Who can do this Outline and Essay for me on "What's Your Price?.

U.S Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office

Encyclopedia

of Ethical Failure1

Revised September 2016

1 DISCLAIMER: The purpose of the document is to disseminate relevant information and general guidance on Government Ethics issues at the Department of Defense. This document should not be cited as DoD authoritative guidance, policy or law.

2

Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3

Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................... 3

Abuse of Position ................................................................................................................ 4

Bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201-Type Violations) ...................................................................... 12

Compensation for Representational Services from Non-Federal Sources (18 U.S.C. § 203-Type Violations) ............................................................................ 33 Conflicts of Interest (18 U.S.C. § 208-Type Violations) .................................................. 40

Credit Card Abuse............................................................................................................. 59

Endorsements……………………………………………………………………………. 68

Financial Disclosure Violations ........................................................................................ 69

Fraud (Violations Not Covered Elsewhere) ...................................................................... 75

Gambling and Other Contest Violations ........................................................................... 88

Gift Violations .................................................................................................................. 90

Involvement in Claims Against the Government or in Matters Affecting the Government (18 U.S.C. § 205-Type Violations) ............................................................................. 95

Misuse of Government Resources and Personnel ............................................................. 98

Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) Issues............................................................. 126

Political Activity Violations ........................................................................................... 128

Post-Employment Violations (18 U.S.C. § 207-Type Violations) ................................. 138

Salary for Government Work from Non-Government Source (18 U.S.C. § 209-Type Violations) ......................................... ……………………..152

Time and Attendance Violations .................................................................................... 161

Travel Violations ............................................................................................................ 170

3

Introduction The Standards of Conduct Office of the Department of Defense General Counsel’s Office

has assembled the following selection of cases of ethical failure for use as a training tool. Our

goal is to provide DoD personnel with real examples of Federal employees who have

intentionally or unwittingly violated the standards of conduct. Some cases are humorous, some

sad, and all are real. Some will anger you as a Federal employee and some will anger you as an

American taxpayer.

Please pay particular attention to the multiple jail and probation sentences, fines,

employment terminations and other sanctions that were taken as a result of these ethical failures.

Violations of many ethical standards involve criminal statutes. Protect yourself and your

employees by learning what you need to know and accessing your Agency ethics counselor if

you become unsure of the proper course of conduct. Be sure to access them before you take

action regarding the issue in question. Many of the cases displayed in this collection could have

been avoided completely if the offender had taken this simple precaution.

The cases have been arranged according to offense for ease of access. Feel free to

reproduce and use them as you like in your ethics training program. For example - you may be

conducting a training session regarding political activities. Feel free to copy and paste a case or

two into your slideshow or handout – or use them as examples or discussion problems. If you

have a case you would like to make available for inclusion in a future update of this collection,

please email it to [email protected] or you may fax it to (703) 695-4970.

Disclaimer

The Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure is intended to sensitize Federal employees to the

reach and impact of Federal ethics statutes and regulations. It is best used to supplement

personal verification of those statutes and regulations. It should not be interpreted as a binding

or authoritative presentation of the law.

Note of Special Thanks

We thank the DoD OIG for their case contributions to the Encyclopedia.

4

Abuse of Position

Emails End Three-Star General’s Career A three-star officer left the Air Force after an investigation found he exchanged “sexually

suggestive” emails with a female officer when both were married to other people. Examples of

the emails included the following statements: “thinking of you often here in Waikiki”; “we

would love it, and you would be in perpetual trouble”; and “My dear and so beautiful, please

know I am thinking of you, and I miss you.” The female officer ultimately divorced her

husband. The investigator concluded that, as a result of the three-star officer’s activities, he

adversely affected the Air Force, helped dissolve a marriage, and eroded good order, discipline

and respect for authority.

Don’t Tell on Me, Or Else! The Navy denied promotion to an Admiral after Pentagon investigators found that he

illegally demoted or punished three subordinates he thought had reported him for a minor travel-

policy infraction. According to the Washington Post, the Senate put a hold on a civilian

Presidential appointee to be confirmed by the Senate until the Navy agreed that the Admiral

would not be promoted. The Admiral argued that his employees were poor performers, but the

DoD Inspector General was not persuaded. The Admiral retired in the grade of 1-star once he

learned he could not be promoted.

These cases are also part of a larger investigation.

Subordinates Are Not Babysitters A supervising attorney received a Letter of Caution for improperly requesting a

subordinate paralegal perform a personal service. The supervisor, an ethics attorney no less,

requested the subordinate paralegal pickup her child from daycare on her way home from work.

The paralegal told investigators that, notwithstanding an emergency, she felt uncomfortable

doing so given the appearance it might generate in the workplace. This was one of only a few

requests spanning over a seven year period, but once is enough given the requirements levied by

5

5 C.F.R. § 2635.705 that govern use of official time and 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 prohibiting the use

of private office for public gain.

(Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General; 2015)

If I Help You Land This Multimillion Dollar Contract, Will You Give Me a Job?

A former government human resource director was sentenced to two years of probation

for violating conflicts of interest laws, 18 U.S.C. § 208, and lying on his financial disclosure

report. A whistleblower spilled the beans on a polling and market research firm’s price inflation

for government contracts and simultaneously its offer of a six-figure salary to the government

official who was working to expand the firm’s multimillion dollar contract with his agency. The

former official was criminally sentenced to two-years of probation for failing to notify ethics

officials about his employment arrangement with the firm on his financial disclosure report. In a

related civil case, the former employee was barred from future government contracting work and

forced to pay a $40,000 fine. Last but not least, the firm pulled his employment offer after the

news broke.

General Discovers that Military Aides Are Not Supposed to Feed Cats Military officials discovered that a General was misusing Government personnel,

improperly accepting gifts of services from subordinates, and misusing his position. What did he

do? The General used his enlisted aides to help host unofficial functions at his headquarters,

provide driving lessons to a family member, and to feed a friend’s cat. Although the aides were

initially paid with $30-$40 Starbucks gift cards for their services, the General, taking full

responsibility for his actions even though he retired, rectified the misuse and underpayment for

services by retroactively paying the aides almost $2,000.

Misadventures in Hiring Family Two retired colonels working for a National Guard educational program were found to

have not been impartial in their duties when engaging in family hires. Colonel 1 nicely asked

Colonel 2 to authorize the hiring of Colonel 1’s son as a contractor which Colonel 2 did. Not to

be outdone, Colonel 2 oversaw the hiring of his nephew and brother-in-law as contractors.

6

Colonel 2 even attempted to get his own son hired as a contractor, but Colonel 2’s supervisor

correctly thought it would be inappropriate. Each colonel was issued a letter of caution to avoid

an appearance of a conflict and they were required to take an annual ethics training course.

Chief Authority A military service Chief Master Sergeant abused her authority and improperly used a

government vehicle when she employed a government vehicle and three non-commissioned

officers under her supervision to move personal property in a government rental vehicle. The

soldiers helped her for 3 hours. The Chief Master Sergeant was given a verbal warning and

advised of the improper use of government vehicles and the abuse of authority.

Abuse of Position and Bribery A military service Captain used his official position as a reservist to obtain contracts for

private sector companies with which he had an affiliation. In addition, the Captain accepted a

“finder’s fee” (i.e., kickbacks) from one company for his efforts in helping the company obtain

government contract work. For his significant ethical failure, the Captain was “allowed” to retire

at the grade of Commander, though he had been selected to be an Admiral. In addition, the

Captain was debarred for one year, while two of the affiliated companies entered into

administrative agreements (for 3 years) with the military service.

Coercion by Supervisor The director of a naval health clinic received a $3,000 loan from a subordinate after

requesting that the subordinate loan him $6,000. The $3,000 apparently wasn’t enough,

however, and the director later asked for $10,000. This time the subordinate declined. After the

director only repaid a fraction of the $3,000, the subordinate approached the chain of command.

In addition to being directed by his commanding officer to repay the rest of the loan, the director

was provided with a written letter of counseling regarding his unprofessional and unethical

conduct.

7

DoD GS-12 Removed for Misuse of Authority A GS-12 Recreation Program Manager who supervised approximately 75 civilian and

military subordinates was removed from his position for several ethical violations, including the

failure to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The employee moved into visitors’ quarters on a

military installation where he stayed for six months without paying full price for his room by

pressuring his subordinate to acquiesce to his payment arrangements. He also authorized an

employee to make a $400 agency expenditure to purchase workout clothing for one MWR fitness

instructor. The employee had no reason to believe he had the authority to authorize this

expenditure and should have made inquiry before giving authorization. The administrative law

judge stated that this act “at the very least gives the appearance of impropriety and should have

raised a red flag.”

Business Costs Employee A former administrator for the Department of Health and Human Services took several

trips on the government’s dime that didn’t look good. The advisor informed the HHS Secretary

that he intended to seek employment in the private sector. The Secretary asked him to stay with

the Department until Congress passed the new Medicare prescription drug benefits plan. The

advisor agreed, but he continued to pursue his job search while serving as a government

employee. While there is nothing wrong with government employees looking for a new job, the

hang-up for this employee came when he decided to take several trips ostensibly related to his

work for the HHS. While he was on these trips, he allegedly conducted “perfunctory meetings”

for the HHS, and then he went off to do what he had really come to do—to have interviews with

potential employers. Regardless of whether or not these trips were set up for the purpose of

conducting bono fide government business, the advisor’s meetings with potential employers

during those trips gave the appearance that he was using his position for personal gain The

employee has agreed to reimburse the government’s costs for the trips, which totaled

approximately $10,000 in value.

8

Federal Agent Demoted for I.D.ing Herself as a Federal Agent to a Police Officer

A Supervisory Special Agent for the Department of the Treasury (GS-14) was a

passenger in a car that was pulled over by a local police officer. When the officer approached

the vehicle, the employee presented the officer with her credentials identifying herself as a

Federal Agent. The police officer had not asked to see the employee’s identification at all.

Because law enforcement officials may be tempted to treat other law enforcement officials more

favorably, the Department determined the employee presented her government credentials to the

police officer in hopes of receiving more favorable treatment. The federal employee did not

explicitly ask the police officer for any favors, but the circumstances led her agency to the

conclusion that she had attempted to use her official position for personal gain, which is

prohibited by federal ethics rules. As a result, the employee’s agency determined that she was

untrustworthy as a supervisor and she was demoted.

Abuse of His Positions A former ATF chief, Carl Truscott, was investigated by the Department of Treasury

Inspector General and found to have committed numerous ethics violations. Among them,

Truscott was found to have misused his position and to have wasted government resources by

giving his nephew unlimited access to ATF employees and resources for a school project. The

ATF’s Office of Public Affairs staff was told by Truscott to comply with all of his nephew’s

requests. The OPA staff ended up “spoon feeding” Truscott’s nephew. OPA staff spent

numerous hours conducting research on publicly available information, mailing the nephew hard

copies, providing the nephew with stock film footage, and conducting tours and interviews for

the nephew. Truscott also asked employees at the Philadelphia field office to escort his nephew

on tours, and to perform demonstrations of canine drug detection for him. When Truscott’s

nephew requested to visit the ATF headquarters, Truscott allowed him to use ATF equipment,

including the ATF’s film studio, cameras, and tele-prompters to film interviews. Additionally,

Truscott gave his nephew three personal interviews, including once at the construction site of the

new ATF building where Truscott, his assistant, and an OPA staff member had to travel to give

the interview. Truscott also used his speechwriter to draft talking points for him to use in the

interviews. And, as if that were not enough, after the nephew completed the video and received

9

an “A” grade for it, Truscott continued to allow him to make requests to the ATF for suggestions

on improving the video. One employee reported spending four or five days complying with the

nephew’s requests.

The IG was unable to tally the total number of employees and hours that were devoted to

Truscott’s nephew, but estimated that at least 20 ATF employees were involved. The IG

determined that Truscott violated government regulations prohibiting federal employees from

using their office for private gain, wasting government resources, and influencing subordinates to

waste government resources. (Office of the Inspector General, Report of Investigation

Concerning Alleged Mismanagement and Misconduct by Carl J. Truscott, Former Director of the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

SES Official’s Involvement with Subordinate Leads to Retirement The Inspector General found that an SES official engaged in an intimate relationship with

a subordinate, provided her preferential treatment when selecting her for a new position, and

misused Government resources and official time. The official retired before the IG completed

his report. The IG report indicated that the official’s relationship with a subordinate adversely

affected the workplace, violated the requirements for members of the Senior Executive Service,

and constituted conduct that was prejudicial to the Government. Witnesses noted that the official

failed to hold his paramour accountable for her professional responsibilities, and when

confronted by other employees, became verbally abusing, vengeful, and angry. The official also

served as the selecting official, who selected his subordinate for promotion, while engaged in an

intimate relationship with her, thereby violating the Merit system principles and engaging in a

prohibited personal practice.

