him for letting 1er go out on 1er
special assigmnent. told the OIG that shortly after her meeting with and she was allowed to

support a special mission. - also sent an to- dated February 16. 2015. thanking- for
allowing her to support her special assigmnent and expressing her support for the district.

 

   

     
     
  

 

 

When asked if she felt tln'eatened during this meeting with- and- responded. little bit. yes.?
further elaborated as to why she felt tln'eatened by saying ?Well. it was defmitel clear that my work.
quali

of work life was going to be based on how I reacted to that conversation." said she felt that if she
told she sided with the OIG investigation. she would not be allowed to support her counter surveillance

collateral duty special assignment. thus exacerbating her feeling that she would be rewarded or punished

depending on who she sided with. said that the only other two employees she con?ded in concerning the
aforementioned meeting was and

      
 

   
 

   
  
 

When interviewed by the 016.

   

recalled being present at the meeting with and said
the meeting was related to ability to support an upcoming counter srnveillance collateral duty assigmnent.
and that rior to the meeting. pulled him aside and told him that he needed to talk to - Once the
found described that Ire and brought her into the ?snack bar.? said that sincei
was being investigated for an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate female employee. he
interpreted his presence at the meeting as that of a witness. because did not want to be alone with another
female employee. stated that during this meeting. told that her name kept being brought up in
the DIG investigation. also confnmed that rat some were on the sidelines
watching the ?show.? re erencing the OIG investigation. could not recall if ever asked- which
?side" she was on in relation to the OIG investigation; however. he did recall telling that she had not
spoken to or cooperated with the 016. - recalled telling that she wanted to do her job. which
included her cormter smveillance collateral duties: however. could not recall if! ever posed the
uestion to of why he should ?reward? employees that assisted the 016 with specra assignment details.
i said asked where her loyalties lie regarding the 016 investigation. and- also told-
that she needed to tell that she was a team player. said that shortly after this meeting.
allowed to go on a counter surveillance collateral duty assigmnent. recalled feeling a little ?weird" hem
present at the meeting and that he was only listening to about half of the conversation between! and
Toward the conclusion of his DIG interview. said that he does not believe is lying a out her
testimony to the 01G. adding. ?is Depu a liar. absolutely not. Is that Deputy statement. is it 100%
true. if she said it. I would venture to say yes it?s probably correct, but do I recall it. no I don?t - did
not know if- ever went to to express her loyalty as - suggested she should.

   

  
         

 
  
 

 
  

  
    
  

to

 

  
     

      
     
  
    

 
    
   

 
 

  
  

 

 

 

 
  

 
  

 
 

 

Page 17

Ca se Number: 

Date: February 13. 2017

- Response

Dining his 016 interview. - said that he recalled the meeting between him and with as a
witness. but denied that the meeting was a ?lo alty test.? or that he tried to ascertain leve cooperation
with the 016 investigation. - said thati initiated the meeting in an effort to speak with him about
participating in an upcoming special assigrunent. adding that during this conversation. it was not he. who
brought up the OIG investigation. maintained that volunteered to him that she had nothing to do with
the 016 coming into the district: however. did acknowledge that. may have mentioned that her name had
been rumored. or had come 11 . But not kept coming up.? said that he told that he appreciated her
comments and added that would appreciate her support as well. denied ever directing. to go to
in a show of her support with respect to the OIG investigation. further told the OIG that he never
questioned- about her level of partici ation in the 016 investigation nor did he instruct her to go to
and tell him that she was a ?team player." denied questioning about which side she was on in the
OIG investigation. claimed that he never posed any question to concerning rewarding employees
with special assigmnents versus cooperating with the 016.

told the OIG that he only became aware of the meeting between-- and- though the OIG
investigation. - denied that- came to him to express that she was ?loyal to the District? or a ?team
player.?

   
 

 
   
   

 

 
 

   

     
  

 

 
    

OI ?5 Conclusion

The OIG determined that - irrtirnidated- by questioning her about her level of participation in the OIG
investigation. by bringing another supervisory DUSM with him when he did so. and by suggesting that future
special assigmnents depended on whether she sided with management or the OIG. The GIG determined-
could reasonably lrave construed these circumstances and highly inappropriate eonmrents as chilling her
??om cooperating with the OIG mvestigation. and as threatenmg retaliation if she did not side with rnana gement in
the OIG investigation. The conclusion is supported by the greater credibilit of account to the
01G. which was largely corroborated by- testimony. and in art. by testimony about the
encounter. To the extent that- account is inconsistent withh and the OIG considered the
differences to be self-serving and not credible. The 01G also considered the location and the circumstances under
which the discussion occurred. which supported an inference that knew that topics discussed were
inappropriate and that his conduct was not proper. In addition. sup orted the credibility of and the
DIG did not learn of an witnesses reporting derogatory information about Furthermore. told the
OIG that. like i has all of the tools and skills to be a star. I think- has grown a lot in the
last three or four years since she's been there.?

 

   
       

 
  

 

Moreover. the 016 concluded that- lacked candor in his statements to the 01G by denying he questioned or
pressured regarding her level of involvement in the 016 investigation. a violation of. 28 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). addressing duty to cooperate in an official investigation. and USMS Code of Professional
Responsibility (C PR). Section Paragraphs 23. 26. 28. and 29 addressing statement of fact. ersonal activities.
and high standards. The OIG further determined that- misconduct against a violated Section

 

 

Page 18

Case Number: 

Date: February 13. 201?

7(ci ol? the Inspector General Act of 1978. which prohibits any employee who has authority to take. direct others
to take. reconunend. or approve any personnel action from taking or threatening to take any action against any
employee as a reprisal for making a complaint or disclosing information to an Inspector General. and 5 
2302 (8) (B) which prohibits any employee who has authority to take. direct others to take. recommend. or
approve any personnel action. from taking or threatening to take any action against any employee as a reprisal for
disclosing information to the Special Counsel or Inspector General

 

For his part.- as a supervisory DUSM who observed misconduct. had an obligation to report
actions pursuant to USMS (PR. Section I: Paragrap 1 3o. addressing failure to report Violations of
prescribed regulations. statutes or laws to appropriate management of?cials. He failed to do so.

shortcomings under these circumstances are mitigated by his candor during his 016 inten'iew about this incident.

  

 

Page 19

Case Number: -

Date; February 13. 2017

 



- Retaliated Against- by Not Allowing Him to Work Arrest \Varrants

  
  

   
  

   

further alleged that directed supervisor. to con?ne to working
only his assigned Class 1 warrants. thus denying him the ortunity to assist the task force with their warrants.

Additionally.? asserted that 011 April 20. 2015. was reprimanded by? for allowing
- ant arrot rer deputy to assist the task force. explained to the OIG rat Class 1 warrants were

usually federal warrants for probation violations and task force warrants mainly consisted of a variety of state
warrants. murder. sexual assaults. robbery. etc.

 
 

 

   

arrest warrant rotation an tie a 1ty to wor arrest warrants outsr 01 ten 1e lass- warrants. Their

testimony on this topic is summarized below:

said that as the task force coordinator. he routinely sends out e-mails to all deputies assigned to the
requesting assistance with task force warrants. However. of the approximately ?ve de uties assigned
to the general operations squad. he estimated only one or two deputies. not including? routinely
show up to assist. explained to the OIG that deputies in the general operations squad who were
assigned Class 1 warrants were expected to work on their assigned caseload ?rst before assisting the task
force. qstated that no one has ever directed him to tell that he could only work Class 1
warrants an not assist the task force.

- ant:- stated that they were never restricted from working warrants beyond their assigned
ass 1 warrants

  
   

 

   

  

did not have any knowledge that- was reprimanded by - tor allow 1110 him and-
to the task torce during working hours 011 April 20 201?.

told the OIG that it was an understanding with the deputies assigned to the general operation squad.
me 11 mg that if deputies were ?nished early with their court duties dru'ing working hours. the
priority was to work on their assigned Class 1 warrants before assisting the task force. stated that task
force coordinator would routinely send out e-nrails requesting assistance with tas orce warrant
operations. most of which were after hours.
assisting or working task force warrants after hours.

