Investigative Reports

An Amtrak electrician based in Chicago, Illinois, was terminated from employment on October 19, 2022, after our investigation found that the employee violated company policies by misusing a company-owned computer and misusing company time, which included outside business activities. We also found that the former employee violated company policy by not attending to his daily required duties.

An Amtrak Supervisor based in Hamilton, New Jersey, violated company policy bymisusing his company-owned vehicle by regularly stopping at bars and restaurants onhis way home from work and by not keeping this vehicle at an approved location.During his interview with the OIG, the employee admitted to using the vehicle forpersonal use. The employee was terminated after his disciplinary hearing on October17, 2022.

On October 11, 2022, an Amtrak pipe fitter based in Miami, Florida, signed a civil settlement agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida, and agreed to pay $10,000 in restitution and a $5,000 penalty. Our investigation found that the employee submitted an application that contained false statements and information to the Small Business Administration in order to qualify for a CARES Act Economic Injury Disaster Loan Advance, resulting in the receipt of funds to which he was not entitled.

On October 11, 2022, an Amtrak coach cleaner based in Miami, Florida, signed a civil settlement agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida, and agreed to pay $10,000 in restitution and a $5,000 penalty. Our investigation found that the employee submitted an application that contained false statements and information to the Small Business Administration in order to qualify for a CARES Act Economic Injury Disaster Loan Advance.

An Amtrak Maintainer based in Newark, New Jersey, and a Trainer based in Sunnyside, New York, were terminated after their disciplinary hearings on October 4, 2022. The two former employees conspired with another employee, Keith Kovaleski, to sell misbranded and unapproved new drugs. The Maintainer violated company policies by ordering misbranded and/or unapproved new drugs from Kovaleski’s company, All American Peptide (AAP), and by accepting shipments of these products on behalf of Kovaleski. The Trainer violated company policies by regularly ordering misbranded and/or unapproved new drugs from AAP and reselling them to the public. Kovaleski, an Assistant Foreman based in New York, is currently awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty on March 21, 2022, to selling misbranded and unapproved new drugs. The two former employees are ineligible for rehire.

An Amtrak employee based in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was terminated from employment on October 5, 2022, after our investigation found that the employee violated company policies by posting inappropriate and offensive language and images on her publicly available Facebook account that also identified her as a company employee. The former employee admitted to posting the language and images, which she acknowledged could be deemed as offensive and inappropriate by customers and other employees. In addition, the former employee also admitted to accepting a gift from a customer that she stated was valued at $300, also in violation of company policy.

An Amtrak Trackman based in New York was terminated on September 20, 2022, after his disciplinary hearing for violating company policies. The former employee posted inappropriate and offensive images—including one depicting what appeared to be illicit drugs—as well as an internal company document, on his public Facebook account, which also identified him as an Amtrak employee.

An Amtrak Electronic Specialist and a Maintainer based in Newark, New Jersey, resigned in lieu of their disciplinary hearings on September 14, 2022, and September 27, 2022, respectively. We determined that Keith Kovaleski, an Assistant Foreman based in New York who is currently awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty on March 21, 2022, to conspiring to distribute misbranded and unapproved new drugs, paid the two former employees to set up financial accounts to accept payments on behalf of Kovaleski for his illegal activities in exchange for a portion of the proceeds. In addition, the Maintainer received packages at his home for Kovaleski that contained misbranded and/or unapproved new drugs from Kovaleski’s company, All American Peptide (AAP). The Electronic Specialist ordered and received misbranded and/or unapproved new drugs from AAP at his home. The former employees are ineligible for rehire.

This administrative investigation addressed allegations that VA’s Executive Protection Division (EPD), a component of VA’s Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness (OSP) that provides protective services to the VA Secretary and Deputy Secretary, was inadequately equipped. The allegations included that EPD personnel (special agents and physical security specialists) had expired or no ballistic body armor (vests), that senior leaders in OSP were aware of this and had denied previous requests to purchase vests, and that special agents’ firearms malfunctioned frequently and needed to be replaced.The OIG found that VA had not procured ballistic vests for some EPD personnel despite a standard operating procedure requiring them to wear body armor most of the time they were working. Further, there were no procedures to assess compliance (such as routine inspections) or establish consequences for nonuse; procure body armor for new personnel; track the condition of armor assigned to personnel; or replace vests that were beyond the manufacturer’s warranty, did not fit, or had other defects.However, the available evidence did not substantiate allegations that senior leaders in OSP had denied vest procurement requests or knew that some personnel needed them. The OIG also could not substantiate based on documentation and interviews that EPD special agents’ firearms malfunctioned frequently and needed replacement.To effectively protect its employees and leaders, VA must provide EPD personnel with the basic safety equipment for performing their jobs. VA concurred with the OIG’s four recommendations for improvements to EPD procedures to address the issuance, maintenance, and replacement of ballistic body armor, as well as enforcing the requirement that EPD personnel wear their vests. It also concurred with the recommendation calling for a review of the condition of all firearms assigned to EPD special agents.