Affair with Assistant Leads to Employee Removal A Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense was terminated when investigators

discovered that he had engaged in a romantic relationship with a DoD contractor who had served

as his executive assistant. The executive assistant claimed that the end of their affair and the

official’s subsequent persistence had led her to leave her position. When questioned by

10

investigators regarding the affair, the Deputy Assistant initially lied as to the nature of the

relationship.

Although charges of sexual harassment could not be substantiated, the Inspector General

found the Deputy Assistant’s behavior to be incompatible with the standards of conduct

established for DoD employees and members of the Senior Executive Service. The Office of the

Secretary of Defense promptly initiated actions to terminate the Deputy Assistant.

DEA Agent - Misuse of Position A DEA agent whose responsibilities included fleet management and authorization of

repairs of Government vehicles had attempted to obtain free repair services for his personal

vehicles from two vendors. The agent also insinuated to the vendors that the cost of repairing his

personal vehicles could be recouped as part of the charges for repairs to Government vehicles.

After these allegations were substantiated, the agent was dismissed from DEA.

Improper Use of Position The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated

allegations that a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney prepared another person's application for

a visa with a cover memorandum on DOJ stationery. The DOJ attorney also included one of his

DOJ business cards in the submission. The foreign individual was seeking a visa in order to

enter the country to perform certain functions for a non-profit organization. The DOJ attorney

told OPR that he did not intend to gain preferential treatment for the visa applicant by identifying

himself as a DOJ attorney, but believed his actions were consistent with what DOJ employees

are permitted to do on behalf of non-profit organizations.

OPR concluded that the actions of the DOJ attorney were improper, but not intentionally

so. Section 2635.703 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive

Branch prohibits employees from using their position or title for purposes of endorsement.

“You obviously don't know who I am.” The son of a bureau director was denied a rental car because he was too young.

Outraged, his father wrote a scathing letter (on Agency letterhead) to the president of the rental

car company, and sent it off in a U.S. postage-paid envelope. The president of the company was

11

not amused and returned his scathing response to the head of the Agency. As a result of his

action, the Bureau Director was treated to a four-hour ethics session and a fine for personal use

of official postage.

"But, Judge, I didn't get anything!" An offshore safety inspector found much of the Government’s equipment to be in need of

repairs to meet safety standards. He then referred the business to his brother-in-law's repair

shop. The rig operators smelled a rat and called the FBI. They discovered that, in return for

each referral, the brother-in-law was treating the inspector to an evening with a lady of dubious

morals.

The case was brought to trial. In his defense, the inspector claimed that he had not

received a "thing of value" in return for the referral. The judge didn't buy it - and neither did his

wife.

Use of Contractor Time Allegations were made against a Department of Defense (DoD) official regarding his use

of contractor employees. The official directed two US Government contractors to entertain an

acquaintance he met at a conference in Europe on his behalf. They were directed to take the

person out to lunch as well as out on the town the following evening. The contractors rightly

believed that the request was improper and as a result told the DoD official that they “had other

plans.” The DoD official told them to “cancel them.” The contractors eventually took the

acquaintance out that evening for several hours.

After an investigation, it was determined that the DoD official had acted in violation of 5

CFR 2635.704 by utilizing contractors’ time improperly. His supervisor counseled him and the

proper reimbursements were made.

Veterans Affairs Supervisors Push for Friends to be Hired A review found in two instances that Department of Veterans Affairs medical center

supervisors recommended the hiring of close personal friends without divulging the relationship

to human resources staff members. The review team recommended that disciplinary action be

taken.

12

Interior Official Altered Reports and Leaked Confidential Information The Interior Department’s Inspector General found that a senior official had repeatedly

altered scientific field reports to lessen the protections for imperiled species and ease the impact

on landowners. The investigation also revealed the official, who works in Fish and Wildlife

Services, misused her position by disclosing confidential information to private groups seeking

to affect policy decisions. The Inspector General referred the case to the Department Head for

“potential administrative action.” (The Seattle Times, March 30, 2007)

Bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201-Type Violations)

What’s Your Price?

A Naval Officer was sentenced to more than three years in Federal prison for a sex-for-

secrets scandal. The Navy Lieutenant Commander admitted to delivering classified documents

to a foreign defense contractor in exchange for a night out with a prostitute at a Malaysian

karaoke club, envelopes of cash and overseas hotel stays. The value of the bribes was $15,000.

He was fined $15,000, and ordered to pay the Navy an additional $15,000 in restitution. Former Sperry Executive Pleads Guilty on Navy Bribe

A former Sperry executive pled guilty in Federal District Court on charges that he bribed

a Navy official for help in competing for an electronics contract. The Navy official, who pled

guilty as well, received over $400,000 for his efforts in proposing and promoting the company,

which was deposited into a Bahama bank account. The dramatic irony for those implicated is

that, despite the Navy official’s efforts, Sperry was eliminated from the contract competition. These guilty pleas were just a few of the more than 20 other convictions resulting from a

DOJ investigation into military procurement fraud. Sentences have included a 32-month jail

term for a separate bribery scheme initiated by another Sperry executive and a 27-month term for

the “banker” in that case. Moral of the story: it doesn’t pay to bribe. (Source: AP; published 21 Oct 1989)

13

Retirement Does Not Guarantee “Prosecution Free” A former regional Department of Housing and Urban Development office director

received $38,000 in paybacks from the recipient of a government loan totaling $1.5 million. The

director was initially placed on administrative leave before retiring from the agency. That did

not prevent him from escaping the long-arm of the law, however, as he is currently serving an

18-month prison sentence for conspiracy to provide and accept an illegal gratuity.

(Source: The Washington Post; published 4 Feb 2015)

My Oath of Office for Your Cold Hard Cash A U.S. Foreign Service officer, who worked in the U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City,

Vietnam, was responsible for issuing visas after reviewing applications and conducting

interviews. He conspired with U.S. and Vietnamese citizens to recruit customers who would pay

$15,000 to $70,000 in exchange for non-immigrant visas from Vietnam to the U.S. He accepted

over $3 million in bribes and allowed nearly 500 foreign nationals to enter the U.S. He pleaded

guilty to bribery and agreed to pay at least $6 million in a money judgment and faces up to 24

years in prison.

The Godfather

A former Department of Defense employee used to refer to himself as “The Godfather”

because of his ability to influence the awarding of construction contracts. However, like all great

crime bosses, this employee was arrested for extorting a $10,000 bribe. The Godfather accepted

a $10,000 installment of a $40,000 bribe from an undercover agent in an attempt to secure a

flooring contract. The Godfather was taken into custody.

Lucrative Contracting A former Army officer had found a lucrative gig: accepting cash payments for facilitating

contracting between Iraqis and the U.S. government during a deployment to Baghdad. This

particular officer accepted $37,500 in cash payment for these “facilitations.” The officer was

sentenced to prison, three years of supervised release, and was required to pay $37,500

restitution to the U.S. Government.

14

Bribe for a Bulldozer A retired military employee plead guilty to taking bribes in exchange for turning a blind

eye while others stole heavy equipment from the base for resale. The man admitted to allowing

items such as cranes, bulldozers, and front-end loaders to be taken from the base. As part of his

plea agreement, the employee agreed to forfeit the bribe proceeds, as well as to pay full

restitution to the Department of Defense.

Fraud, Conspiracy, and Bribery … Oh My! Criminal charges put a computer contractor out of business and landed government

employees in jail. Two civilian employees at a Military Depot, along with the contractor’s

government sales manager, were convicted on various conspiracy and bribery charges for

defrauding the U.S. Government under multiple contracts in return for cash and merchandise.

The employees were part of a scheme in which they used government funds to purchase laptops

and recycled computer components from the contractor’s sales manager at inflated prices, and

split the overcharged amounts among themselves. One employee received prison time, three

years of probation, and was ordered to pay $30,000 in restitution. The other employee was

sentenced to 22 months in jail, three years of probation, and ordered to pay $18,000. The sales

manager received a similar sentence. The computer contractor was indicted on nine felony

counts and subjected to asset forfeiture of approximately $7.8 million. The charges were later

withdrawn after the company filed for bankruptcy. The investigation also resulted

in five other individuals charged with prison time and ordered to pay a combined $127,000 in

restitution.

One Thing Leads to Another A misuse of government resources investigation hit unexpected pay dirt when it

uncovered a contractor procurement and bribery scheme. Investigators responding to a hotline

tip substantiated a misuse of funds claim when they found a civilian utilities manager at a

Military command rented a 350-ton crane to move electrical generators seven days before it was

needed; costing the government $35,000. The investigation also uncovered a complicated

contract bid rigging, bribery and kickback operation involving the utilities manager and a Service

15

contractor. The manager manipulated and sole-sourced work to the contractor; reportedly to

drive business to the contractor in order to transition to a job with them after his government job.

The manager used government funds to purchase expensive tools, plasma TVs, and laptop

computers that turned up missing. He also allowed the contractor to use government personnel,

tools, and equipment to do the contractor’s work. He submitted false invoices on behalf of the

contractor, resulting in a $1.3 million loss to the government. As a result of a plea deal for

cooperation in additional procurement investigations, the manager was sentenced to 15 months

in prison and debarred from government contracting for four years. This investigation touched

off five separate criminal investigations against other contractors in that Military Service

regarding allegations of bid rigging.

Bribery and Fraud Lands Program Manager in Jail A Program Manager (PM) that was responsible for administering computer contracts

received kickbacks and ran his own business defrauding the Government. The PM negotiated a

deal with a contractor that raised the price of computer storage equipment by $500 a unit. The

increase was for “additional services” that were supposedly needed to resolve a defect in the

equipment. An investigation determined that these services were unnecessary, and that the $500

was paid to a shell company owned by the PM’s wife.

The $500 per unit was just the start. He also used a business that he controlled to

purchase generic equipment and resell it to the Government as a name brand product far above

market rate. These endeavors proved to be quite lucrative, and the PM profited about $3.2

million on the schemes. The profit was short-lived, however, as the PM was indicted for bribery

and fraud. He was sentenced to five years in prison, required to repay the $3.2 million and

charged a $2,400 fine.

Contracting Official in Afghanistan Pleads Guilty to Bribery A Government employee at Bagram Airfield, pled guilty to accepting bribes in exchange

for awarding Government contracts. The employee was responsible for evaluating trucking

contractors and assigning each contractor days of work each month based on their performance.

The employee was approached by a contractor and ultimately accepted a wireless telephone and

16

$20,000 a month in exchange for assigning an extra day of work each month to that contractor.

He also made a similar deal with another contractor for $15,000 a month. In all, the employee

received about $87,000. He was sentenced to forty months in prison and three years of

supervised release.

Major Wrongdoing A retired Army Major, Christopher H. Murray, pled guilty to charges of bribery and

making a false statement arising from his activities at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait.

In 2005 and 2006, while serving as a contracting specialist at Camp Arijan, Murray

received approximately $225,000 in bribes from DOD contractors. In return, he recommended

the award of contracts for various goods and services. Murray also admitted that he received an

additional $20,000 in bribes from a DOD contractor in exchange for the award of a construction

contract. Murray’s misconduct continued as he made false statements to federal agents

investigating his conduct. Murray’s sentencing is pending, but the maximum penalty for each of

four bribery counts is 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The maximum penalty for making

a false statement is five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In another bribery case at Camp Arifjan, another Army Major, James Momon, Jr.,

accepted cash bribes from five DOD contracting firms that supplied bottled water and other

goods and services to bases in Kuwait. Momon, a contracting officer at the camp, awarded

contracts and Blanket Purchase Agreement calls to those contractors, receiving $5.8 million as

payment for his actions. Momon pled guilty to bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery. His

sentencing is pending, but, like Murray, Momon faces up to 15 years in prison and a $250,000

fine for each bribery count, as well as five years in prison for the conspiracy count. Momon has

also agreed to pay $5.8 million in restitution.