   

 

 

stated that he was never denied a request to participate in

  
    
  
  

recalled that he was told by his supervisor. that during regular horns he was to work on his
own Class 1 warrants and if his schedule permitted. 1e could articipate with the task force after hours.
further stated that he did not have any knowledge of being reprimanded for allowing him and
to assist the task force with a warrant during work hours.
0 said that as the acting warrants superyisor. no deputy has ever expressed to him displeasm'e

concerning the warrant rotation.

 

Page 20

Case Number: -

Date: February 13. .2017

  
 
     
 
  

 

and told the OIG that in response to the task force experiencing a backlog of warrants. a
decision was made that deputies assigned to the general operations squad would carry a case load of Class 1
warrants. agreed that when deputies assigned to general operations were ?nished with court early
they could work their Class 1 warrants and were welcome to su 011 the task force after horu?s. Neither

nor was directed by management to single out and restrict him to work only Class
1 warrants. an was free to assist the task force after tours. described an incident where

questioned his decision to allow to assist the task force on a warrant during
wor rig horu?s. explained to were the 0111 two deputies who were
available to support request that ay. ?as ed me why is out with the

warrants. and I was like. there were only two guys in the of?ce; I sent who I had. They needed hel When
asked why he would be reprimanded by- for letting- help on this case.
res onded. ?That would be an interesting question. That would be a deputy -- or a Chief question.?

i told the OIG that his interpretation of line of questioning was. if given the same scenario in the
should send another available deputy instead of

was singling out for reasons unknown to .
1e was reprimanded by tor allowing him to assist the tas force.

E-mail and Text Review

 

 
 
    

   
   

   

   
    
  
 
 

 

  

future. thus giving the appearance that

admitted that he told- that

  
 

The OIG conducted a comprehensive review of and! of?cial e-mails and text messages. which
did not result in evidence showing tlrat- or any ot er employee retaliated against by
restricting him to only work his assigned Class 1 warrants. The 016 did discover ntnnerous e-mails sent by

- to all- deputies. including- requesting their availability to assist the task force after

hours.

- Response

When interviewed by the OIG. denied directing any supervisor to exclude from working with
the task force as a form of retaliation. - explained that all deputies assigned tot general operations squad.
including are assigned Class 1 warrants and are expected to work their caseload before participating
with the tas torce. said that all deputies are allowed to assist the task force after hours: however. it is his
understanding that does not routinely participate with the task force after hours. could not recall
any conversation rere 1e r?eprirnanded- for allowing- and- to assist task force during
working hours.

- Response

During his OIG interview. - said the only time he inquired about the warrant rotation was to ensure all
employees were available for any potential OIG interviews.

  

  
  
   

01 ?5 Conclusion

The OIG investigation found that there was suf?cient evidence to substantiate the allegation that retaliated
against- by directing a subordinate employee to restrict_ to work only his assigned Class 1

 

Page 21

Case Number: -

Date; February 13. 2017

warrants. further denying him the opportunity to participate with the task force. The conclusion is supported
by lack ofcarrdor with the 01G during this investigation (as described )reyiously) and the greater
credibility of account. wlrere- acknowledged that it appeared had singled out
he instructed to send another deputy to assist with task force warrants 111 re future. Furthermore.
corroborated assertion tlrat- told- that he (- was reprimanded by for
allowing him to work with the task force during his dirty hours. Based on this corroboration of the contemporary
account by the OIG also found tlrat- lacked candor during his interyiew when he denied making such
statements to a violation onS Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 45.13. addressing duty to cooperate in an
of?cial inyestrgatron and USMS Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Section li Paragraphs 23. 20. 2C. and
29 addressing statement of fact. personal actiyities. conduct. and high standards. Additionally. the OIG concluded
tlrat- violated the Inspector General Act of 1978. Section 7tc). which prohibits any employee
who has to take. direct others to take. recommend. or' approve any personnel action. from taking or
tlu?eatening to take any action against any employee as a reprisal for making a complaint or disclosing information
to an Inspector General. and 5 USC 2303 (B) which prohibits any employee who has authority to take.
direct others to take. or approve any personnel action. from taking or threatening to take any action
against any employee as a reprrsal for disclosing information to the Special Counsel or Inspector General.

    
  

when

   
 

   
 

 

 

Page 22

Case Number: -

Date; February 13. 2017



 

Page 23

Case Numbel: -

Dane; 13? 2017






During his 016 inten'iew. stated that

Additionally. directed to utilize his GOV and commute
to and from his residence sub-of?ce.
further provrc ec the 016 wit 1 an e-mar exc range etween 11111 and
not to leave his residence before 7:30 am. and
commute

  
  

 

dated November 4. 2014. where
ensure he is back at this residence no later than 5:30 11,111.. incorporating a segment of
into his hours of work.

It is a Violallull of US. Marshals Service Travel Policy Manuel. Chapter 301?Te111porary Duty (TDY) Travel
Allowances. SUI-2.5.3. Authorizing Of?cials? Responsibilities. ifarr authorizing official does not limit an
authorization which may constitute an inef?cient management of travel and a waste of resources. and a
Violation of 5 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 550.1120) (2). of Overtime Work. FLSA-exempt
employees. normal commuting time from home to work and work to home cannot count as hours of work.

 

 

Page 24

Case Number: 

Date; February 13. 2017

 -muil and Text Review

The 016 conducted a coin rehensix?e review of of?cial e-niails and text messages

In an e-mail. dated November 4. 2014. in
reference to commute from his residence to the sub-of?ce. - instructs- to. ?Make
sure you leave so you?re home no later than 1730. Conversely I don?t ex met you to leaVe your house before
0730.? Additionally the 016 did discm'er e-rnail exchanges between and . between NoVember
2014 and April 2015. and subse merit to -reassignment to th sub-ottice. where the two
3 )eei?callV comment on timeliness to work.

Page 25

Case Number: -

Date; Febiuan' 13? 2017

 

 
  
    
 

   
 

admitted that he
addressed time via e-mail instructing him to leave his residence no later than 7:30 am. and to
ensure he is me at this residence at 5:30 thus allowing to include his commute time into his work
schedule. Additionally. regarding? told the DIG ?You know. I said make sure. make
sure you're home by 5:30. and. and. you know. so I don't expect you to leave before 7:30. Yeah. it was all. it was all
based on. I think. knowing how far I thought that it would be. so.? The 016 read- USMS policy Directive
which speci?cally states that mileage for home to work travel must be no greater that the mileage of
the commute as indicated on the employee?s Form-90 (home to work transportation authorization). In
addition. these certi?cations have to be completed every year for each employee or if there is a change in address.
acknowledged that he was aware of the aforementioned and when asked why- USM Form-90 was
idated to re?ect his new commute to the- sub-of?ce. did not )rovide any ex ilanation. stating
USM Form-90 also mav have other "inaccuracies.?

  
 

     
  
 

01 ?5 Conclusion

 

. the OIG determined that violated U.S. Marshals Service Travel
Policy Manuel. Chapter 301?Te111porary Dutv (.TDY) Travel Allowances. 301-253 Authorizing Of?cials?
Responsibilities. by unilaterally authorizing. to in his in excess of 200 miles each day
from his residence to his place of duty. whic iconstitutes an inef?cient management of travel and a waste of

USMS resoru?ces. and 5 CF 550.1120) (2). Computation of Overtime Work. by allowing- to include a
segment of his as hours of work.

- Retaliated Against- by Denying- Participation in Training
This allegation was developed during the 016 investigation when- was interviewed.

During his 016 interview.
training and

   
  
 

stated that on April 3. 2015. he inquired with- about upcoming ?rearms
the ortunity to participate in the training located approximately 20 minutes
from his residence. stated that? said he was to receive the training alone at th- sub-of?ce.

further believed refused to allow him to participate in the atorementioned training out of
retaliation for his perceived cooperation with the 016 investigation.

