Investigative Reports

The Office of Special Reviews investigated allegations that a GS-14 employee in VA’s Office of Information and Technology misused his government email by sending personal emails during work hours, and also took advantage of his telework arrangement to handle personal matters during his duty hours. The OIG could not substantiate the misuse of official time or improper use of VA resources because the employee routinely worked outside of his regular duty hours with his supervisor’s approval, and VA has not established criteria defining how much personal use of VA email is excessive. While investigating these issues, the OIG became aware that the employee had referred staff who were planning conferences for his group to his wife, a sales manager for a large hotel chain, and sent emails providing direction about the arrangements for these conferences. The staff subsequently booked rooms for these events at hotels for which the employee’s wife had sales responsibility. Although the staff made the decision and the arrangements were advantageous to VA, the OIG determined that the employee’s conduct appeared contrary to ethical rules prohibiting an employee from using 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….” The OIG made one recommendation relating to a supervisory review of the employee’s conduct and consideration of appropriate administrative action, if any. VA concurred with this recommendation.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigated a non-specific allegation that chief nurses within the Miami VA Health Care System (Miami HCS) violated the federal anti-nepotism statute by arranging to have their spouses hired for positions for which the spouses were not qualified. This allegation could not be substantiated. In addition, a specific allegation of nepotism was made pertaining to the conduct of a particular chief nurse. The OIG substantiated the allegation that the chief nurse violated the anti-nepotism statute by recommending the chief nurse’s spouse for a position at the Miami HCS. The chief nurse falls under the statutory definition of a public official and was prohibited from advocating for the employment by VA of the chief nurse’s spouse. The chief nurse was involved in two communications relating to the spouse’s possible employment at VA, one of which the OIG considered advocacy contrary to the federal anti-nepotism statute. The spouse withdrew his/her application without providing an explanation and was not hired by VA. The OIG made one recommendation relating to administrative action against the chief nurse if the Miami HCS Director deems it appropriate. VA concurred with the OIG’s finding and determined administrative action at this time is unwarranted. The OIG considers the recommendation closed.

An Amtrak Customer Service Representative in Reno, Nevada, was terminated from employment on July 20, 2020, following his administrative hearing. Our investigation found the employee stole funds from credit cards presented to him by Amtrak customers purchasing train travel. The cards, known as J-Pay Release cards, were pre- loaded with $200 in funds and were issued by the California Department of Corrections to inmates upon their release from custody. The former employee surreptitiously switched out fully-loaded J-Pay cards presented to him by those customers after debiting for the requested travel and returned completely depleted J-Pay cards instead. It is estimated that the former employee stole over $100,000 in stored value from the stolen J-Pay cards.

We investigated whether Wild Horse and Burro Program staff used Government charge cards to pay for expenses related to personally owned horses.

We did not substantiate the allegation that a Bureau of Indian Affairs official violated the ethics pledge or ethics regulations.

A former Carman/Welder in Beech Grove, Indiana, pleaded guilty in United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, to theft of property on July 17, 2020. The former employee was sentenced to one-year probation, a $4,000 fine and ordered to pay $56,297 in restitution to Amtrak. Our investigation found the employee stole power tools and scrap metal from the company and sold it for his personal gain. The employee previously resigned from the company on April 28, 2017, immediately prior to his administrative hearing.

The OIG investigated an allegation that several minority-owned and small disadvantaged (8a) businesses may have coordinated their respective proposals to gain an unfair advantage in awards related to six contracts for technical support services at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).We found that these companies did not conspire to manipulate the bidding process as alleged. We found that the companies used the same consulting company to draft their respective proposals, which contained nearly identical language. The USGS ultimately did not accept any of the proposals.This is a summary of an investigative report we issued to the USGS Director.

Four Chicago-based employees were terminated from employment on June 18, July 6, and July 9, 2020, and another retired on June 25, 2020, prior to her administrative hearing. The five former employees participated in a medical fraud scheme in violation of company policies.Our investigation found that the former employees provided a chiropractor, based in Dolton, Illinois, with their medical and personally identifiable information, typically their names and dates of birth or those of their dependents, in exchange for cash kickbacks. The chiropractor used the information to fraudulently bill Amtrak’s health insurance plan for services that were not provided. In addition, all five employees were uncooperative or lied to our agents during their interviews.