Inhibiting Victory A Major in the U.S. Army Reserve pled guilty to conspiracy and bribery charges related

to DOD contracts at Camp Victory, Iraq. According to the charging document, Theresa Jeanne

Baker received money and other items, including a Harley Davidson motorcycle, from a defense

contractor, Raman Corporation, and a former employee of another defense contractor, Elie Samir

Chidiac. In return, Baker conveyed sensitive information and fraudulently awarded contracts to

17

the contractor. Baker also canceled contracts that were awarded to third party contractors and

fraudulently re-awarded them to Chidiac. Baker’s sentencing is pending, but the maximum

penalty for each of Baker’s two bribery counts is 15 years in prison and the greater of a $250,000

fine and three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value received. Baker was also

charged with two counts of conspiracy. Each count comes with a maximum penalty of five years

in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Courting Trouble A former official of the U.S. Tax Court, Fred Fernando Timbol Jr., was sentenced to 18

months in prison and three years of supervised release in connection with a bribery conspiracy.

Timbol was a facilities services officer in the Facilities Management Section of the U.S.

Tax Court. Timbol was responsible for assisting in the award of contracts to contractors who

provided maintenance, construction, and other related service to the Court. Timbol admitted to

soliciting and accepting over $12,000 from a government contractor in exchange for rigging the

award of at least six inflated contracts. As part of a plea agreement and by order of the court,

Timbol also agreed to pay restitution of $24,143.

Moore Misconduct First Lieutenant Robert Moore (Ret.) agreed to pay $120,000 in restitution for accepting

money from contractors in exchange for the award of DOD contracts.

In addition to pleading guilty to bribery for the award of contracts at Bagram Airfield,

Afghanistan, Moore pled guilty to conspiracy, admitting to falsifying the number of bunkers and

barriers delivered at Bagram, which resulted in DOD paying for bunkers and barriers that were

never received. Moore also admitted falsifying damage reports for leased vehicles, causing

DOD to pay for repairs not performed.

Two other officials, Christopher P. West, an Army Major, and Patrick W. Boyd, an Air

Force Master Sergeant, likewise pled guilty to bribery and conspiracy for related conduct. The

two agreed to pay $500,000 and $130,000, respectively, in restitution to DOD.

18

Department Employee Works to the Public Detriment A civilian Engineering Technician assigned to the Public Works Department at Naval Air

Station, Corpus Christi, TX recommended Contract Construction and Fence Company for a

$153,000 contract. But behind the scenes, the company had first agreed to pay the Government

employee $5,000 in exchange for the recommendation, per the employee’s request. The

technician admitted to accepting the bribe in return for his official action that resulted in the

contract award. The Navy debarred the civilian employee for three years, and he left Federal

service.

VA Employee Earns a 46-Month Stay in the Slammer for Corruption A Department of Veterans Affairs employee was caught demanding and receiving

kickbacks from a contractor doing business with her agency. The VA employee and the

contractor agreed that the employee would recommend the contractor’s services to her agency,

and in return the contractor would give the employee kickbacks from the inflated prices it

charged the government. In all, the employee received $115,000 in kickbacks, although the

scheme ended up costing the government much more—between $400,000 and $1 million. On a

side note, the VA employee was also indicted for conducting post-government employment

negotiations with a company she was doing business with in her government capacity.

Accepting Gifts from Vendor Results in $1,000 Fine A U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employee who accepted free tee time golf games from a

vendor had to explain his actions in Federal court after a tipster informed investigators.

Authorities learned that the employee, who was the manager of Delivery Vehicle Operations,

had played golf with a vendor who was involved in a $100 million procurement with USPS. On

that occasion, the employee had accepted payment for his golf fees and his dinner. Investigators

discovered that over the course of the previous year, the employee had also accepted

approximately $2,000 in non-cash items (including meals and golf fees) from the vendor.

The employee pled guilty to bribery, and was sentenced to one year unsupervised

probation and a $1,000 fine. For this employee, golf turned into a very expensive sport.

19

Exchanging Contract for Computer Earns Prison Time The Facts: The director of Respiratory Care at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital in

Shreveport, Louisiana, agreed to push through a VA contract for a vendor, if the vendor supplied

her with a laptop computer. The VA Police and Security Service, as they are wont to do,

investigated and discovered this quid pro quo. The director was caught and pleaded guilty to

soliciting and receiving illegal gifts. She was sentenced to 5 months in prison, to be followed by

7 months of home confinement, and ordered to pay restitution of $904. (Source: Federal Ethics

Report, Feb. 2001.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) (2003) forbids any public official from accepting

anything of value in exchange for an official act to be performed, or because of any official act

already performed. Violations of this law can merit fines, imprisonment for up to 2 years, or

both.

Asking for a Bribe — Have You Lost Your Mind? The Facts: An employee at the Defense MegaCenter at Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, was

working as a member of a source evaluation committee reviewing contract proposals for a $5

million contract when he struck on this ingenious idea: Ask one of the potential contractors for a

bribe in exchange for his approval of the contractor’s proposal! The contractor apparently didn’t

think that this was such a good idea, however. It contacted the Defense Criminal Investigative

Service, which investigated the case along with the Air Force. The investigation included using

an undercover agent, parading as the contractor’s representative, paying the employee the bribe.

Having been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, the employee pleaded guilty to accepting a

bribe and was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to participate in a mental health

program—perhaps an appropriate remedy for what proved to be a lame-brained scheme.

(Source: Federal Ethics Report, Feb. 2001.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A) (2003) bars public officials and any persons selected

to be public officials from seeking anything of value in return for “being influenced . . . in the

performance of any official act.” The penalty for violating this law can include fines,

imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both, along with possible disqualification from holding “any

office of honor, trust, or profit” with the United States Government.

20

Don’t Be Too Gracious a Gift-Getter ! The Facts: An employee of the Maritime Administration (MARAD), a division of the

Department of Transportation, oversaw contracts for ship repairs. He also saw a contractor

providing him with nice gifts to reward his work—including a large-screen TV and a VCR.

What could be wrong with that? Plenty, according to the U.S. Attorney, who delivered to this

gracious gift-getter a four-month prison sentence, to be followed by one year of probation, and

an order for restitution in the amount of $7,460. The other gifts the employee could have

refused; these he was compelled to take. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, Feb. 2001.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) (2003) forbids any public official from accepting

anything of value in exchange for an official act, or given for an official act already taken.

A violation of this law can result in fines, imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both.

Not So Much of a Bright Bulb ! The Facts: A former supervisor in the Bureau of Indian Affairs used a Government-issue

credit card to purchase excessive quantities of overpriced light bulbs from a North Dakota

company. In exchange for his act as a poor shopper, he accepted $21,000 in bribes. For his

savvy purchasing, he was sentenced to one year and nine months in prison and ordered to pay

$72,000 in restitution.

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) (2003) forbids Federal employees from (among other

things) seeking or receiving anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance

of an official act or to commit or to assist the commission of any fraud against the United States.

It mandates fines, imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both, along with disqualification from

holding “any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”

FAA Employee Sentenced for Bribery A former employee of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was convicted of

bribery. In carrying out his primary responsibility of reviewing and processing applications for

FAA-issued pilot certificates, the employee accepted bribes of $2,000 and an all-expense paid

trip to Korea in exchange for preferential treatment of applications for Korean pilots from the

flight school, Wings Over America.

21

The employee was sentenced to pay a $2,000 fine and serve four months in prison,

followed by three years of probation for violating 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2). Bribery occurs when a

public official seeks or accepts anything of value in return for being influenced in the

performance of an official act.

Social Security Administration Employee's Bribery Try Ends in Prison A Social Security Administration employee and her husband were convicted for

soliciting bribes from individuals seeking Social Security benefits for themselves or family

members. The couple approached citizens who were having difficulty qualifying for

Supplemental Social Security benefits. They would offer to arrange to have benefits reinstated

or to complete paperwork for the individual. Afterwards, they demanded payment for their

services.

At their 1997 trial in Louisiana, a judge ordered the employee to 46 months

imprisonment followed by three years of probation. The employee's husband received 30

months imprisonment, also followed by three years of probation. They each paid back

$23,809.33.

The offense of bribery occurs when a public official seeks or accepts anything of value in

return for being influenced in the performance of an official act.

Navy Employee Sentenced for Gratuity Offense A Navy electrical foreman was sentenced for accepting $9,300 in illegal gratuities from a

Government contractor. The foreman was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 201 and was

sentenced to 36 months of probation and a $10,000 fine. The electrical foreman assisted a

Government contractor in obtaining a contract with the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC).

The foreman had authority over certain Navy contracts relating to NAWC base maintenance.

Congressional Aide Sentenced for Corrupt Activities A former staff assistant to a U.S. Congressman was convicted of two counts of accepting

gratuities (18 U.S.C. 201) and one count of devising and carrying out a scheme to defraud the

Government (18 U.S.C. 1341). The aide was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on each

22

count followed by two years of probation. The staff assistant accepted $3,700 for assisting

individuals in obtaining permanent residency status by sending endorsements on the

Congressman's letterhead to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The aide was

also involved in a scheme to defraud aliens seeking permanent residency. The aide told the

aliens that if they were members in the Seventh Day Adventist Church, they would be eligible

for permanent resident status even though the INS Special Religious Immigrant Work Program

covers only church workers and their immediate families who are employed by a religious

organization. The aliens were informed that for a fee, the aide would assist them in applying

with the INS. The aide received approximately $400,000 from 1,000 aliens.

HUD Official and Realtor Imprisoned for Bribery Scheme A former official at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was

sentenced for his role in a bribery scheme involving HUD properties. The former official was

paid bribes by a realtor who in exchange was sold HUD properties at lower than their appraised

values. The bribes totaled over $80,000, including a BMW automobile. In return the HUD

official sold the realtor 20 HUD properties at one-third of their appraised value. The realtor then

resold the properties at their full market value. In addition to other charges, both the HUD

official and the realtor plead guilty to one count of 18 U.S.C. 201 each.

The HUD official was sentenced to a 24-month prison term followed by 3 years of

probation and was ordered to pay $1.4 million in restitution. The realtor was sentenced to a

27-month prison term followed by 3 years of probation and was also ordered to pay $1.4 million

in restitution.

United States Customs Service Special Agent Takes Informant Payoff Funds Beginning in June 1987, the agent worked with an informant who provided assistance to

the Customs Service in criminal investigations. One of the agent’s duties was to monitor and

assess the work of the informant. During a period of several years, the informant received a

number of payments from the Customs Service as compensation for his services as informant.

On one or more occasions, the informant expressed gratitude for the agent’s assistance by

observing that both he and the agent had engaged in hard work for which the informant would

23

receive substantial compensation, but for which the agent only would receive his salary. The

informant offered to share with the agent a portion of his earnings from the Customs Service. In

April 1992, the agent nominated the informant for a large payment, which represented a portion

of the value of certain assets forfeited as a result of information provided by the informant. The

agent then initiated a telephone conversation with the informant in which he asked the informant

for money. During August 1992, the informant went to San Francisco to receive the payment.

The agent personally gave the informant a United States Treasury check in the amount of

$110,875. While riding in a Government-owned vehicle, the informant attempted to hand the

agent an envelope with $4,000 in cash. The agent responded that the informant should drop the

envelope in the car because he could not accept the cash directly. The informant left the money

in the car and the agent recovered it.

The agent pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to a charge of a criminal violation of

18 U.S.C. 209, illegal supplementation of salary. Under the plea agreement, the agent agreed to

the imposition of a fine of $4,000 by the Court, to not seek employment with any Federal, state,

or local law enforcement Agency, and to pay a special assessment of $25. In exchange for these

agreements, the United States agreed to move to dismiss the Indictment charging the agent with a

violation of 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(1)(B) and not to prosecute him for any other criminal offense

relating to his receipt of $4,000 from the informant.

Gratuity Accepted In Exchange for Immigration Services A pastor submitted an application for permanent residence to the United States

Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The Southeastern

Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists (Southeastern Conference) wanted the pastor to minister

to two of its congregations in Miami. On August 17, 1990, a Congressman sent a letter to INS

on behalf of the pastor. On May 31, 1991, a second letter from the Congressman, this time

signed by the pastor as well, was sent to INS. Both letters were written on Congressional

stationery. On August 21, 1991, the pastor’s application for permanent residence was approved.