The 016 interviewed-- and- regarding- participation in the training.

denied

   
  

 

Page 26

Case Number: -

Date; February 13. 2017

 

said that shortly after he sent his district wide e-mail on April 3. 2015. related to ?rearms training. he
contacted regarding whether! should also participate in the training in light of his reassignment
to said that. ?the 011 ring that I remember the Chief saying more consistently is that we
have to. like. we have to isolate from the district in light of everything that?s going on [in
reference to the OIG investigation] went on to say that. ?He definitely is. since. in the wake
of the investigation. he has de?nitely sar we?re. he?s isolating . He?s handling his training and
everything independently of everyone else.? could not de?nitively recall if his conversation with
regarding the aforementioned was in erson or via phone. then told- that! at a later
ate. would travel to and qualify According for
sub-of?ce to be trained separately. When asked if he believed
ierng ?isolated" from the training as a result of the 016 investigation.

corroborated! testimony to the OIG bv
acknowledging he had told that would be trairre se arate from the district at the

su-b
of?ce. A review 01 e-rnail. dated April 3. 2015 to ?i subject ?Training.? indicated that

the training would have occurred dining normal duty hours. with the exception of low-light training. which
was to commence at 6:00 am.

0 Sometime in March or A ril 2015. recalled instructing him that in addition to conducting an
inspection in the re would also rave to qualify-

E-mail and Text Review

 
  
     
  

  
 

5?

   

 

         
 
 
   
  

 
      
  
  

 

employees assigned to the
comment regarding
said. ?More or less. yes." Additionally.

    
     
 

 
  

   

   

The OIG conducted a comprehensive review of and- of?cial e-mails and text messages and
found no evidence to support the allegation that denial of a training opportunity was a retaliatory
measure in response to his perceived cooperation with the 01G investigation.

- Response

When interviewed the 010. said that lristoricall 'the employees assigned to sub-of?ce were

trained in explained that. know and? are the two guys that
basically run a 1e training. So. they would've any time Here's going to a training they?re going to be sending

those e-mails out." When asked if he advocated to be trained alone. said. ?He wouldn't have been
told to train alone. It's just that we always train the guys ir-. And so that would?ve been the onlv
reason.? went on to say he was unaware of any proximity issues between this speci?c training and
residence. When asked if he had any conversation with regarding? training request. where he told

that was to be isolated and trained alone. res onde . 0.110." adding that. would never
have told him that.? also stated that having trained independently was not retaliation in
response to the OIG investigation.

   
       

   
 
 
   

 

 
  

 

 
  

  
 

   

010?s Conclusion

The 016 investigation found that there was suf?cient evidence to substantiate the allegation that retaliated
against- by directing a subordinate employee to restrict- from participating in training. further
denying him the ortunity to participate in training with the rest of the district. The conclusion is
supported by? previous lack of candor to the 01G and the greater credibility of- account. where

 

Page 27

Case Number: -

Date; February 13. 2017

 

is detailed in recalling that

  
 

specifically told him. in regards to the upcoming training in April 2015.
was to be "isolated? down in the- sub-of?ce in light of the investigation. Moreover. the
016 determined that lacked candor during his interview when he denied making such statements to

a violation of28 Co of Federal Regulations (CFR) 45.13. addressing duty to cooperate in an official
investigation and USMS (?ode of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Section F. Paragraphs 23. 26. 28. and 29
addressing statement of fact. personal activities. conduct. and high standards. Additionally. the OIG concluded
that misconduct violated the Inspector General Act of 1978. Section 71c). which prohibits any employee
who has authority to take. direct others to take. reconunend. or approve any persoiniel action. from taking or
threatening to take any action against any employee as a reprisal for making a complaint or disclosing information
to an Inspector General. and 5 USC 2302 (8) (B) which prohibits any employee who has authority to take.
direct others to take. or approve any personnel action. from taking or threatening to. take any action
against any employee as a reprisal for disclosing information to the Special ('ounsel or Inspector General.

 

 

 

Page 28

Case Number: -

Date; February 13. 2017

 

 

The 010 has completed it< inveetigation and ic providing this report to the USMS and to the Of?ce of the Deputy
Attorney General for appropriate action. The OIG is referring its retaliation ?ndings to the US. Of?ce of Special
Counsel.

 

Page 29

Case Number: 

Date; 13? 2017

Exhibit 33

 Department ()l?Juslicc

Inspector (it?nt?l?ul

 

December 8, 2017

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing in response to your letter dated August 24, 2017, in which
you requested, on behalf of the Committee, the dispositions of allegations of
reprisal by whistleblowers in the US. Marshals Service (USMS) of?ce in the
Western District of Oklahoma (WDOK) and allegations against these
whistleblowers. Your staff has provided the OIG signed consent forms from
Deputy U. S. Marshals (DUSM) ,and-
in which they authorize the Of?ce of the Inspector General (OIG) to
share their personally identifiable information with your staff.

      
 

In September 2014, the OIG initiated an investigation into allegations of
fraud, misuse of a government vehicle, and inappropriate behavior against high
ranking USMS of?cials. During this investigation, which the OIG closed in
October 2015, we interviewed several personnel from the WDOK of?ce as
witnesses, including DUSMS -, -, and The 
?ndings are described in the partially redacted report that we provided to your
of?ce in our letter dated February 26, 2016.

With respect to DUSM in June 2015, the OIG initiated an
investigation upon the receipt of a complaint from alleging that the
US. Marshal, Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal (CDUSM), and a Task Force Officer in
the WDOK retaliated in numerous ways against various employees in the WDOK
due to management?s perception that the employees had cooperated with the
above described OIG investigation. The OIG closed the retaliation investigation
in February 2017 and provided a partially redacted report detailing our ?ndings
to your of?ce in our letter dated February 23, 2017.

In September 2015, upon referral from the USMS, the OIG initiated an
investigation into allegations made by the CDUSM that made an
obscene sexual gesture with a baseball bat behind the back in the
presence of other employees. The OIG did not substantiate this allegation and

closed the investigation in February 2017. We are enclosing a partially redacted
report of investigation (ROI) detailing our ?ndings in this matter.1

In A ril 2016, the USMS forwarded to the OIG additional allegations by
DUSM that he was being subjected to retaliation by USMS of?cials in
WDOK. The OIG referred allegations that were not already part of our then-
ongoing retaliation investigation to the USMS for handling as it deemed
appropriate.

 

In late 2016, the USMS referred allegations of sexual harassment and
credit card misuse against - to the OIG. In March 2017, the OIG
returned these allegations to USMS for its handling and required USMS to
provide the OIG with a copy of its investigative report upon completion. We have
not yet received the investigative report.

With respect to DUSM the OIG investigated allegations of
retaliation by WDOK of?cials against in the investigation described
above that was initiated in June 2015. The OIG reported our ?ndings in an ROI
issued in February 2017; a partially redacted report detailing our ?ndings was
provided to your of?ce in our letter dated February 23, 2017. In January 2017,

submitted additional allegations of reprisal by WDOK of?cials to the
OIG. In a letter to - dated March 2, 2017 we informed him that the OIG
was not opening an investigation into his allegations, because he indicated that
he had already presented his allegations to the Of?ce of Special Counsel.

 
 

In A ril 2016, the USMS forwarded to the OIG allegations from DUSM
The OIG referred allegations not already part of our then?
ongoing retaliation investigation, which as noted above was closed in February
2017 to the USMS for handling as it deemed appropriate.

   

In March 2017, the USMS referred to the OIG a complaint alleging that
DUSM - improperly distributed copies of a publicly available OIG
summary of investigative ?ndings whose subject was another WDOK of?cial and
made a social media posting about the ?ndings. In July 2017, the OIG
sent a memorandum to Acting Director David Harlow regarding the complaint
against -. I have enclosed a copy of this memorandum.

 

1 This ROI relates to an unsubstantiated allegation and contains personnel information.
Therefore we request that it be handled with appropriate sensitivity. Information was redacted
from the report to maintain the con?dentiality of complainants and witnesses.