John Mckoy previously pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on June 14, 2019, to multiple health care fraud charges related to a scheme to defraud Amtrak’s health care plan. McKoy was the owner and operator of several neighborhood health carefacilities, including Mt. Pleasant Medical Management, Inc. and Harris Medical Management, Inc. Between November 2004 and October 2007, McKoy submitted, and caused to be submitted, hundreds of false and fraudulent claims to United Health Care Corporation and was paid approximately $291,000 for services purportedly rendered to predominately Amtrak patients who were never seen or treated for those services. On July 8, 2020, McKoy was sentenced to six months imprisonment, three years’ supervised probation, and ordered to pay restitution to Amtrak in the amount of $291,255.In addition to Amtrak OIG, this joint investigation was conducted with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Department of Labor OIG, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

OIG reviewed the proposed Modernization of Swine Slaughter Inspection rule to determine whether FSIS’ worker safety analysis complied with applicable rulemaking requirements.

Five individuals who worked for Empire Care Dental at various California locations, including one dentist, one dental hygienist, and three office managers pleaded guilty to Health Insurance Fraud and to Practicing Dentistry Without a License. Our investigation disclosed that representatives of Empire Care Dental offered $50 - $100 payments to Amtrak employees if they used their services. In addition, our investigation found that Empire Care Dental submitted false claims for procedures more expensive than the ones performed and that the dentist practiced dentistry without a license. The five individuals were sentenced to 2-3 months in prison and ordered to pay joint restitution in the amount of $62,836.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigated allegations that the VA San Diego Healthcare System staff manipulated the time cards for seven fee-basis medical providers in order to pay these individuals on a salary or wage basis rather than a per-procedure basis. In addition, the allegations contended that a fee-basis care provider was told he would be converted to a full-time employee after working full time as a fee-basis provider for one year. The OIG substantiated that certain fee-basis care providers at the VA San Diego Healthcare System were being paid for their time improperly, rather than on a per-procedure basis as required. The OIG did not substantiate that a fee-basis professional had been promised conversion to full-time status. The OIG did not make any recommendations because the medical center took corrective action, including disciplinary action with respect to the supervisor who was accountable for this conduct.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Administrative Investigations Division investigated alleged misconduct by two employees of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in California. A complainant alleged that a supervisory health system specialist misused his/her public office for private gain when, as a part of the supervisor’s VA job responsibilities, he/she improperly participated in matters related to a contract maintained by the healthcare system with a vendor whose vice president was the supervisor’s significant other (non-spouse) and roommate. During the course of the investigation, the supervisor voluntarily resigned from VA, and as a result the OIG removed this allegation from the scope of the investigation. The complainant also alleged that a former medical center director failed to make proper rental payments while residing in the healthcare system’s quarters. Although the OIG determined the director underpaid VA a net amount of $158 for housing during the three years he resided on VA quarters, the OIG determined the cause was a coding error and identified no evidence that the error resulted from any misconduct on the part of the director. Because the error was unintended and corrective action has already been taken by the healthcare system, the OIG made no recommendations.

Following an investigation conducted in response to allegations made to the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) hotline, the Office of Special Reviews substantiated that an Office of General Counsel (OGC) attorney was using VA time and resources to work on matters related to his outside law practice. Moreover, the OIG determined that the attorney represented private clients in U.S. bankruptcy court in cases where the clients owed money to the federal government. This conduct implicated criminal conflict of interest laws, which prohibit federal government employees from representing third parties in cases where the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. The review team discovered that VA’s OGC received complaints about the attorney using VA time and resources to engage in his outside law practice as early as 2012. The OIG found that OGC's failure to appropriately supervise or meaningfully investigate the attorney's misconduct allowed it to continue. It was not until the OIG alerted OGC to this review’s preliminary findings that the OGC investigated the attorney, which ultimately led to his removal from federal employment in March 2020. The OIG's seven recommendations to the Acting VA General Counsel addressed actions to be considered in light of the attorney's misconduct and OGC officials' prior failures to take prompt appropriate action. These included revision to the OGC's relevant guidance and how OGC identifies and advises its employees who have outside employment. OGC was also asked to consider whether it should implement a supplemental regulation requiring some employees to disclose and obtain prior approval before engaging in outside employment. VA’s OGC concurred with all recommendations.

We investigated allegations that a senior U.S. Park Police (USPP) official asked the United States Attorney’s Office to dismiss criminal citations (tickets) issued to Presidio Trust employees and contractors at the request of Presidio Trust officials.We found that a Presidio Trust official asked a senior USPP official to request the dismissal of several tickets stemming from two separate incidents that occurred at the Presidio and that the senior USPP official’s decisions to request the dismissals were, in part, influenced by these requests. In addition, while we found that the senior USPP official had the discretion to request that the tickets be dismissed and that there was no USPP General Order or U.S. Department of the Interior policy about the process or authority for dismissing tickets, the senior USPP official appeared to deviate from past USPP practices at the Presidio when requesting the dismissals.We provided our report to the Deputy Director, Exercising the Authority of the Director of the National Park Service, for any action deemed appropriate.