On July 8, 1993, the Congressional staffer who organized the scheme received a $500 gratuity

from the Southeastern Conference for her efforts on behalf of the pastor. The staffer used the

same scheme to assist another pastor in obtaining permanent residence so that he could serve as

minister for two of the Southeastern Conference's congregations. The Congressman wrote to

24

INS on July 26, 1993, on behalf of the second pastor and the Southeastern Conference.

The staffer assisted the second pastor in his dealings with INS. On August 3, 1993, INS

approved the pastor’s petition for residence and, on February 3, 1994, the staffer received a $500

gratuity from the Southeastern Conference for her efforts on behalf of the pastor. On April 26,

1994, another foreign national paid the staffer $2,700 for assisting her in applying for permanent

residence. The staffer submitted a petition to INS on the person’s behalf and signed the

application as the preparer. Although the application contained a signature, which purported to

be that of the staffer, she claimed that it was not her signature and that she did not see the

application prior to its submission. The staffer knew that the foreign national was not eligible to

become a permanent resident of the U.S. but fraudulently misrepresented to her that she was

eligible in order to induce her to utilize the staffer’s services.

The staffer was charged with two counts of accepting gratuities for official acts

performed, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(1)(B) and knowingly making a material false writing

and presenting it to INS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. She was also charged with accepting

compensation for services provided in relation to matters in which the United States has a direct

and substantial interest, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 203(a)(1), and mail fraud, in violation of 18

U.S.C. 1341. The staffer pled guilty to the five-count indictment on September 30, 1996, and

was sentenced to 18 months of incarceration on April 18, 1997.

Multiple Charges Brought Against Air Force Officer and Accomplice for Software Scheme

An Air Force officer was disgruntled after receiving notification that he would not be

promoted and was soon to be discharged without a retirement annuity. He conspired with a base

warehouse supervisor (while also seeking employment with him) to unlawfully transfer

superseded software from the MacDill AFB warehouse he supervised to a private company for

subsequent sale. He arranged with the supervisor to remove software called Oracle Tools and

Database (Oracle). The Air Force officer obtained possession of over 96 boxes of Oracle

software by making false statements in writing in an effort to gain authorization from his

superiors to have the software destroyed in place. Destruction of superseded software was the

responsibility of the Government according to its agreements with software contractors. The Air

Force officer worked under the pretense that the Oracle software was being turned over to a

25

company for destruction. Instead, the officer provided the Oracle software to a moving company

that transported the boxes from MacDill to a commercial storage facility rented by the warehouse

supervisor. Once in possession of the software, he searched for buyers of the software.

Originally, the U.S. Central Command had paid the Government bulk rate of $79,000 for the

Oracle software in 1991. On the gray market, this software was valued between $35,000 and

$100,000.

The officer was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208 (working on a project that

affected a company in which he had a financial interest), while his co-defendant, the warehouse

supervisor, was convicted of violations of 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. 641 (theft of

Government property) and 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy). The officer was sentenced to one year

probation and 150 hours community service. The warehouse supervisor was imprisoned for 27

months with supervised release for three years.

State Department Regional Security Officer (RSO) at the American Embassy in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic Drives Automobile Scheme

The RSO’s primary duties included overseeing a small force of U.S. Marines and a larger

force of security guards. While the RSO had no authority to enter into procurement transactions

on the Government's behalf, he did, in two separate transactions, engineer the purchase of eight

vehicles for the security company and some private citizens. The security company’s contract

with the Government required that it use three vehicles for patrols. These vehicles were

purchased in the United States and were free from substantial import duties when delivered to

the Dominican Republic by virtue of applications by the United States Embassy for

"exonerations" from the duties. Exonerations are given for property to be used by foreign

missions. With respect to the purchase of the first four vehicles, the RSO was given $50,000 by

the security company. The RSO carried at least $39,000 in cash to Miami, which he illegally

failed to disclose to customs officials, and purchased 4 vehicles for $39,000. The RSO kept the

remaining $11,000. Later, when the RSO purchased four vehicles for individuals, he was given

$55,000 in cash. He returned to Miami with at least $35,000 in cash, which again he failed to

report to Customs, and paid $35,000 for four vehicles which were sent to Santo Domingo and

"exonerated" from import duty after the RSO encouraged the exoneration process and initiated

some of the paperwork through an embassy employee. The RSO retained the unspent $20,000

26

difference between the purchase amount and the amount he had been given to purchase the cars.

The security company also was required to provide weapons for its security force. The RSO

arranged to purchase the weapons for the security company by first attempting to have certain

firearm companies or retailers ship the weapons to the Dominican Republic, notwithstanding the

fact that the RSO did not have a license to export the weapons. These companies refused to sell

the weapons to the RSO. Subsequently, he purchased the weapons from a Baltimore gun shop

after using Embassy letterhead and representing that he was authorized to purchase weapons for

the State Department. The gun shop refused to ship the weapons to the RSO. The RSO then

went to Baltimore and personally purchased the weapons and sent them in a lead-lined

diplomatic box to the Dominican Republic. The RSO gave most of the weapons to the security

company, but sold some extras that he purchased to citizens of the Dominican Republic at

considerable profit. He also kept for himself the difference of $2000 between the amount that

the security company had given him to purchase the guns and the amount that the gun purchase

had cost him.

The RSO was charged with making false statements to a firearms dealer, receiving

something of value for performance of an official act in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201, participating

as a Government employee in a transaction in which he had a financial interest in violation of 18

U.S.C. 208, stealing ammunition with a value in excess of $100 from the United States,

exporting firearms without a license, transporting monetary instruments into the United States

for the purpose of carrying on a violation of the Arms Control Export Act, and failing to make a

true report to the Customs Service when carrying $10,000 or more into the United States. The

jury convicted the RSO on the 201 count and the count of the indictment pertaining to exporting

firearms without a license.

Postal Employee Demanded Payoffs to Deliver Benefit Checks Having been tipped off that a letter carrier was demanding money from people on his

route in exchange for delivery of general assistance checks, the Postal Service established

surveillance and taped a conversation in which the letter carrier suggested that the customer

make a "one-time" payment of $15 to ensure delivery of her checks. The letter carrier accepted

the payment, which had been marked in advance of its transfer. The letter carrier was indicted

under 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(1)(B) for accepting money in exchange for performing an official duty.

27

After plea negotiations, he pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 209, for accepting

compensation for official duties from a source other than the Government. He was sentenced to

three years' probation, with 60 days at a community treatment center.

Employee Convicted for Steering Contracts to Supplier A Government technician and a co-worker went to a manufacturer and offered to ensure

that the manufacturer received Agency contracts in return for a hefty "finder’s fee."

The manufacturer, unfortunately for these enterprising employees, went to the FBI, which set up

a sting operation and arrested the technician. At trial, the technician, ever so clever, argued that

he could not be found guilty of bribery because he was not a contracting officer, and therefore

did not have the authority to award contracts to the manufacturer. The court rejected this

argument after listening to testimony on the role of technicians as far as providing expert

information that contracting officers rely upon, and upheld the conviction of the technician.

The offense of bribery occurs when a public official seeks or accepts anything of value in

return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. Such acts include giving

advice, making recommendations, and conducting investigations as well as making decisions.

Please Call Me “Doctor” Inmate One enterprising Federal employee cut a deal with a local university - they gave him an

honorary Ph.D. in public administration in return for his signing a mega-buck grant for the

university. (Obviously, he had great expertise in Public Administration.)

The offense of bribery occurs when a public official seeks or accepts anything of value

(such as an honorary degree) in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act.

Agriculture Employee Sought for Approving Fraudulent Loans A former employee of the Department of Agriculture is wanted for recruiting his friends

to fraudulently apply for farm loans and then giving him money in exchange for approving the

loans. The former employee helped his non-farmer co-conspirators to fill out the required forms

with the information required for approval. Under this scheme, the former employee approved

loans totaling $1.8 million. He collected $340,000 for himself.

The former employee has been charged with 98 counts including 56 for bribery.

28

Seven Agriculture Inspectors Sentenced for Bribery Scheme Seven U.S. Department of Agriculture fruit and vegetable inspectors were convicted of

operating a scheme in which they received cash payments from fruit and vegetable wholesalers

in return for the inspectors assigning lower grades to their produce. The lower grade meant that

the wholesaler could pay the grower a lower price for the produce and then re-sell it at the higher

grade.

All pled guilty to one count of bribery each. Bribery occurs when a public official seeks

or accepts anything of value (such as cash) in return for being influenced in the performance of

an official act (such as assigning produce grades).

INS Inspector Accepts Bribes A former Immigration and Naturalization Service inspector was sentenced for accepting

bribes in return for allowing smugglers to import cocaine into the United States across the border

with Mexico. He accepted $75,000 in bribes in return for allowing over 1,000 pounds of cocaine

to enter the country.

The former INS inspector was convicted of bribery and was sentenced to 30 months

imprisonment followed by three years of probation.

Former Federal Highway Administration Official and Wife Engage in Corrupt Scheme

A former FHWA employee and his wife were sentenced for engaging in a bribery and

kickback scheme involving traffic engineering contracts. The former employee improperly told

a contractor that they would probably win a contract. In return, the contractor granted a sub-

contract to the FHWA employee’s wife’s “consulting firm.” The employee’s wife had no

highway engineering education or experience. She received over $100,000 in Government

contracts.

In addition to other charges, the former employee pled guilty to one count of bribery.

29

VA Employee Convicted of Accepting Illegal Gratuities A former employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was sentenced for

soliciting and accepting gratuities from a VA vendor. He received three computers, airline

tickets, and hotel accommodations from several VA vendors. He was also charged with

demanding a fourth computer and round trip tickets to Las Vegas from another vendor. The

former employee pled guilty to one count of violation of 18 U.S.C. 201.

IRS Official Convicted for Steering Contracts A former IRS official was sentenced in US District Court for accepting bribes in return

for directing IRS computing contracts to certain companies and for failing to report the bribes on

his income tax returns.

He pled guilty to one count of bribery and to one count of filing a false tax return, and

received a 37 month prison term and three years’ probation as a result. Bribery occurs when a

public official seeks or accepts anything of value in return for being influenced in the

performance of an official act.

Special Operations Command Bribery Scandal Nabs Two Retired Officers Two retired military officers at SOCOM found themselves in federal court after the

revelation of a scheme to funnel defense contracts to companies willing to provide lucrative

kickbacks. The first official was a retired Army lieutenant colonel, and was employed by

SOCOM as a contractor charged with evaluating weapons designed for the special operations

forces. The second official was a retired Army colonel, who was chief of special programs at

SOCOM. Prosecutors allege that the retired colonel formed a private consulting company in

order to represent companies seeking to get part of SOCOM’s $1.8 billion procurement budget.

The consulting company then made illegal payments to the retired lieutenant colonel in exchange

for his favorable reviews of their clients’ weapons.

The retired lieutenant colonel pled guilty to federal bribery charges. Although he faced

15 years in prison, his exemplary service and cooperation with investigators earned him a

reduced sentence of three years of supervised probation, six months of home detention, and

30

$4500 in fines. The retired colonel has maintained his innocence, and faces up to 15 years in

prison and $250,000 in fines.

Iraq Contractor Caught Taking $1 Million in Bribes A former contracting officer for the Iraqi coalition government pled guilty to accepting

over $1 million in bribes in return for steering contracts to a contractor with companies in Iraq

and Romania. The officer was a convicted felon when he was hired by a U.S. company, which

subsequently won a contract with the U.S. to provide controllers to Iraqi regions. The officer

was put in charge of over $82 million in funding for an area south of Baghdad. He quickly

began accepting bribes in the form of cash, cars, jewelry, and sexual favors from women

provided by a contractor, in exchange for steering lucrative contracts in the contractor’s

direction. Investigators recovered incriminating email traffic, including one email from the

official to the contractor exclaiming, “I love to give you money!” Later investigations showed

that much of the contracted work was never completed. Also implicated in the scandal was a

retired Army lieutenant colonel, who also worked as a contracting officer in the region. He was

accused of funneling contracts to the same contractor in exchange for lucrative kickbacks,

including a new car; he also was accused of simply stealing large amounts of money from

reconstruction funds which he then smuggled into the U.S.

