Investigative Reports

The OIG investigated allegations that a BIA manager had sexually harassed his direct subordinate.The employee and two other women, both of whom had reported to the manager in the past, told us that he had subjected them to unwelcome and inappropriate touching or sexual remarks. The employee said the manager touched her inappropriately and made unwelcome remarks of a sexual nature to her. The second woman, also a BIA employee, said the manager had made inappropriate remarks to her when she worked for him. The third woman, who no longer worked for the BIA, said that when she worked for the manager he had regularly hugged her when she did not want him to.When we interviewed the manager, he denied most of the allegations against him, but he later admitted it was possible he had made an inappropriate remark to the first employee. The manager left the Department after we began our investigation.We also found during our investigation that two regional BIA managers knew about some of the manager’s alleged misconduct and should have acted sooner to address it.

We conducted this investigation in response to allegations filed with the Department of Defense (DoD) Hotline by a sub-contractor who claimed that Leidos, Inc., non-selected the Complainant for inclusion on a bridge contract in reprisal for her making protected disclosures to company and Government officials.

In May 2016, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated an investigation into an allegation that a high-level political appointee (Political Appointee) at an agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce (Agency) was using the Agency’s account with a local taxicab company (Cab Company) for personal trips that were notauthorized under Agency policy. OIG found that from September 2014 to May 2016, Political Appointee misused the Agency’s account with Cab Company by charging it for the cost of approximately 130 cab rides prohibited by Agency policy.

This Newsletter provides a bimonthly summary of selected investigative accomplishments.

OIG investigated allegations that a National Park Service (NPS) senior official in the Northeast Region used his position for personal gain when he requested unnecessary design and construction improvements to a park housing unit he expected to rent as his personal residence. We also investigated allegations that the senior official made improper position changes by preselecting a staff member who did not meet qualifications and that he improperly served on park partner organization boards.We found that the NPS senior official created the appearance of using his public office for private gain when he asked his subordinate employee to include specific design and construction changes in the renovation proposal for a historic townhouse, which was the park housing unit in which he planned to reside. The changes were included in the final design plans and added approximately $32,000 to the cost of the project, but at the time of our report, the senior official had decided not to move into the unit and NPS had delayed the renovations.We also found that some employees and contractors did not agree with the proposed changes, and only one person raised these concerns before the project was awarded. Additionally, we found that members of the Regional Development Advisory Board, whose role was to review and approve the proposed renovation plans, were not aware that the senior official had intended on moving into the unit.We did not substantiate that the NPS senior official made improper position changes by preselecting staff members, and we found that while the senior official did serve as an NPS liaison for two park partners, his participation did not violate NPS or ethics regulations.

OIG investigated an allegation that an employee with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) attempted to send a spreadsheet containing personally identifiable information (PII) for over 180 DOI employees to his personal email account.We found that the employee made repeated attempts to send the spreadsheet from his Government email account to his personal account, in violation of the DOI’s employee policy on network use. We confirmed, however, that the DOI’s IT security systems blocked the emails and prevented the PII from being transmitted to his personal account or computer. The employee’s supervisor confiscated the employee’s work computer the day he learned of the attempts to email the spreadsheet and placed the employee on administrative leave. When we first interviewed the employee, he denied trying to send the spreadsheet containing PII to his personal email, but during a later interview he admitted that he had. He also told us that he tried to send the spreadsheet because he liked to save and organize files on his home computer and not for illegal or inappropriate purposes. In addition, we found that he had attempted to send the PII knowing that his home computer had a software program installed on it that allowed for outside access. Finally, we learned that the employee had been disciplined in the past for lack of candor.We referred this case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, which declined to prosecute.

On March 2, 2017, the VA Office of Inspector General Administrative Investigations Division received allegations that Ms. [redacted] , former (resigned) Deputy Counsel, Office of the General Counsel (OGC), improperly received the higher locality pay for Los Angeles, CA, while she lived and worked in Phoenix, AZ. We found that Ms. [redacted] received about $6,500 in Los Angeles locality pay for 6 months while residing and reporting for duty in Phoenix.

The VA Office of Inspector General Administrative Investigations Division received an allegation that Dr. Gavin West, former (reassigned) Senior Medical Advisor to Dr. Thomas Lynch, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health (ADUSH) for Clinical Operations, and a former (resigned) VA employee misused VA travel funds for personal rather than official business. We did not substantiate the allegation of a misuse of VA travel funds, and we will not discuss it further in this report.In reviewing Dr. West’s personnel records related to the original allegation, we found that Dr. West was improperly paid $19,800 for Temporary Quarters Subsistence Expenses (TQSE) in connection with a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) move that he did not execute. The TQSE was paid to Dr. West to relocate from his then duty station in Salt Lake City, UT to Washington, DC, after accepting a position as the Special Assistant to the ADUSH for Clinical Operations on September 22, 2013. Dr. West did not relocate nor did he repay VA for the TQSE. We also found that his annual salary was increased from $188,049 to $206,527 to make his “salary competitive with the market rate in the Washington DC Metro geographical region.” Because he did not relocate, this resulted in overpayments to Dr. West of over $55,000.

OIG investigated transaction irregularities on a Department of the Interior purchase card assigned to an employee at Nez Perce National Historic Park, National Park Service (NPS). The questionable purchases included a $17,000 charge at a pawn shop, two tuition payments at a local university, and purchases that appeared to have been structured to circumvent the micro purchase limit.We confirmed that the employee purchased art for the park museum from a pawn shop for $17,000 and, at the direction of a supervisor, made tuition payments for other employees on the DOI purchase card. We further determined those purchases were not for private gain, but the employee did admit to structuring those purchases and others to circumvent the micro purchase limit in violation of NPS policy. Finally, we found that the employee’s two supervisors were aware of his policy violations and took no corrective action. The employee and the two supervisors have all left the Department.

On January 1, 2018, an Amtrak executive retired following the release of our investigative report, which concluded that he violated company policy by accepting gifts from the owner of a company doing business with Amtrak as both a customer and vendor.

Section 11(d)(9) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to submit to Congress and the President an annual report on the activities of the Integrity Committee. For more informatoin about the Integrity Committee, please visit the link below.