2

We hope that this information is helpful for the Committee?s purposes. If
you have further questions, please feel free to contact me, or Greg Sabina,

Advisor for Legislative Affairs, at 

Sincerely,



Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General

Enclosures:
Report of Investigation for OIG Case
- Memorandum dated July 11, 2017, from Inspector General Horowitz to
US. Marshals Service Acting Director Harlow

cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

 Department ofJustice

Of?ce of the Inspector General REPORT OF 

 

SIBJEC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INVESTIGATION DOJ COMPONENT
Dallas Field Of?ce United States Marshals Service
DIS 
Field Of?ce DFO OPEN ll PENDING CLOSED
[x1 REPORT SUBMITTED: [1 YES [x1 NO
Component Date of Pren?ous Report:

Other
SYNOPSIS

The Of?ce of the Ins ector General (OIG) initiated this investigation 11 on the recei ofa com laint from
alleging that
made an obscene sexua gesture WII 1 a
tie presence ot ot ier emp ovees alleged that- simulated performing oral sex on tie at in the

general orerations area in public view and in the presence of other employees while - was conversing with

The 016 interviewed

 
  

  
  
 

 

regarding the alleged
111c1 ent.

    
 
    
   

 
 
    

said it was brought to his attention that on
the general operations area.

. while he was in conversation with in
made an obscene sexual gesture by simulating oral sex with a baseball
bat directed toward- did not witnes. make the gesture. as his back was
toward at the time. he recalled learning of the incident from either-or
recalled

ma 'e any obscene sexual gestures with a baseball bat.

after their conversation. then approached

 
 
 
     

 

witnessed speaking with
and asked if he had witnessed

 

using a

 

 

   

 

 

February 13. 2017 

 

 

 

PREPARED BY SPECIAL AGENT

 

 

 

 

DATE 7 DI tall edb MONTE cason
Febl?llal'} l3 - ~017 In A - 0:220:qu 0'
APPROVED BY SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE 310nm A 

Date PC1702 ?142506 0600

 

010 Palm 210 2 ?Supersm'mg OIC Farm/'11 307 48) (04 33 07/

Puritans q?lile Repair of 1m wugunun mu; not be ?temp! the rem/um quIifuImunun Ar (5 CS 553) and (he Pmuq I (5 (I 5 55 2:11

baseball bat to simulate performing oral sex behind the back of - to which- responded that he had
not.

  
 

     

and

   
   
  
   
  

observed conversing in the general operations area witl back to where
was sitting. sar that at one oint she looked and observe simulating oral

sex using a baseball bat toward the direction of anF. further recalled that directly after
the meeting.- approached-an questrone actions; rowever. she did not recall if
admitted making a sexual gesture with the baseball bat.

said that while he was conversing with in the general 0 erations area. he observer

use his baseball bat to simulate oral sex. interpreted simulated sexual gestures as
suggesting that was cmrying favor wrti . about 11c 1 stated. ?just because I?m talking
to the doesn?t mean I?m kissing his butt.? following his meeting with
addressed the situation with to which responded. don?t give a fuck: I don?t give a
fuck:? and continued laughing.

said that although he did not witness the incident. he was made aware of the allegation from
an said that after he spoke with about the incident. made him aware of
the systemic computer problems he was experiencing. explained to that he was simulating
racking a shotgun to his head using a baseball bat due to frustrations with his computer. and denied using the
baseball bat in any sexual manner.

   

    
    
  

 

 
    

   

   

 

   

    

     
 

   

said directed him to investigate the bat incident involving . During review.
explained that due to systemic computer issues. he simulated using his baseball bat as a shotgun to.
out frustration with his computer. ?blow his head off not to simulate oral sex said that
submitted a USN-210 regarding his claim as well as con?rmation from supervisor.
the time of the incident he was experiencing systemic computer issues.

 
   

 
 
  

that at

When interviewed by the 016.! denied making any obscene sexual gestures with his baseball bat by
simulating oral sex and maintainer rat re used the bat to simulate racking a shotgun and shooting himself in the
mouth in a show of frustration over systemic computer issues. - said at the time was meeting
with-. he had his baseball bat in his hands and ?cocked it like it was a description to
the of 110w he used the baseball bat was similar to that of the witness accounts. In support of his claim that
his shotgun sinmlation was out of frustration over related trouble! provided the 016 with e-
mail docurnentation reflecting his cormnunication with USMS information tee mo ogy staff regarding computer
problems he was having at the time of the incident.

  
 

 

   
   

 

The 016 did not substantiate the allegation that made an obscene sexual gesttu'e towards with a
baseball bat in ublic view and in the resence of other em loyees. The OIG investigated and reported under
case numberi allegations thati retaliated against because of his
cooperation with the 016. In that report the OIG discussed whether engaged in retaliatory discipline
agains arising from this alleged incident.

   
   

 

 

The 016 has completed its investigation and is providing this report to the USMS for information.

 

Page 2

Case Number: 

Date: February 13. 2017

 U.S. Department of ustice


Wm


I

()llit.55. -.
-. . 
.- .
'46/ al-

 

July 11,2017

MEMORANDUM FOR: David Harlow
Acting Director
United States Marshals Service

FROM: A/Mvi??ael E. Horowg

Inspector General

    

SUBJECT: USMS Referral of
Re ardin DUSM

Com laint

I am writing to memorialize prior communications between our of?ces
regarding the referral by the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to

Ins ector General OIG of a complaint by United States Marsham
about Deputy United Sta a1 (DUSM)
Marshal omplained that DUSM istributed

c0pies of an OIG summary of investigative ?ndin s, which was publicly available
on the web site, and that DUSM imade a social media posting
about the same public summary of investigation. As described in the 

investigation issued to the USMS on February 13, 2017, DUSM
was intervie the 01G during the investigation of alleged
miscon uct by Marshal former Chief DUSM- and others.

The OIG reviewed the referral, and we determined that DUSMF
actions did not violate any law, rule, regulation, or policy. Moreover, is actions
may as protected speech. For these reasons, it is our view that
DUSMWconduct should not be subject to any investigation, and that

  
      

 
 
    

  
  

  
 
  

it should not be subject to any administrative action. We be' any
investigation of, or any personnel action taken against, DUSM as a
result of the actions about which Marshal -complained cou reasonably

be viewed as reprisal for his cooperation with the OIG, and would be contrary to
the protections afforded to whistleblowers under federal law.

The summ of investigative ?ndings and social media posting about
which Marshal complained the conclusion, among other
?ndings, that former Chief DUSM a Supervisory Deputy United States

Marshal, and a Senior Inspector each retaliated against subordinate employees

as a result of the employees? pe operation with the prior OIG
investigation. Significantly, DUSM was among the witnesses who

provided information to the OIG during its investigation of these allegations. The
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act prohibits any employee who has
authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel
action, from taking or threatening to take any action against any employee in
reprisal for disclosing information to the Inspector General.

I understand that you agree with the OIG's conclusion that neither the
mo nor the nexus should take any action against DUSM _in re
to Marshal _complaint, and that further education of Marshal
about whistleblower protections would be appropriate. Please contact me if you
have any questions about this memorandum, or our handling of this referral.

 

Exhibit 34

US. Department of Justice

Office of the Inspector General

 

 

October 26, 2016

The Honorable Charles Grassley
Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

224 Dirksen Senate Of?ce Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing in response to your letter dated September 9, 2016, requesting
on behalf of the Committee information pertaining to an Of?ce of the Inspector
General (OIG) investigation into alleged unauthorized disclosures to the media by
US. Marshals Service (USMS) personnel.

In response to the Committee?s request and in consultation with your staff,
we have enclosed the following materials regarding the 010?s involvement in the
matter that we understand is of interest to the Committee.

0 OIG Abbreviated Report of Investigation, 

Memorandum from OIG General Counsel to USMS Chief Inspector, dated
January 25, 2016;

Memorandum from OIG General Counsel to USMS Chief Inspector, dated
February 8, 2016; and

Memorandum from OIG General Counsel to USMS Acting Assistant
Director, Office of Professional Responsibility, dated March 28, 2016.

OIG documents relating to investigations or potential investigations contain
protected information and should be handled with appropriate sensitivity. For
that reason, we are providing these documents with minimal redactions.