The official pled guilty to bribery, conspiracy, and money-laundering, as well as charges

connected with his illegal possession of at least 50 firearms, including machine guns and grenade

launchers. He awaits sentencing, and faces up to 30 years for the conspiracy charge alone. The

contractor pled guilty to conspiracy, bribery, and money-laundering. He faces up to 40 years in

prison, five years of supervised release and a fine of $750,000. He also must repay the

government $3.6 million and forfeit $3.6 million in assets. The lieutenant colonels case is still

pending. (Source: Washington Post, February 2, 2006; April 16, 2006)

Cargo Contractor Faces 5 Years for Bribery A Navy contractor at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Charleston

Detachment pled guilty to accepting bribes from a freight forwarding company. In exchange for

awarding freight transportation contracts to the company, the contractor received items valued at

31

more than $10,000, including extravagant dinners, concert and NASCAR tickets, weekends at a

bed-and-breakfast, jewelry, and “spa days” at a department store. Investigators discovered that

coincidentally, the freight company’s business was virtually nonexistent before the contractor

began awarding them contracts that eventually totaled over $700,000.

The contractor faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. She is the seventh

defendant connected to an investigation of payoffs between freight forwarding companies and

government contractors. (Source: UPI, March 20, 2006)

Gift-Giving Contractor Faces 5 Years for Bribery The owner of a cargo company in Virginia Beach faces five years in prison after giving

thousands of dollars in gifts to federal contract officers at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in

exchange for lucrative military shipping contracts. One federal contract officer, who had worked

for the government for 25 years, received free lunches and dinners, an open tab at a delicatessen,

airline tickets, concert and NASCAR tickets, cigars, and a $6,000 Jacuzzi. The vice president of

the owner’s cargo company was also indicted for bribes to another Norfolk federal contract

officer totaling over $75,000. In return for these gifts, the owner’s company received over

$640,000 in shipping contracts.

The owner faces up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. The two contract

officers both pled guilty; the first has been sentenced to 44 months in prison, and the other awaits

sentencing. (Source: Hampton News, 10/25/05)

Employees Fail to Profit from Red Tape Two workers at the Veterans Affair’s Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy, which

mails prescriptions to veterans, were charged with taking kickbacks for purchasing a product

from a supplier at more than twice the normal price. The product? Red tape. The employees

were charged with purchasing 100,000 rolls of the tape, which is stamped with the word

“security” and is meant to deter tampering, at $6.95 a roll rather than its $2.50 retail value.

In return, they received kickbacks of more than $1 per roll.

The duo will have plenty of time to appreciate the irony of their situation, as they face a

sentence of 15 years in jail.

32

Reselling Commissary Goods Lands Two in Court A scheme to resell military commissary batteries on the black market resulted in charges

filed against a veteran and a Department of Defense employee. Investigators discovered that the

veteran was bribing the employee to sell him large quantities of batteries from a commissary,

which the veteran then resold at a profit to a distributor. During a one-year period, the employee

sold the veteran $750,000 worth of batteries, which netted a $20,000 profit on the black market.

The veteran kept $11,000 of the proceeds, and kicked back the remaining $9000 to the employee.

The veteran pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of supplementing the salary of a Federal

employee, and was sentenced to one year of probation. The employee was charged with bribery

and taken to court. It is illegal for individuals to either pay or receive salary supplements for

services performed by Government employees related to their Government duties.

Accepting Kickbacks Earns Contractor 11 Years A federal investigation into bribery ended in three fraud convictions for the Chief

of Plans, Requirements, and Acquisitions for the Defense Systems Agency at the Navy Ship

Parts Control Center. The Department of Defense employee accepted $500,000 in cash in

exchange for awarding $18.1 million in contracts to an information technology company.

The investigation also uncovered a scheme by the employee, his brother, and his nephew to

defraud an environmental remediation business by submitting phony invoices for more than

$76,000. The employee was also convicted for lying about his wife’s disability status to the

Social Security Administration.

This trio of offenses earned the employee 11 years in federal prison, where he will have a

family reunion with his brother and nephew as well as his daughter, who was convicted of

making false statements to the grand jury. (Source: York Daily Record, March 29, 2006)

IRS Employee Goes to Jail for Accepting Gifts In the course of collecting the debt from a construction company, an IRS Revenue Agent

became friends with the owner. Such good friends, that the agent accepted free games of golf

from the owner, as well as a number of free dinners at restaurants. Indeed, the owner and the

33

agent were such pals that the owner presented the agent with a cashier’s check for $14,900,

which he subsequently used to purchase a car.

Unsurprisingly, the agent admitted that the gifts adversely affected his collection of the

construction company’s outstanding debt. The agent received three years in jail and six months

of home confinement for an Unlawful Act of a Revenue Officer.

Postal Service Worker Faces Jail Time for Bribery A U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employee responsible for receiving and awarding bids on

USPS printing orders was arrested for trading Government contracts for cash. The employee

funneled valuable contracts to the owner of a Washington D.C. printing business in exchange for

payments of $11,575 to the employee’s divorce lawyer. Over the course of the investigation,

authorities uncovered four other printing companies that admitted paying bribes to the former

USPS employee.

The printing business owner pled guilty to bribery, and faces up to two years in prison

and a $250,000 fine. The USPS employee’s case is pending in court.

Compensation for Representational Services from Non-Federal Sources (18 U.S.C. § 203-Type Violations)

Wanted: Employee Who Will Not Skip Meetings to Interview with Other Companies

An Army Brigadier General participated personally and substantially as an advocate and

approval authority in the effort to increase funding on a task order with a Government contractor

even while actively seeking employment with that company. His efforts did not rise to the level

of “negotiating” employment so he did not violate the criminal prohibition of 18 U.S.C. §208,

but was still in violation of C.F.R. 2635.604 when he took official action on behalf of a company

with which he was seeking employment instead of disqualifying himself from the particular

matter. He also extended official travel time and claimed unauthorized travel expenses in order

to go to job interviews and participate in other job seeking activities to the point of actually

excusing himself from official meetings. Finally, he charged unauthorized personal phone calls

34

to the Government and ordered subordinates to run personal errands for him, including picking

up his dry cleaning, driving him to the barber shop, and putting the license plates on his personal

car (also directing them to use an official Government vehicle for these purposes). The

General’s behavior violated the Joint Ethics Regulation because he used Federal personnel,

equipment, and duty time to conduct personal business. His official participation in a particular

matter on behalf of a company with which he was seeking employment violated conflict of

interest law. His other activities amounted to misuse of Government resources (his subordinates’

time and the Government car) and improper gift acceptance (due to a failure to reimburse

subordinates for expenditures such as mileage used when performing his personal services).

As if that was not enough of an ethical rap sheet, he violated DoD Directive 7000.14-R when

he decided to charge at least 15 of his TDY transactions to his personal credit card instead of

his Government travel card so that he could receive bonus point or air miles on the card.

The General was subject to Article 15 proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice,

fined $5,000, and directed to reimburse the Government $5,300 for the improper cell phone use

and overpayment of TDY expenses. He was allowed to retire at his current grade, O-7.

Receipt of Income by Federal Employee Results in 18 U.S.C. 203 Violation A former employee of the Department of Transportation was sentenced in the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for receiving unauthorized compensation from a

Government contractor for performing Government duties. The employee, in his capacity as a

Supervisory Marine Surveyor for the Maritime Administration, accepted compensation from

BGI Enterprise, Inc. for providing representational services in preparing a bid package for a $1

million U.S. Coast Guard contract to remove sunken barges from the Intracoastal Waterway in

Texas.

The employee pled guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. 203, and the Government

dropped its charge of making false statements to the Government and failure to report the receipt

of the unauthorized compensation on his annual financial disclosure form. The employee was

sentenced to a one-year probation and ordered to pay a $2,500 fine.

Under this criminal statute, in general, Federal employees may not accept compensation

for representing someone else before a Federal agency on particular matters in which the United

States is a party.

35

INS Employee Accepts Illegal Payments A clerical employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) took money

in exchange for assisting in processing INS employment authorization documents.

She pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 203(a)(1), for receiving

compensation for representational services rendered in a particular matter before a department

or Agency of the United States. On December 12, 2000, she was sentenced to two years of

probation and a $1,000 fine.

VA Employee Makes Improper Business Referrals A decedent affairs clerk at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital acted as an agent of another

employee at the VA hospital, who moonlighted at a nearby funeral home. The clerk referred

VA officials to the funeral home where his coworker moonlighted for the handling of bodies

abandoned at the VA hospital. The moonlighting employee paid the clerk for referrals.

Payments totaled approximately $450.

The clerk pled guilty on October 13, 1999, to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C.

203(a)(1), for receiving compensation for representational services rendered in a particular

matter before a department or Agency of the United States. On March 10, 2000, the

moonlighting employee was sentenced to pay $25.

Congressional Staffer Accepts Cash in Return for Assistance with INS A Congressional staff assistant for a member of Congress was assisting a constituent with

filing an application to normalize the immigration status of the constituent's daughter. While

doing so, he solicited and received money from the constituent in exchange for the preparation

and filing of the application with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

He was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 203(a)(1)(B). On August 7, 1998, he pled

guilty and on February 5, 1999, he was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of

community service, a $2,340 fine and $780 in restitution. Under this criminal statute, in general,

Federal employees may not accept compensation for representing someone else before a Federal

agency on particular matters in which the United States is a party.

36

IRS Employees Take Bribes To Ignore Tax Delinquency Two employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the two owners of a car rental

business engaged in a scheme in which they conspired to improperly handle the company’s

delinquent tax debt. The company was experiencing serious financial problems and had

substantial Federal employment tax delinquencies. The co-owners of the company met with an

IRS employee who introduced them to another IRS employee. IRS employee number 2 told the

co-owners how they could get their tax case transferred from the IRS office where it was pending

to the IRS office where he was employed. At that point, he would permit the company to remain

in business and pay a minimal amount of its tax deficiency. The co-owners agreed to a payment

of $1,000 per month for this service. During this time period, the co-owners provided both IRS

employees with free rental cars and paid vacations to Florida. IRS employee number 2 also

invested money and acquired an interest in the company. In a separate scheme, IRS employee

number 2 signed a one-year contract with a local levee board to perform an economic study.

The contract called for the IRS employee to be paid $85 per hour; he received approximately

$38,000 over the following year. At the same time, the levee board had tax disputes pending

under the employee’s supervision at the IRS. He did not disclose this fact to his supervisors at

the IRS.

The rental car company owners each pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 203, offering

compensation to a Government employee for representational services rendered in a particular

matter before a department or Agency of the United States. Owner number 1 received one year

probation and a $250 fine. Owner number 2 was sentenced to five years of probation and

$90,191 restitution. IRS employee number 1 pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(1)(A)

(bribery) and was sentenced to five years of probation and a $3,000 fine. IRS employee number

2 pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 208(a), taking official action in matters affecting a personal

financial interest, as well as 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2) (also bribery). He was sentenced to twelve

months in jail, three years supervised release, and a $3,000 fine.

Congressional Staff Member Takes Payment to Help “Grease the Skids” A Congressional staff member solicited $650 from a citizen who was seeking relief from

the state's Office of Workman's Compensation. He told the citizen that the $650 would help

"grease the skids" in getting her claim approved. The staff member specifically requested that

37

money be provided in cash and arranged for it to be delivered outside of the Congresswoman’s

office where he worked. The citizen later reported the matter to the FBI – who introduced an

undercover FBI agent who purported to have a worker's compensation claim. In tape-recorded

conversations with the undercover agent, the staffer solicited $650 from the agent. The pay-off

was videotaped. When interviewed several days later, he initially stated he never accepted

money from a constituent. When shown a photo of the FBI agent, he stated that he had been

offered money by her but had turned her down. When told that the person in the photo was an

FBI agent, the staffer stated: "I guess I'm in a lot of trouble, aren't I?"

He was charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. 201 and 203 and pled guilty to one count of

violating 18 U.S.C. 203. He received a sentence of probation and community service, and was

ordered to pay restitution.

DOT Employee Sentenced for 18 U.S.C. 203 Violation A former US Department of Transportation employee was sentenced in US District Court

for receiving unauthorized compensation from a Government contractor for representing the

contractor on a contract bid to the Government. The former official admitted that he assisted a

DOT contractor in the preparation of a bid package for a $1 million Government contract.

The judge sentenced the former employee to a year of probation and to pay a $2,500 fine.

Department of Labor ADUS Violates 18 U.S.C. 203 The Associate Deputy Under Secretary (ADUS) for International Labor Affairs at the

Department of Labor was involved in an effort to promote low-income housing subsidized by the

Mexican Government for low-paid Mexican workers living along certain sections of the United

States-Mexican border. He was assigned the duty of pursuing arrangements for a low-cost

housing project in 1991. The project was to be financed with private funds. He briefed the

Deputy Under Secretary for International Labor Affairs on the progress of the project. During

November 1991, he met with United States officials in Mexico City to discuss, among other

things, private sector initiatives to construct low-cost housing along the United States-Mexican

border. He met in Washington, D.C. and in Mexico City and other places with several real estate

developers interested in low-cost housing along the border. He and the real estate developers

met with Mexican banking and housing officials concerning the low-cost housing and the

38

possibility that the project would be financed through a Mexican low-income financing

authority. After several meetings, he told the real estate developers and the Mexican housing

officials that he would not be able to participate in the joint venture that the real estate executives

were forming due to his status as a Government employee. On July 22, 1992, the Under

Secretary accepted the offer to work for the joint venture in dealings with the United States.

He was offered 10 percent of the net profits generated by the project. The project involved the

building of 6,000 condominiums and would generate about $10,000,000 in net profits.

The anticipated total cost of the project was in excess of $120,000,000. The Under Secretary had

an intermediary act on his behalf in signing a memorandum of agreement with the real estate

developers. The Under Secretary, throughout the period in question, requested travel

authorizations and submitted travel vouchers to the Government for travel to Mexico to work on

the Mexican worker housing project

The Government charged that he agreed to accept compensation for representational

services before the United States in relation to a particular matter, the housing project, in which

the United States Department of Labor had a direct and substantial interest in violation of

18 U.S.C. 203(a) and 216(a)(2). The Government also claimed that the Under Secretary was

acting as part of a conspiracy against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The Under

Secretary pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced to probation for five years.

Immigration Consultant Offered Payment to INS Employee An "immigration consultant" who assisted resident aliens with the process of obtaining

INS travel papers offered compensation to an INS officer to speed up the application process.

He pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 203(a)(2) on January 27, 1993,

and was sentenced to one year probation, six months' home detention, and a $25 special

assessment. The defendant was also prohibited from further working in the immigration

consulting business.

39

Sergeant-at-Arms of the United States Senate Takes Free Flight to Hawaii After Recommending Contractor

The Sergeant-at-Arms is the chief purchasing agent for the Senate and in that capacity,

he recommended that the Senate purchase and install a $219,000 AT&T telephone system for

the U.S. Capitol Police. Three weeks later, he accepted a round-trip Washington-Honolulu

airline ticket, valued at $2,700, from an AT&T employee.

He pled guilty on November 18, 1992 to one misdemeanor count of violating 18 U.S.C.

203 and was sentenced to one year of supervised probation and to pay full restitution of $2,700

and a $5,000 civil fine.

Citizen Gives Illegal Payoffs to IRS Employee The defendant was audited by the Internal Revenue Service for excess deposits of

income. He offered the IRS agent conducting the audit furniture, equipment, and cash if the

agent would help him with his tax problems. The agent reported his offer to IRS internal

security. Subsequent discussions between the citizen and the IRS agent, accompanied by

payments of $240 and $200 in cash to the IRS agent, were monitored by IRS internal security.

The citizen pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 203, for compensating a Government

employee for representational services with respect to a particular matter in which the United

States had a substantial interest. The defendant was given a sentence of probation.

Congressional Staff Member Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 203 Violation The defendant was a staff assistant to a U.S. Congressman in a district office in Georgia

whose responsibilities included handling constituent requests. The staffer demanded and

received a payment of $300 from a businessman who was seeking a Federal grant to help him

start up a business. The staffer also demanded a percentage of any grant money awarded to the

businessman. He told the constituent that he would have to work nights and weekends on his

own time to help the constituent and that the money was to compensate him for the work.

The staffer was indicted for personally seeking payment for official acts in violation of

18 U.S.C. 201(c) and for demanding compensation for representational services before the

United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 203. He pled guilty to the § 203 violation and received a

sentence of probation.

40

And the Award Goes to…Our Sponsor! The Director of the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health accepted

a cash award from a grant recipient hospital. The doctor recused himself for a period of four

weeks around the date of the award presentation from any dealings with the awarding hospital

and noted the receipt of the award on his financial disclosure paperwork. Of course, this still

leaves the question of whether the doctor was permitted by statute to accept gifts from the donor

organization – which fell under the prohibited sources classification for purposes of the gift ban

because of the doctor’s potential influence over the selection of grant recipients. Congress has

requested documentation on all NIH award recipients so stay tuned.

Conflicts of Interest (18 U.S.C. § 208-Type Violations)

Prime Contract, Turned Subcontractor, Turned Convict (Conflict of Interest) The former Project Manager in charge of a prime contract in theater is now serving a 30

month prison sentence for criminal conflict of interest violations stemming from misconduct in

the execution of his contract. The prime contractor was responsible for providing vehicle

maintenance support to local units. In executing this contract, the Project Manager decided to try

cheating the system by creating his own supply company and funneling subcontract opportunities

to it. In executing this plan, the Project Manager awarded Blanket Purchase Agreements

(BPAS), in excess of $10 million dollars, to his subcontracted supply company and marked up

the price of his goods 100% or greater. A witness remarked that one example included charging

the government $35 for filters with a fair market value of $10. When the Project Manager was

promoted, his replacement discovered this misconduct and reported it. In addition to the 30

month prison sentence for criminal conflict of interest violations, the Project Manager was

required to make restitution in excess of $2,300,000 and will be required to undergo two-years of

supervised release following his prison sentence. (Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General; 2015)

41

USAID Official Aids Himself As Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a

former official helped draft a contract solicitation for a senior advisor—a position that he

intended to apply for after he retired—and tailored the solicitation to his specific skills and

experience. This is considered personal participation in a particular matter that has a direct and

predictable effect on his financial interest. Thus, by violating the conflict of interest criminal

statute, he was ordered to pay the Government a $30,000 penalty in settlement.

Documenting Misconduct Jeffrey Davis, a former employee of the National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA), faces a hefty penalty for engaging in a felony conflict of interest. Mr. Davis served as

an Archives Technician at NARA, a position in which he assisted the public with requests for

court documents maintained by NARA. He also owned and operated a company that charged its

customers a fee for obtaining court records in addition to the fees charged by NARA. From

September 2007 to October 2008, Davis used his official position at NARA to retrieve court

documents for his company’s customers. He also did not pay NARA the applicable fees

associated with the company’s customer requests for court records in order to conceal from

NARA his affiliation with his company and to increase his company’s profits. Davis pled guilty to receiving payments from his company in connection with the retrieval of court records from NARA using his official position. He admitted such payments

were an illegal supplementation of the salary paid by the government as compensation for his

services as a NARA employee. Davis’ sentencing is pending, but he faces the possibility of five

years in prison and a $250,000 fine. It looks like his court records business has left him with a

court record of his own.

One Happy Family Spends Time Together in Jail A former programs director for the General Services Administration admitted to using his

position at Fort Monmouth to award payments from the government to himself and his family.

The former employee did this by awarding projects to two contractors who in turn hired the

employee’s personal business enterprise and his daughter as subcontractors. Over the course of

42

three years, they received over $800,000 in fees from the government; the only catch, neither the

employee’s personal business nor his daughter actually performed any services for the

government at all. Aside from the obvious fraud to which the former employee, his wife, and his

daughter pled guilty, federal law also prohibits federal employees from making decisions

concerning matters in which they or their family members have a personal financial interest.

Even if the former GSA employee and his daughter had actually rendered the services that they

billed for, the former employee would still have been in violation of federal law by awarding the

projects to the contractors in the first place because his own financial interests were involved.

The former GSA employee and his family were ordered to pay over $800,000 in restitution, and

they each received prison sentences ranging from 12 to 46 months.

Moonlighting for Contractor Results in Employee Termination A contract manager at a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power plant in Kentucky

found himself out two jobs after investigators learned that he had been moonlighting for the

same contractor he was overseeing. As part of his responsibilities with TVA, the contract

manager reviewed contractor bids and oversaw contract performance. The manager accepted a

job with one of TVA’s contractors as a part-time supervisor, and worked for the contractor in

Oklahoma and Indiana on his days off and vacation days.

Even though the manager’s actions did not result in any identified financial loss, he was

terminated from TVA and prosecuted for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208. He pled guilty and was

sentenced to probation and a $1,000 fine.

This criminal statute prohibits personnel from participating in official actions (such as

reviewing contractor bids) that affect their employer, even if they work for that employer only

part time.

Awarding Contracts to Friend Earns Employee Five Years of Probation Investigators quickly short-circuited the plans of a NASA employee to cash in on an

agency electrical services contract. The employee worked as a communications specialist at

Langley Research Center (LaRS), and was responsible for reviewing and approving work done

on a project to install new “telecommunications closets” in LaRS. The employee recommended

43

that the main project contactor hire a certain subcontractor, which coincidentally was wholly

owned and operated by the employee’s friend. The prime contractor agreed. The subcontractor

completed the work, and subsequently bid on another subcontract. Upon receiving this second

contract, the subcontractor covertly hired another company to complete the work; this company

was wholly owned and operated by the NASA employee himself. At this point, tipsters notified

investigators, who found that the scam had netted the pair over $40,000.

The employee pled guilty to violating the conflict of interest statute, and was sentenced to five

years of probation and a $5,000 fine. This conflict of interest statute prohibits personnel from

participating in official actions (including merely making a recommendation) that affect their

financial interests.

Awarding Contracts to Spouse Earns Couple One Year in Prison A former Department of the Treasury employee and her husband were sentenced to

a year in prison for a scheme to funnel contracts to companies they personally controlled.

The employee, who served as an Employee Development Specialist, was responsible for

determining the training needs of Treasury employees and procuring private training services.

Investigators discovered that over the course of two years, the employee had awarded 105

training contracts valued at more than $139,600 to companies owned by her husband.

The employee pled guilty to several charges, including violations of 18 U.S.C. 208,

participating personally and substantially in matters in which she or her spouse had a financial

interest. She was sentenced to a year of prison and three years of supervised release, and was

ordered to pay $54,500 in restitution. Her husband also pled guilty to several charges, including

wire fraud and conspiracy, and received the same sentence as his wife.

Awarding Contracts to Spouse II A contracting officer for the General Services Administration (GSA) wound up in

Federal court after funneling contracts to her husband’s employer. Investigators discovered that

the officer had directed over $11.5 million to the company that employed her husband over the

span of 15 months, all in the form of GSA purchases of food preparation and serving equipment

44

items. As a result of these purchases, the officer’s husband received raises and a Jaguar from his

employer.

The officer pled guilty to violating conflict of interest laws, and was sentenced to 180

days of home confinement and five years of probation. She additionally was ordered to pay

$161,000 in restitution.

Awarding Contracts to Spouse III The head of the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee Program at the U.S.

Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana discovered he had done his job too well

when he was arrested and prosecuted for violating conflict of interest laws. Authorities learned

that the employee, who was responsible for arranging training seminars that would foster

cooperation with state and local law enforcement, had funneled seminar contracts to a certain

company; this company then subcontracted to a company owned by the employee’s wife. This

scheme had funneled $55,000 to the employee’s wife, and the company had kicked back $20,000

directly to the employee himself.

The employee pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 208, participating personally and

substantially in a matter in which he or his spouse had a financial interest, and was sentenced to

three years of probation, 200 hours of community service, and a $5,000 fine.

And the Band Played On…While the Ship Sank Around Them An Assistant Secretary of Telecommunications and Information within the Department of

Commerce spoke with ethics officers about a small dinner party she was having at her home but

neglected to mention: a) the party was for between 60 and 80 people and b) it was paid for by

companies she was responsible for regulating. Although the ethics officers found her to be in

violation of the department’s regulations, the Justice Department elected not to press criminal

charges.