We hope that this information is helpful for the Committee?s purposes. If

you have further uestions, please feel free to contact me, or my Chief of Staff, Jay

Sincerely,



Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

US. Department of Justice

Of?ce of the Inspector General ABBREVIATED REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

 

 

SUBJECTS CASE NUMBER

Unknown 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE CONDUCTING INVESTIGATION DOJ COIWPONENT
Washington Field Of?ce United States Marshals Service
STATUS
Field Of?ce WFO OPEN OPEN PENDING PROSECUTION CLOSED
AIGINV PREVIOUS REPORT SUBMITTED: [l YES NO
Component USMS Dale of Previous Report:
ll Other
Other
SYNOPSIS

The Department of Justice (001) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this investigation upon
the receipt of information from the United States Marshals Service (USMS) Office of Professional
Responsibility that an unknown individual or individuals had disclosed information to Wall Street
Journal reporter Devlin Barrett without authorization concerning the USMS use of planes and cell
signals to track criminal suspects. This disclosure resulted in Wall Street Journal articles dated
November 13, 2014 and November 14,2014, discussing the technical program.

The OIG determined that the disclosure to the Wall Street Journal constituted a protected disclosure
under the Whistleblower Protection Act and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. As such,
the 016 also determined that any personnel action resulting from an investigation would likely be
construed as reprisal for making a protected disclosure and therefore directed this investigation be
closed.

The 010 has completed its investigation and is providing this report to the USMS for its review.

 

 

 

M) Lav SIGNATURE

 

 

 

PREPARED BY SPECIAL AGENT

 

 

DATE

APPROVED BY SPECIAL IN CHARGE Michael P. Tompkins

 

 

 

3) Zal? SIGNATURE

 

OIG Form {01/28/97) Portion: of the Report oflmungmicn may not be exempt under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) and the Ac! (5 USC 

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General

January 25, 2016
MEMORANDUM
TO:

Stan Griscavage
Chief Inspector
Office of Inspections
United States Marshals Service

FROM:

William M. Blier
General Counsel
Office of the Inspector General

SUBJECT:

Disclosure of Information to the Wall Street Journal

I am writing to inform you that the OIG has concluded that it will not
pursue an investigation into the source of the disclosure to the Wall Street
Journal (WSJ) concerning the U.S. Marshal Service’s (USMS) use of planes and
cell signals to track criminal suspects. We have determined that the disclosure
to the WSJ constituted a protected disclosure under the Whistleblower
Protection Act (WPA) and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act
(WPEA). A protected disclosure is one that involves an alleged violation of law,
rule, or regulation; or a report of gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds,
an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or
safety. 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). Because, as the USMS has confirmed, the
information provided to the WSJ was not prohibited by any statute from being
provided to the media (or otherwise disclosed), the individual who made the
disclosure is protected under the WPA and WPEA from any personnel action
being taken as a result of the disclosure. Any such personnel action would
likely be construed as having been taken in reprisal for making a protected
disclosure. Under U.S. Supreme Court authority interpreting the WPA and
WPEA, internal agency policies prohibiting disclosure of information do not
constitute “laws” that prohibit otherwise protected disclosures under Title 5,
United States Code, Section 2302(b)(8)A). See DHS v. MacLean, 135 S.Ct. 913
(2015).

 It is our further view that for the same reason, the USMS should not
investigate or otherwise further seek to identify the source of the disclosure to
the WSJ. Any such investigation or inquiry, whether by the OIG or by the
USMS, would not constitute an efficient use of resources and would have
limited or no utility because even if the investigation or inquiry identified the
source of the disclosure, no disciplinary or other action could be taken.
In addition, the OIG is in custody of several personal portable electronic
storage devices seized by the USMS and provided to the OIG, and a USMS
laptop computer provided by the USMS to the OIG. The OIG did not search the
personal devices or the USMS laptop computer, and will not do so. The OIG
will return the USMS laptop computer to the USMS. The personal devices were
seized in connection with the investigation discussed above and, therefore, any
personnel action based on findings relating to the personal devices could also
reasonably be construed as having been taken in reprisal for making a
protected disclosure. The OIG intends to return the personal devices to their
owner upon obtaining the owner’s consent that all data be erased from the
personal devices. It is our view that, for the reasons stated herein, the USMS
should not investigate or take any action relating to use of the personal
devices.
Our conclusion not to investigate this matter, and our recommendation
that the USMS should not investigate or pursue it further, does not necessarily
preclude future investigations of disclosures by USMS personnel of
information. Under the law, disclosures are protected only to the extent they
involve information that is not classified, and information that a statute does
not prohibit from being disclosed. Examples of information that a statute
prohibits from being disclosed are Title III materials and Privacy Act protected
data. Moreover, the disclosure must involve an alleged violation of law, rule, or
regulation; gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority,
or a substantial and specific danger threat to public health or safety.
Please contact me if you have any questions about our disposition of this
matter.
cc: Gerald Auerbach
General Counsel, USMS
Gene Morrison
Special Agent in Charge, OIG Investigations Division
Mike Tompkins
Special Agent in Charge, OIG Washington Field Office

 U.S. Department of Justice

Of?ce of the Inspector General

 

 

February 8, 2016
MEMORANDUM

TO: Stan Griscavage
Chief Inspector
Office of Inspections
United States Marshals Service

FROM: William M. Blier
General Counsel
Of?ce of the Inspector General

SUBJECT: Disclosure of Information to the Wall Street Journal regarding
USMS unauthorized operations in Mexico

I am writing to inform you that the Of?ce of the Inspector General (OIG) has
reviewed the US. Marshal Service?s (USMS) referral of a complaint about a
disclosure to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of unauthorized USMS operations
in Mexico. Based on con?rmation by the USMS that the information contained
in the WSJ was not prohibited by law from being disclosed, the OIG has
concluded that it will not pursue an investigation into the source of the
disclosure concerning USMS operation in Mexico. The reasons set forth in my
memorandum to you dated January 25, 2016, attached for your reference,
regarding our decision not to investigate a separate disclosure to the WSJ
about the USMS use of cell site simulators are equally applicable to this
disclosure about the unauthorized activities in Mexico. It is our further view
that for the same reasons, the USMS should not investigate or otherwise
further seek to identify the source of this disclosure to the WSJ.

In addition, the referral to the OIG related only to the disclosure of
information to the WSJ, not the underlying conduct of the USMS personnel
who may have engaged in such unauthorized operations in Mexico. Please
inform the OIG whether the USMS has investigated or otherwise addressed this
allegation, and if not, whether you intend to refer the matter for OIG
investigation.

Please contact me if you have any questions about our disposition of this
matter.

Attachment

cc: Gerald Auerbach
General Counsel, USMS

Gene Morrison
Special Agent in Charge, OIG Investigations Division

Mike Tompkins
Special Agent in Charge, OIG Washington Field Of?ce

U.S. Department of Justice

 

Office of the Inspector General

 

March 28, 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR: Blair Deem
Acting Assistant Director
Of?ce of Professional Responsibility
United States Marshals Service

FROM: William M. Elia/mtg

General Counsel

SUBJECT: Disclosures of Information to the Wall Street Journal

I am writing in response to your February 23, 2016, memorandum
regarding disclosures of United States Marshals Service (USMS) information to
the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Your memorandum was sent in response to my
January 25, 2016, and February 8, 2016, memoranda in which the Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) informed the USMS that the OIG would not pursue
any investigation into the source(s) of these disclosures because the OIG had
determined that the information provided to the WSJ constituted protected
disclosures under the Whistleblower Protection Act and the Whistleblower
Protection Enhancement Act. The OIG recommended that the USMS likewise
should not investigate or otherwise further seek to identify the source of the
disclosures because any subsequent personnel action arising from
identi?cation of the whistleblower(s) and any connection with the protected
activity could reasonably be viewed as retaliation for whistleblowing.

In your memorandum, you stated that the USMS would defer to the
recommendation and close its investigation. However, you listed several
matters that still needed to be resolved, and requested the cooperation.
Specifically, you asked that: (1) the personal digital devices in the custody of
the OIG not be returned to the ?source of the disclosures? until all personally
identifiable information (PII) and sensitive law enforcement sensitive
information was deleted from the devices; (2) the ?source of the disclosures?
must certify that he does not possess any other personal digital devices
containing or sensitive law enforcement information; (3) the ?source of the

1

disclosures" acknowledge that he is prohibited from connecting personal digital
equipment to USMS computers; and (4) the ?source of the disclosures? must
acknowledge that computer applications cannot be installed on government
computers without authorization.