45

Watch Promoting Your Business on Government Time! The Facts: A Senior Advisor to the State Department had an interest in a business that

planned to develop a theme park in the Middle East. No problem there. But the Advisor, in his

official position, recommended to other State Department officials that the State Department

support the enterprise. That violated the law. After a guilty plea, he was sentenced to a year of

probation and ordered to perform 25 hours community service and to pay a $20,000 fine.

(Source: Federal Ethics Report, Dec. 2000.)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 208 (2003) forbids any employee of the executive branch of the

Federal Government from recommending in his or her official position any matter in which he or

she has a financial interest. The penalty for violating this law could be a fine, a prison sentence

for up to one year, or both—unless the violation is found to be “willful,” in which case the

maximum prison sentence increases to 5 years (see 18 U.S.C. § 216 (2003)).

Helping to Contract with a Potential Employer — A Bad Idea The Facts: A U.S. State Department official was negotiating an employment contract

with a private employer when he recommended in his official capacity that the Department of

Defense (DoD) enter into a contract with the same company. The aim of the contract: to provide

equipment and transportation to help recover the remains of U.S. servicemen who were missing

in action during the Korean War. Relying upon the official’s recommendation, DoD contracted

with that company for $717,000. Unfortunately, the official’s recommendation to contract with a

company with whom he was negotiating employment violated the law. On January 10, 2002, the

State Department official was sentenced to three years’ probation and ordered to pay a $5,000

fine. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, Feb. 2002.)

The Law: With some exceptions, 18 U.S.C. § 208 (2003) forbids any officer or

employee of the executive branch from participating “personally and substantially” in his or her

official capacity in a contract, controversy, “or other particular matter” in which he or she, or any

person or organization with whom he is she is negotiating employment, has a financial interest.

Anyone violating this law “shall be imprisoned for not more than one year,” fined, or both (see

18 U.S.C. § 216). By making a recommendation on a contract involving a company with which

he was negotiating employment, the official in this case violated the law.

46

Judge Imposes Steep Prison Sentence in Conflict of Interest Case A former employee of the District of Columbia Government was sentenced in the U.S.

District Court for the District of Columbia for overseeing contracts involving an individual with

whom he was financially involved. The former employee served as chief of the day programs

branch of the D.C. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Administration. This

Administration placed mentally retarded adults in non-residential day programs. The former

employee supervised the assignment of mentally retarded adults to day programs and

administered the rules governing these programs. During this time, the former employee assisted

a woman in starting up a day treatment program for mentally retarded adults. The former

employee made loans to the woman and referred clients to her. Thus, the former employee had a

financial relationship with the woman. The former employee was no longer impartial since he

had a financial interest in seeing her succeed so his loan could be paid back. In addition, as part

of his D.C. Government duties, he oversaw the supervision of her company. When she would

pay back a portion of the loan, she would also pay him additional monies.

The jury found the former employee guilty of conspiracy and of violation of the conflict-

of-interest law. Particularly because of the involvement of a vulnerable victim (the mentally

retarded individuals in the day program), the judge sentenced the former employee to 46 months

in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release to include 100 hours of community service.

The judge also ordered the former employee to pay a $25,000 fine.

Federal conflict of interest statutes prohibit employees from taking official action in

particular matters in which they have a financial interest.

Federal Employee Convicted of Conflict of Interest Violation While Searching for New Job

Job-hunting efforts by a former Commerce Department Inspector General (IG) turned up

a Federal conviction for a conflict of interest instead of a job. As part of the former IG's official

duties, he reviewed the performance of a certain company, which had contracted with the

Commerce Department to update automated weather forecasting systems. At the same time that

he was performing these oversight duties, the former official began negotiating employment with

the same company.

47

A Federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 208, prohibits Federal employees from officially

working on particular matters that have a direct and predictable effect on an organization with

which they are negotiating prospective employment. The former IG's review of the company's

performance on the Commerce Department contract violated this statute. This is the same statute

that bars Federal employees from taking official action on matters that affect their own financial

interests or those of their spouses or children.

CIA Conflict of Interest A CIA employee paid $48,000 to settle a complaint brought by the Department of Justice

that the employee had participated in official matters in which his spouse had a financial interest.

The employee had served as the Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR) on

certain contracts between his agency and a private corporation, where his wife worked. The

contracts involved millions of dollars awarded to the corporation. Although the employee's wife

did not work on the same contracts as the employee, she received stock options for the purchase

of the corporation’s stock that were affected by the corporation's profits from the contracts her

husband had worked on.

A criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 208, prohibits employees from participating personally and

substantially in matters that have a direct and predictable effect on their own financial interests

or those of their spouses, minor children, or organizations in which they are employed. In this

case, the employee's involvement in the corporation’s contracts affected the profitability of the

corporation, which was passed on to the employee's wife through her stock options.

Former Postmaster General Pays Settlement to End Conflict Investigation

A former Postmaster General of the United States agreed to pay a $27,550 settlement to

end a complaint brought by the Department of Justice pertaining to a conflict of interest

involving the official’s holdings in a soft drink company. The complaint arose while the Postal

Service was exploring a potential strategic alliance between the Postal Service and the soft drink

company. T he Postal Service Board of Governors had the authority to approve the strategic

alliance, and the Postmaster General's role was to advise the Board of Governors with regard to

their consideration of strategic alliances. The Postmaster General rendered advice to the Board

48

even though he owned shares of stock in the soft drink company and therefore had a personal

financial interest in the decision.

The Postmaster General was charged specifically with violating 18 U.S.C. 208, a criminal

statute that prohibits an employee from participating personally and substantially, as a

Government official, in a particular matter in which he or she has a financial interest.

High-Ranking Government Official Agrees to Conflict of Interest Settlement A high-ranking Government official was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 208, which

governs official acts affecting a personal financial interest. The Federal employee, an Assistant

to the President for National Security Affairs, was investigated for holding stock in certain

petroleum companies while serving as the Deputy Assistant to the President for National

Security Affairs. The employee was advised by the National Security Council Legal Adviser to

divest his shares of his family's petroleum and other energy-producing stocks to avoid any

conflict of interest. During the time the employee was told to divest his stocks, he was involved

in his official capacity in matters that may have had a direct and predictable effect on the

petroleum company.

The official agreed to pay the Department of the Treasury $23,043, which represented the

increased value of the stocks, to settle the matter.

D.C. Public Library Director Sentenced for Travel Reimbursement Scheme The former director of the District of Columbia Public Library was convicted for

fraudulent activities involving Government cash advances and reimbursement payments. At the

time, the director was serving as both the head of the D.C. Public Library and the president of a

trade organization, the American Library Association. The director took cash advances from

D.C. Public Library funds to pay for expenses incurred in his role as president of the American

Library Association. He then asked the trade organization to reimburse him by sending checks

directly to his home address. In this manner, the library director deposited over $24,000 into his

personal bank account. Subsequently, the director failed to reimburse the D.C. Public Library

account for the cash advances.

49

In September 1998, a judge ordered the former director to pay back the $24,000 owed to

the D.C. Library, plus an additional $16,860 owed for back Federal income taxes. He was

sentenced to five months of home detention, to be followed by two years of probation for

violation of 18 U.S.C. 208, a conflicts of interest criminal statute.

Former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Agent Violates Conflict of Interest Statute

A former FBI agent pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 208, which prohibits Federal

employees from participating in official acts in which they have a personal financial interest.

The agent’s job responsibilities included researching and testing the use of pepper spray for the

FBI, which resulted in contact with the manufacturers of one particular type of pepper spray.

The agent subsequently recommended this pepper spray, and in return, received $57,500 in

payments from the manufacturer. Following the agent’s recommendation, the FBI approved the

use of the pepper spray for its agents, resulting in a large purchase from the manufacturer.

Additionally, as a result of the FBI agent's research and recommendation, other law enforcement

agencies nationwide began to use the pepper spray produced by the manufacturer.

The former agent was sentenced to two months imprisonment followed by three years of

supervised release for his violation of 18 U.S.C. 208. This statute bars Federal employees from

officially participating (in this case, even making a recommendation) in particular matters (in this

case, a contract to buy pepper spray) that have a direct and predictable effect on the employee’s

financial interests or those of the employee’s spouse or minor children.

Army Employee Sentenced for Conflicts of Interest A civilian employee of the U.S. Army pleaded guilty to violation of the conflicts of

interest statute (18 U.S.C. 208) in Federal Court and was sentenced to one year probation and a

$1,000 fine. The employee had participated in the awarding and administration of contracts

involving a company in which the employee owned stock, thereby participating personally and

substantially as a Government employee in matters that affected his financial interests. The

employee, who filed financial disclosure statements (OGE Form 450), had also failed to disclose

his financial interest in the company.

50

Chief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer of the United States Department of Education Violates 18 U.S.C. 208

While the official held the above titles at the Department of Education, his wife owned

600 shares of Compaq computer stock that she had inherited from her mother. During this

period, the official was involved in his official capacity in issues concerning Compaq computers.

The Government contended that the official violated 18 U.S.C. 208, for participating personally

and substantially as a Government officer in a particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he

and/or his spouse has a financial interest.

Pursuant to a civil settlement, the official paid the Government $20,000, and the

Government released him from its claims.

Chief of Staff at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Kansas City, Engages in Conflict of Interest

During the same time the Chief of Staff was employed by the Department of Veterans

Affairs Medical Center, he was also employed as a physician by the University of Kansas

Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas. Subsequently, the Chief of Staff in his official capacity

approved a contract for cardiocath services to the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical

Center by the University of Kansas Medical Center.

On March 8, 2000, the Chief of Staff pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C.

208, which bars employees from taking official action in matters affecting their personal

financial interests. On August 7, 2000, he was sentenced to pay a $250 fine and a special

assessment of $25.

IRS Revenue/Settlement Officer Prosecuted UP 18 U.S.C. 208

An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee was assigned to a certain IRS collection

matter, which gave him inside information concerning a proposed stock exchange. After his role

in the case was substantially over, the employee purchased approximately $2,000 in the stock

subject to the proposed exchange based in part on information he had learned during the course

of his duties as a Revenue Officer. After the stock purchase, the IRS employee had on several

occasions, minor contact with the parties before the IRS. He eventually went to his supervisor,

disclosed his interest in the stock, and was removed from further participation in the case. The

IRS employee lost money on the stock transaction.

51

The IRS employee was prosecuted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 208 for participating personally

and substantially as a Government officer or employee in a particular matter in which, to his

knowledge, he had a financial interest, and 18 U.S.C. 216(a)(1). The employee was placed on

pretrial diversion for six months on the condition that he resign from the IRS and perform 120

hours of community service.

District Conservationist at Department of Agriculture’s National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Sentenced for Conflict of Interest

The NRCS employee was the Government's technical representative on a USDA soil and

water conservation program that was implemented through a State of North Carolina program

called NCACSP (North Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program). Under the NCACSP

program, local landowners can receive funding to reduce agricultural pollution. The NRCS

employee, in his position as a district conservationist, approved a contract whereby a business

venture owned by his spouse sold filter fabric to landowners through the NCACSP program.

The NRCS employee was charged with a felony count of violating 18 U.S.C. 2, aiding

and abetting, and 18 U.S.C. 208, for participating personally and substantially as a Government

employee in a particular matter, in which, to his knowledge, his spouse has a financial interest.

Further, in his position as a district conservationist, he approved a contract between the NCACSP

and a cattle operation in which he and his spouse were partners. Additionally, he approved a

contract for fence construction between the NCACSP and a third party. This contract resulted in

payments that were transferred to a partnership consisting of the NRCS employee, his spouse,

and the third party. The NRCS employee was charged with two additional felony counts of

violating 18 U.S.C. 208, for participating personally and substantially as a Government

employee in a particular matter, in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, and general partner

have a financial interest. A jury convicted the NRCS employee on all counts. He was sentenced

by the court to one year of probation.

A Contracting Officer for the Department of the Army at Fort Jackson Settles Conflict of Interest Allegation

Sometime prior to November 1995, the contracting officer began a relationship with a

foreman for a Government contractor. The foreman subsequently started his own company and

began bidding on Government contracts at Fort Jackson. In November 1995, the former

52

Government contracting officer assumed the title of project manager at the new company and

performed various duties for the former foreman without monetary compensation. On April 9,

1996, the contracting officer approved and certified for payment an invoice submitted by the

company. She continued her employment relationship with the company until June 1996.

However, she submitted a written statement to the Director of Contracting at Fort Jackson

attesting that her association with the company ended in March 1996.