I note that throughout your memorandum, instead of referring to -
by name, you describe him as the ?source
of the disclosures" to the WSJ when asking for the OlG?s assistance with the
owner of the personal digital devices and the USMS laptop computer seized by
the USMS before these matters were referred to the OIG. The 01G has not
conducted any investigation that would enable the conclusion that
_was the source of the information contained in either WSJ article, and
it is our understanding from your memorandum that the USMS has not
conducted any investigation to support such a conclusion. We are not aware
that? or anyone else, has identi?ed himself as the source of such
disclosures. The 01G therefore urges the USMS to refrain from referring to
_as the source of the disclosures and taking any action toward him
based on the belief that he was the source of information for one or both of the
WSJ articles. The references may not, in fact, be accurate, and in context, the
language of your memorandum conveys an implication that the person who
made the disclosures engaged in misconduct. As described in my prior
memoranda, the disclosures to the WSJ constituted protected disclosures
under federal law.

 

Turning now to the issues you raise: First, the 016: did not search any of

the personal digital storage devices that the USMS had seized from 

efore the 016 became involved in this investigation. Accordingly, the
01G has no information about whether the devices contained PII or law
enforcement sensitive information. However, the OIG informed
through his counsel, that because the devices had been connected to a USMS
laptop computer, return of the personal devices would be conditioned upon
_consenting to the OIG erasing an data stored on the devices.
On February 11, 2016, the OIG obtained *consent and erased
any and all data from the devices without determining whether the devices

contained data. On February 18, 2016, the returned the personal devices
to

Regarding your second and third issues, it is the view that the
USMS should not single out _either to make a certification that
he does not possess any other personal digital devices containing PII or
sensitive law enforcement information, or to acknowledge that he is prohibited

2

from connecting personal digital equipment to USMS computers. Among other
things, doing so would presume without evidentiary support that the devices
seized by the USMS contained PM or law enforcement sensitive information.
Although the OIG determined that the personal devices were connected to
laptop, in our view, the authority for seizing the
devices from _was questionable, and in any event, the seizures
occurred in connection with an effort to identify the source of protected
whistleblowing activity. As the OIG cautioned in its previous memoranda,
because the personal devices were seized by the USMS in connection with the
USMS investigation into one of the disclosures made to the WSJ, any personnel
action against _elated to the personal devices could reasonably
be construed as an action by the USMS taken in reprisal for the USMS belief
that he made a protected disclosure. The OIG recommends that the USMS rely
instead on annual USMS computer-use certi?cations required of all USMS
employees to ensure that all employees are aware and are reminded that they
are prohibited from connecting personal devices to USMS computers.

Lastly, you asked that the 01G assist by obtaining from?an
acknowledgement that installation of computer applications on government
computers is prohibited absent authorization. As with the personal devices
seized fro_ the determination that-laptop
computer contained unauthorized software was made as a result of USMS
efforts to identify the source of the protected disclosures. The OIG again
cautions the USMS that singling ou to make an
acknowledgement could reasonably be construed as an action by the USMS
taken in reprisal for the USMS belief that _made a protected
disclosure. Similar to our recommendation, above, the 01G suggests that the
USMS rely on computer-use acknowledgements required of all USMS
employees to ensure that all employees know they are prohibited from
installing unauthorized applications and software on government computers.

 

Please contact me if you have any further questions about this matter.

cc: Gerald Auerbach
General Counsel, USMS

Stanley E. Griscavage, Jr.
Acting Deputy Assistant Director, USMS

Sharon L. Duncan
Acting Chief Inspector, Internal Affairs, USMS

3

Gene Morrison
Special Agent in Charge, OIG

Exhibit 35

ih?dLES I: Lid?! r-Ml?i?l

31?! ?1le 

Sikh/I?d, SUJTH Q. -E'xli?r' 

COFNVN =l3l?AFf?. Pam IINCIS

Vlelt- S. olr?xH \?aH RHUU: 

(.QEJC .II I ?wtw btnatt
Fri!) Mll? ?th78 

FLAKE. CCOKS. DELAWARE 

nut-.2. 3 3 lh'rprl'l'wil IT ON THE JUDICIARY

Huv ""215 K. .4910 
:Nv - . . A 
WASHING 1 ON, DC 20513-6275

(cu-.1 L. Linc! Luau-'56! 3'19 $1.27: .?chty
.mp- S:a?v' 

March 27, 2017

VIA TRANSMISSIQN

The Honorable Jeff Sessions David Harlow

Attorney General Acting Director

US. Department of Justice US. Marshals Service

950 Avenue, NW. US. Department of Justice
Washington, DC. 20530 Washington, DC. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Acting Director Harlow:

On Friday afternoon, March 10, 2017, a GS-15 Acting Deputy Assistant Director
met with my staff for the purpose of disclosing agency misconduct and threats to public
health and safety.

The afternoon prior to this meeting, the individual noti?ed his Assistant Director
(AD) of his intent to meet with Committee staff, and the Assistant Director in turn
immediately noti?ed senior agency leadership. The Tuesday after the meeting with my
staff, the individual was removed from his acting position, stripped of training
responsibilities, and forced to move out of his of?ce to sit within direct supervision of
the AD.1

 

1 Additionally, according to documents, after the leadership was informed of his intent to meet with my
staff, and before the meeting occurred, the Associate Director of Operations (ADO) sent the individual an
e-mail accusing him of lack of candor for personal gain. The e-mail was a response to another e-mail the
individual had sent two days prior, on Wednesday (before the noti?cation) in which he disclosed to
leadership, not for the ?rst time, the prior threats to his career. According to the individual, those
threats were made after the individual challenged the decision to continue the use in USMS special
operations of unsafe ammunition that had failed FBI ballistics tests. Such an e-mail as sent by the ADO,
after the ADO apparently had knowledge of the individual?s intent to speak with my staff, could
reasonably be perceived as intimidation. See 18 U.S.C. 1505 (?Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force,
or by any threatening letter or communication in?uences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to
in?uence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending
proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper
exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or
any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress? ?[s]hall be ?ned under this title,
imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as
de?ned in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both?).

Attorney General Sessions and Acting Director Harlow
March 27, 2017
Page 2 of 3

This type of behavior is retaliation 101, and it interferes with congressional
oversight activities. As you are well aware, the individual’s disclosures to the Committee
are protected by law.2 Obstructing a congressional investigation is a crime, and any
official or other employee who interferes, or attempts to interfere with a federal
employee’s right to communicate with Congress is not entitled to compensation.3
The actions of senior leadership here are totally unacceptable. They send exactly
the wrong message. These actions serve only to chill other employees from reporting
wrongdoing, and demonstrate a complete and utter failure by agency leaders to grasp
the letter and intent of the whistleblower protection laws.
I am referring this matter to the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of the
Inspector General, copied here, to review any facts demonstrating reprisal and any
underlying disclosure of wrongdoing made by this individual.
The Committee will also continue its own independent investigation.
Accordingly, by April 10, 2017, please provide all records relating to communications
from March 1, 2017 to the present between or among the Acting Director, the Associate
Director for Operations, the Associate Director for Administration, and the Assistant
Director for Training relating to the individual who contacted the Committee or to the
individual’s disclosures.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact DeLisa Lay of my
staff with any questions at 202-224-5225.
Sincerely,

cc:

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary

See generally, 5 U.S.C. § 2302; 5 U.S.C. § 7211 (2012) (“The right of employees, individually or
collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of
Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.”).
3 18 U.S.C. § 1505; Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, div. E, title VII, 129 Stat.
2475-46, § 713 (2015); Letter from Susan A. Poling, Gen. Counsel, U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office to
Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight and Gov’t Reform, and Bob Goodlatte, H. Comm. on the Judiciary re: GAO Op. B-325124 (Apr.
5, 2016) (available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676341.pdf).
2

 Attorney General Sessions and Acting Director Harlow
March 27, 2017
Page 3 of 3

The Honorable Carolyn Lerner
Special Counsel
Office of Special Counsel
The Honorable Michael Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice

 Exhibit 36

 

 

From: Anderson, David (USMS)

Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 6:08 PM

To: (USMS)

Subject: TD Personnel Changes Organization Update 
Attachments: Draft Org Chart - 10.9.16 (3).pdf .
All

Good afternoon. Below is an update on personnel changes within the division, please let me know if you have
questions. I

First, I am pleased to announce that the TD's request to reorganize was approved by the Director. The purpose
of the request was to assist the division to be more effective in addition to addressing scope of responsibilities issues
with the previous organizational structure. The request for the reorganization included several staf?ng requests that
are listed below:

0 Approval to fill the vice? position as a Financial Analyst - 65-0501 - 9/11

0 Approval to upgrade and fill the vice - Training Administrator Accreditation Manager? GS 
1712-13/14

0 Approval to upgrade and ?ll vice - as LMS Training Specialist - GS-1712 12/13 

0 Approval for a second Chief of Training, 65 1811-15, responsible for leading Professional Development, 
Distance Learning and Training Management 

0 Approval for two additional GS 1811-13 instructor positions based on the positions we are required to
detail to FLETC - these will be ?lled on the April Career board and assigned to LESTP

 

have attached the a copy of the functional organizational chart for your review.

. 

In addition to the above, the April Career Board will also include the vacant DAD position, the vacant instructor 5

positions vice -, vice_ a new position from 150 as a 13 instructor to oversee manage
judicial security training, and vice who has indicated his intention to retire at the end of April.

Second, i would like to take this opportunity to thank_ and for their
leadership and contribution to the division as acting Chiefs for Professional Development and Law Enforcement
Safety. They both worked tirelessly to ensure the requirements of the division were met. Effective immediately, I i
-has assumed the position as Chief Inspector, Professional Development and effective next pay period, March 26,
- will assume the position of Acting Chief Law Enforcement Safety.

 

Third, I would like to advise of a change in the Acting Deputy Assistant Director position. As noted above, this
position will be on the April Career Board. Effective immediately, and until a selection is made, Stephanie Creasy will be
assuming the duties of Acting Deputy Assistant Director in my absence. Stephanie will continue to act as the Chief of
Learning Management and Employee Development so I am limiting the responsibilities of the Acting DAD to covering for
me when I am out ofthe of?ce not available. Additionally, effective immediately- will be assigned to assist
me with focusing on some strategic projects and will temporarily work out of the vacant Deputy Assistant Director
office in building 20. I would like to thank_ for his work as the Acting Deputy Assistant Director. - will
continue with his role as the Chief of Training, responsible for management of Core, LESTP and International Training,
during this period.

1 swan?29

I am excited about the Changes and new positions ?this is the result of our work to redesign the TD as a Training
Center of Excellence. I know we still have work to do to get there but I am confident we are making great pragress and
on our way. This is all attributed to what each and every one of you do every day!

Thank you and please let me know if you have questions or need additional information.

David a

 

 

2 . SJCB1 7-30

Exhibit 37

ir-"viLES I: Lid?! r-Ml?i?l

 

513:3. h, 'A-l 5., 
.wev 
5va was 3: mm IINCIS
S. ylr?xH RHUU: . 
Tzacwz 4m- w, urcmma .Il %w[w . .
Sin". sass: hllk?lhbu?uk [nu 
was Amzc-rtr? srcr?Ea scor?s. Draw/As: 
33:93 3 Til-i3? 3 IT ON TH: JUDICIARY

Huv umunm ""215 K. .4910 
:Nv - . . A 
WASHING 1 ON, DC 20513-6275

(cu-.1 L. Linc! Lum'w'b?l 3'19 $1.27: J'ccty
Ji'l .mp- S:a?v' 

August 11, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Sessions:

This letter follows multiple inquiries I have sent to the Department and the U.S.
Marshals Service (USMS) in the last few months regarding wasteful spending, dangers
to of?cer safety, and reprisal within the USMS. I have yet to receive any response to any
of my letters, the ?rst of which I sent in March. That letter expressed deep concern
regarding the actions of USMS leadership in retaliating against an employee who made
protected disclosures to my of?ce almost immediately after he did so, and to interfere
with the Committee?s oversight.1

Instead of responding to my inquiries, the agency has apparently expended
signi?cant time and resources to craft misleading statements dismissing and smearing
the efforts of its employees to assist with the Committee?s oversight and legislative
efforts.

Most recently, my of?ce and others requested the views of the Federal Managers
Association (FMA) regarding legislation we are currently considering related to hiring at
the USMS. Over the last two and a half years, my of?ce has received calls and e-mails
from more than 100 current and former USMS employees, a signi?cant portion of which
relate to hiring and promotion practices within the agency. Pursuant to our
constitutional responsibilities and particularly in light of these concerns, we have a clear

 

1 18 U.S.C. 1505 (Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or
communication in?uences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to in?uence, obstruct, or impede the due
and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any
department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under
which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any
joint committee of the Congress? ?[s]hall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if
the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as de?ned in section 2331), imprisoned not more
than 8 years, or 

Attorney General Sessions
August 11, 2017
Page 2 of 2

obligation to carefully consider this issue and the best ways to address it. We are
appreciative of FMA’s willingness to share the views and concerns of its members.
Thus, it was with great disappointment that I received the attached letter
yesterday from the President of the FMA, and learned that Members’ efforts to ensure
we are fully informed on an important legislative matter appear to have resulted in the
agency’s complaints against the individuals who agreed to assist. As the attached letter
and exhibits indicate, the FMA believes these complaints are an effort to intimidate that
organization and its members and discourage communication with Congress.
As you know, such communication is protected by law.2 Moreover, it is not the
province of the Acting Director of the USMS to dictate or control what information
Members of Congress may receive and consider in determining how best to exercise
their constitutional power to legislate.3 Any action, such as that taken here, seeking to
impede or interfere in these matters is unacceptable. I trust that this behavior will no
longer continue under your leadership.
Please provide a written reply letting me know what steps you are taking to
correct this problem and ensure that Justice Department components do not attempt to
interfere with communications with the Committee.
Sincerely,

cc:

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Orrin Hatch
Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Christopher Coons
Committee on the Judiciary

2 U.S. Const. amend. I; 5 U.S.C. § 2302; 5 U.S.C. § 7211 (2012) (“The right of employees, individually or
collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of
Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.”); Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, div. E, title VII, 129 Stat. 2475, § 713, (2015); Letter from
Susan A. Poling, Gen. Counsel, U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office to Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, S.
Comm. on the Judiciary, Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, and Bob
Goodlatte, H. Comm. on the Judiciary re: GAO Op. B-325124 (Apr. 5, 2016) (available at
http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676341.pdf).
3 U.S. Const. art. I, § 1.

  

United States Marshals Service
 

 

 

 

Chapter 373
fma.usmarshals@gmail.com
 
 
August 10, 2017 

 
 
 
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, Chairman 
United States Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary 
135 Hart Senate Office Building 
Washington, DC  20510 
 
Dear Mr. Chairman: 
 
 
For the better part of the past 2 ½ years, your Committee has increased its 
important oversight function of the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).  We understand more 
than 100 employees have contacted your office to share individual experiences of 
questionable management practices, some that have prompted additional inquiry in the 
form of letters, floor speeches, and press releases by the Committee.  One recent 
example was a manager who initially made legitimate and repeated attempts, working 
within his USMS chain‐of‐command, to raise serious concerns involving officer safety.  
His appeals were apparently ignored until the Committee issued a letter to the USMS 
Acting Director, prompting immediate action on the replacement of some 1,800 units of 
expired or expiring body armor.  The USMS manager’s calls for action and your 
subsequent intervention will save the lives of Deputy U.S. Marshals. 
 
 
The latest method by USMS agency leadership to silence agency managers who 
communicate with Congress is outlined in a letter dated August 3 from the Acting 
Director to the national office of the Federal Manager’s Association (FMA).  We believe 
the letter was designed to undermine and have a chilling effect on the viewpoints of our 
officers and membership, all federal employees organized to improve government 
operations and save taxpayer dollars.  Regrettably, the Acting Director did not first 
discuss his concerns with me or our officers before his staff presumably penned this 
letter.  I have enclosed it for your review. 
 
The USMS FMA has enjoyed a nearly 20‐year relationship between our chapter 
and the USMS, reinforced with a signed, favorably written, long‐term “Consultative 
Agreement” with agency leadership.  The objectives of the Agreement are 
“…improvement of managerial effectiveness and resolution of problems affecting 
agency operations and employees, including supervisors and managers…”  More 
specifically, the purpose of consultation and communication is for improving: 
 
a. Agency operations; 

 

  

b.
c.
d.
e.
 

Personnel management; 
Employee effectiveness; 
Exchange of information; and, 
Establishment of policies, rules, and regulations. 

Managers across the USMS regularly speak with our chapter officers.  Views are 
consolidated and, when appropriate, trends are shared with agency leadership.  Some 
topics in the past have given the Acting Director reason to pause and chart a different 
course.  One example included the surge of protests earlier this year with non‐
competitively promoting more than 60 operational employees through an accretion of 
duties exercise.  After our chapter sent letters voicing a variety of manager’s concerns 
the agency changed its initial position to use the more transparent competitive process, 
although more recently may have abandoned the initiative altogether based on a 
reference to our chapter in one of the Committee’s two recent letters on officer safety. 
 
Just last week our chapter shared with our membership the Committee’s letter 
to the GAO requesting an assessment of any relationship in the USMS between the use 
of internal affairs investigations and disciplinary action, and punishment for reporting 
wrongdoing.  Our chapter previously requested that the USMS Acting Director 
undertake a similar review in April 2016 that seemingly has seen no meaningful 
progress. 
 
In his recent letter, the Acting Director refers to “a cordial consultative 
relationship [between the USMS and FMA]…viewed as mutually beneficial and 
collaborative, working for the benefit of the Agency and its employees and managers.”  
Conversely, he also suggests our officers are “undermin[ing] significant Agency 
initiatives.”  Regrettably, no specific example(s) were provided and I am not aware of 
any instances in the nearly past two decades of efforts to do so by our officers or 
members. 
 
It raises questions if the Acting Director is attempting to diminish, control, and 
intimidate USMS managers who have communicated with Congress and/or provided 
constructive feedback to agency leadership.  I believe our chapter managers may very 
well be protected as federal employees of the Department of Justice under the 
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.  Surely our right to communicate with 
Congress is safeguarded? 
 
We raise these points because we speculate your Committee’s invitation to 
provide context and perspective regarding S. 1124 may have been one triggering event 
prompting the Acting Director’s letter.  Our Vice‐President for Law Enforcement 
Operations met with Committee staff last month to communicate concerns with the 
proposed legislation and/or views designed to improve it.  The information shared was 
not meant to “further the personal agenda of certain FMA local officer or officers,” as the 
Acting Director surreptitiously asserts, but rather is the opinions of a larger segment of 
our managerial workforce.  In response, he recently suggested “a small group” opposes 
the legislation.  His assessment, however, is not based in fact. 
 

 

  

 
Regular meetings with agency leadership have improved communication on a 
variety of viewpoints, designed to strengthen agency operations and save taxpayer 
dollars.  We have consistently conducted ourselves in a manner that supports our 
mission to provide excellence in public service.  Interaction between agency leadership 
and our officers ceased, however, following our engagement with Congress regarding a 
topic(s) the Acting Director views as a “significant agency initiative” (excepted service 
hiring authority).  Accordingly, the recent letter to the FMA national office threatening a 
more formal disassociation with our chapter, its officers, and membership, is perceived 
to be a form of reprisal and appears to be an effort to interfere with our communication 
with Congress as federal employees. 
 
We have extended multiple offers to meet with the Acting Director.  These 
efforts, “specifically since May 2017,” have gone ignored.  His recent comments to 
agency managers are troubling and appear to be aimed at having a chilling effect on 
employees who now risk being publicly scorned for having diverse viewpoints to 
improve government programs and operations, to include saving taxpayer dollars. 
 
Again, the positions we have taken have been professional with a goal of 
improving governance at the USMS.  Neither our chapter officers, nor any other 
individual agency manager, who provides information to Congress or any other 
investigatory agency (e.g., OIG, OSC, GAO, etc.) should be subjected to even the 
appearance of retaliation, intimidation, or veiled threats—verbal or written, more 
particularly in a letter threatening to end the agency’s relationship with the FMA.  The  
2 ½ year written record of Committee oversight involving agency leadership 
misconduct and retaliatory behavior is alarming.  It may explain a recent request to 
GAO to study conflicts within the USMS disciplinary process.   
 
 
We denounce any attempt to retaliate against an employee for communicating 
with Congress and/or reporting wrongdoing.  We appreciate your Committee’s 
invitation to hear from us and we look forward to ongoing and meaningful dialogue 
regarding opportunities to improve government operations and programs, and save 
taxpayer dollars. 
 
The Acting Director has shared with agency managers that the Administration 
does not intend to nominate him, but another candidate in the near term, to fill the 
vacant USMS Director’s position.  He also clarified on a recent national management 
conference call that his mandatory retirement date of September 2017 will be extended 
for a brief period of time pending the arrival of new agency leadership. 
 
We also look forward to working closely with the soon‐to‐be‐named Director 
that we believe will enjoy a supportive, ongoing, and meaningful relationship with 
agency managers and our chapter.  Of the three documents I have enclosed with this 
letter, one recently shared with our Vice‐President for Law Enforcement Operations, 
demonstrates the apparent retaliatory behavior by agency leadership when a manager 
communicates with the Committee.  Most troubling, the Acting Director appears to have 
followed suit towards “certain FMS local officer or officers” who accepted an invitation 
to share the views—opposing or otherwise—of agency managers on a matter he 
considers to be a “significant agency initiative.” 

 

  

We would appreciate you sharing this letter, as well as the enclosures, with the 
full Committee membership.  We believe it offers context and perspective regarding the 
important, rigorous, and ongoing oversight work of the USMS that has been underway 
for the past 2 ½ years.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dave Barnes
 
Dave Barnes 
President 

 
Enclosure –  Letter dated August 3, 2017, from David L. Harlow, Acting Director, U.S. 
Marshals Service, to Renee M. Johnson, President, Federal Manager’s 
Association 
 
 
Letter dated March 27, 2017, from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate 
Judiciary Committee, to Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, Department of Justice, 
and David Harlow, Acting Director, U.S. Marshals Service 
 
 
Chronological listing of Committee letters, floor speeches, and press releases 
 
 
cc: 
Renee M. Johnson, President 
 
Federal Manager’s Association 
 
Bob Goodlatte, Chairman 
House Committee on the Judiciary 
 
Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General 
 
U.S. Government Accountability Office 

 

 US. Department of Justice

United States Marshals Service

 

Of?ce of the Director

 

Washington. DC 20530-0001

August 3. 2017

Ms. Renee M. Johnson
President

Federal Managers Association
1641 Prince Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Re: Federal Managers Association Chapter 373 United States Marshals Service

Dear Ms. Johnson:

I reach out to you as the head of the national Federal Managers Association (F MA) to
assist the United States Marshals Service (USMS) in its recent interactions with Local FMA
Chapter 373, associated with the USMS.

Local Chapter 373 has been in existence for more than 10 years, and until recently,
USMS leadership has had a cordial consultative relationship with the FMA chapter, to include
periodic meetings to discuss issues of interest or concern to its members. We have viewed that
relationship as mutually bene?cial and collaborative, working for the bene?t of the Agency and
its employees and managers. However. recent events have prompted me to question whether
continued interaction with the FMA will be Speci?cally, since May 2017, there
have been several widely disseminated emails sent. and outside meetings held, under the
auspices of the FMA Local Chapter which appear to be designed to undermine signi?cant
Agency initiatives and to further the personal agenda of certain FMA local of?cer or of?cers.
We view these efforts to be contrary to the purpose of any positive consultative relationship or
the mutual bene?t of the USMS and those employees who are members of the FMA Local
Chapter. As such, we question whether any continuing relationship with FMA is viable.

Accordingly, I request a meeting with you and the Chapter President of Local Chapter
373, Mr. David Barnes, to discuss this unfortunate turn of events and to see if there is some way
to remedy the current situation and move forward. Should you be amenable to such a meeting,

please feel free to contact me at -.

Sincerely,

MXW

David L. llarlow
Acting Director
cc: Mr. David Barnes
Chapter President. Local Chapter 373
Federal Managers Association