The former contracting officer was indicted on December 3, 1997 for violating 18 U.S.C.

208, taking official action in matters affecting an employee’s personal financial interest. She

signed a Pretrial Diversion Agreement which requires that she complete 50 hours of community

service.

Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Convicted on Conflict of Interest and Fraud

The AUSA for the Central District of California was indicted after it was discovered that

on numerous occasions he had made favorable recommendations to the court, the probation

office, and other prosecuting offices on behalf of cooperating witnesses and defendants in

exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The AUSA had, for example, accepted $98,000

from one cooperating witness who had previously been convicted in the Northern District of

Texas and on whose behalf the AUSA had argued for leniency at the sentencing hearing. In

addition, he had used his official position to secure entry into the United States of several foreign

nationals whom he believed would make substantial investments in a company in which he and

his wife had a controlling financial interest. Once the foreign nationals entered the United

States, two Iranian companies with which they were affiliated loaned a total of $860,000 to the

AUSA’s company.

The AUSA pled guilty to one felony conflict of interest count, 18 U.S.C. 208, and two

counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 and 1346. He was fined $7,500 and

sentenced to two years in prison plus three years of supervised release.

Patrick Air Force Base Engineer Violates Conflict of Interest Statute An engineer in the Contracts Department at Patrick Air Force Base started a business,

along with former military personnel and former Government employees, which submitted a bid

53

to the base. The engineer, in his official capacity, provided the technical evaluations on the bid.

Through the bidding process, the company was awarded the contract.

The engineer was charged with participating personally and substantially in a particular

matter in which he had a financial interest, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 208. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

216(a)(1), he pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of section 208 and was sentenced to nine

months’ probation and fined $2,500.

FAA Employee Guilty of Violating 18 U.S.C. 208

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employee reviewed the applications of

aircraft component manufacturers. He was the FAA representative on a flight test of a Ground

Proximity Warning System (GPWS) manufactured by a certain corporation. In the course of his

duties for the FAA, the employee obtained access to proprietary information submitted to the

FAA by the GPWS manufacturer. At the same time, the FAA employee was developing and

marketing his own GPWS for sale to the public.

The FAA employee was charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208 due to the fact that he

participated personally and substantially in the FAA's test flight of a GPWS while developing his

own GPWS; he pled guilty and was sentenced to three years of probation.

CIA Employee Violates Conflict of Interest Statute A Central Intelligence Agency Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR)

pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208 after investigators discovered that he had used his

Government position to secure employment for a friend who owed him money. The employee’s

duties as a COTR included the technical supervision of two Government contracts with a

particular company through which the Government funded a classified program. The employee

used his position as a COTR to cause the company to hire one of his friends as a consultant to the

program. The friend owed a substantial sum of money to the employee and his wife and did not

have the financial means to repay them. At no time did the employee disclose to the

Government or the company that the friend owed him or his wife money. The Government

charged that, under these circumstances, the COTR had a financial interest in the company's

decision to enter into a consulting agreement with the friend and that he violated 18 U.S.C. 208

by participating in that decision.

54

The COTR pled guilty to a felony violation of section 208. He also pled guilty to a

charge of possession of child pornography obtained through unauthorized personal use of a

Government-furnished computer. He received three years supervised release and was ordered to

pay a $4,000 fine.

Computer-Aided Navigation Leaves Retired Captain Lost at Sea A Coast Guard Captain working on the integration of legacy navigation systems with

GPS spoke with a government contractor assigned to the project about post-retirement work.

Once retired, the captain made recommendations concerning purchases to his former colleagues

still wearing Coast Guard uniforms – purchases that directly benefited the captain in his new role

as consultant. The government maintained that the captain violated 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), by

negotiating for future employment with a contractor he dealt with in his active duty capacity

and 18 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1), by attempting to influence government personnel on a project over

which he had exercised considerable responsibility. The Government settled with the captain

for $25,000.

Conflict of Interest Results in $10,000 Fine A Navy Construction Representative overseeing a company’s two construction contracts

with the Navy secured employment to subcontract the same projects he was supposedly

inspecting, splitting the proceeds with an equally unscrupulous employee of the company.

He pled guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 208 (barring an employee from taking

official action in matters affecting certain personal or organizational financial interests) and

one count of violating 41 U.S.C. § 53, the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986. His get-rich-quick

scheme cost him six years’ probation, six months home detention, 100 hours of community

service, and a $10,000 fine.

Agricultural Economist and Wife Violate 18 U.S.C. 208 in Visa Scam A Department of Agriculture agricultural economist found himself facing jail time for his

decision to attempt to exploit his Government position. The economist was put in charge of a

Department program to bring together U.S. and Chinese agriculture experts. Instead, the

55

economist forged documents, with the assistance of his wife, to extort $82,000 from nearly 100

Chinese nationals seeking entry to the United States. While the economist’s case is still pending,

his wife pled guilty to one count of aiding and abetting an unlawful conflict of interest in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 208 and 2. She received two years of probation and 100 hours of

community service.

Consultant’s Attempted Bribery Garners $1000 Fine A consultant in the office of the District of Columbia Chief Technology Officer ended

up in court after soliciting kickbacks from a private company. The consultant was tasked with

awarding contracts to information technology companies, and decided to go back to a company

he had recently approved and demand a cut of their profits. Unhappily for him, the company

went to the authorities instead. The consultant pled guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C.

§ 208 (a), taking official action in matters affecting an employee’s personal financial interest,

and was sentenced to a year of probation and a $1000 fine.

Attempted Bribery of Immigration Official Nets a Year of Probation An applicant for U.S. citizenship slid $200 in an unmarked envelope across to an

Adjudication Officer during his interview, hoping for a favorable outcome. He got a year

of probation instead.

Contractors and Army Officer Face Five Years for Conflict of Interest A raid of an Army Colonel’s residence revealed evidence that led to charges for the

officer as well as two employees of a Maryland military contractor. The officer supervised

solicitation, award, and oversight of more than 17,000 military contracts in Korea. Upon

learning that the officer was considering retirement, two military contractors contacted him

regarding his potential employment at the contractors’ company. Over the course of the next six

months, the officer and the contractors had lengthy discussions regarding the possible job offer.

The negotiations involved a trip to company headquarters as well as at least seven dinners at

expensive restaurants, all paid for by the company.

56

During this time period, the officer did not recuse himself from matters involving the

company. In fact, the officer on one occasion overruled the decision of technical experts who

recommended awarding a contract to a different company, and instead recommended the

contractors’ company. On another occasion, the officer told another contractor that if he wished

to participate in the program in the future, he should bid as a subcontractor to the first

contractors’ company. The contractors’ internal emails advocating the officer’s hiring noted that

“[h]is expectations are high but his value has been proved.”

Tips from a member of the officer’s command led to an interagency investigation which

uncovered egregious bribe-taking to the tune of more than $700,000 (much of which was found

hidden in bundles of cash under the officer’s mattress) – in addition to the illegal negotiations

with the contractors. These bribes had resulted in nearly $25 million in contracts being illegally

rewarded to companies for building facilities and providing security guards at military

installations in Korea.

The officer pled guilty to charges of conspiracy and bribery, and was sentenced to

54 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. He was also assessed a

$10,000 fine, was stripped of rank, and will receive no retirement pay. The two contractors face

five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Employee Fined $13,000 for Conflict of Interest A Supervisory Acquisition Management Specialist at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

was indicted for participating in employment negotiations with a company while he

simultaneously worked on contracts involving that company. As part of the employee’s job

responsibilities, he provided a bidder on a Government contract with advice and made

recommendations related to the bidding process. However, at the same time, the employee was

in employment negotiations with one of the bidder’s subcontractors, and was well aware of the

subcontractor’s interest in the bidder’s success.

The employee pled guilty to violating the conflict of interest statute that prohibits an

individual from engaging in employment negotiations with a company while simultaneously

participating in an official capacity on a Government contract with the company.

The employee was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to pay $12,000 in

restitution and a $1,000 fine.

57

Conflict of Interest Nets Employee $900 Fine When determining which company should receive a contract to produce a video on Y2K

issues for the Department of Commerce, a producer/director in the Office of Public Affairs

settled on a small production company that specialized in voiceover work. There was only one

small problem—the company was owned by the employee and his wife. The Department of

Commerce eventually paid the company over $10,000 for their work, earning the employee and

his wife a profit of over $1000.

Unfortunately for the employee, his fifteen minutes of fame were cut short by a District

Court Judge, who sentenced him to one year of probation, 100 hours of community service, and

a $900 fine. The employee was found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 208(a), which bars

employees from participating personally and substantially in a matter in which they have a

financial interest.

Employee Fined $1000 for Conflict of Interest Funneling contracts to friends certainly did not pay off for the Senior Development

Officer of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). The officer was responsible for

developing and securing funding for revenue-producing projects for the IBB, an independent

agency affiliated with the State Department. When determining which company should receive

an $85,000 grant to train affiliate radio stations in Uganda, the officer selected a business owned

by his friend. In return for this generosity, his friend obligingly selected a subcontractor near and

dear to the officer’s heart – a company owned and managed by the officer and his wife. In order

to fulfill the $15,000 contract, the officer managed to convince IBB to fly him to Uganda with

government funds as part of his “official duties.” However, IBB soon discovered the officer’s

relationship with the subcontracting company.

For his violation of 18 U.S.C. 208, which forbids employees from participating

personally and substantially in a matter in which they have a financial interest, the officer earned

three years of probation, 50 hours community service, a $1000 fine, and was required to pay over

$15,000 in restitution.

58

Conflict of Interest Results in Jail Time for Acquisitions Executive A former senior Air Force official found herself in Federal prison after her violation of

conflicts-of-interest statutes. The official engaged in job negotiations with a private company

while still employed by the Air Force as the chief negotiator for a $23 billion leasing plan with

that company. While the official did eventually recuse herself from participation in decisions

involving the company, her recusal came three months after the beginning of her negotiations.

The official began negotiations with the company through encrypted e-mails sent by her

daughter, who was an employee of the company; her daughter set up a secret meeting between

the official and company executives. At the start of the meeting, the official informed the

executives that she was still participating personally and substantially on matters involving the

company; however, both parties elected to continue the meeting and to simply keep it a secret.

The negotiations continued for several more months, all while the official was still participating

personally and substantially in decisions, approvals, and advice in matters in which the company

had a financial interest. After the official finally submitted her letter disqualifying herself from

working on matters involving the company, investigators began scrutinizing the timeline of her

story. The official lied repeatedly to investigators as to the start date of her employment

negotiations, collaborating with the company executives to match stories.

The former official pled guilty in Federal court, and was sentenced to nine months in

prison and seven months either in a halfway house or under home detention. The company

executive faces a jail term of no more than six months under Federal sentencing guidelines.

Federal Procurement law specifically forbids a company or its executives from making

any offer or promise of future employment to a Federal procurement officer. Likewise,

procurement officers are prohibited from discussing employment so long as they oversee matters

involving that company.

59

Credit Card Abuse

How Much is Enough? A former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) employee, was sentenced to two

years in prison for defrauding JPMorgan Chase & Co. out of more than $113,000 using

fraudulently issued government credit cards.

How did she get access to these cards? She was a program manager, and was responsible

for the approval and issuance of government credit cards for DEA employees. The employee

admitted that, while in that role, she submitted dozens of fake credit card applications to

JPMorgan Chase for fictitious DEA employees. Ultimately, she obtained 32 fraudulent credit

cards withdrawing $113,000 from ATMs in Maryland and Virginia. She agreed to forfeit the

cash and pay full restitution.

Casinos and Gentlemen’s Clubs are Legitimate Expenses The DoD Inspector General recently investigated use (and misuse) of Government-issued

credit cards by DoD personnel. The IG reported that a Navy sailor, during a trip to El Paso,

spent $1,116 on adult entertainment at two Gentlemen’s Clubs. The charges were substantiated

and disciplinary action was taken against the sailor. According to the Washington Post, other

proper expenses that the sailor incurred included official business events such as dinners at

casino restaurants. The Post states that the Pentagon’s travel management office is

contemplating blocking use of the cards at such establishments completely even for dinner.

Casinos have argued they are a legitimate locale for business outings. Strip Club owners argue

that visiting their club is a constitutional freedom.

Don’t Syphon the Government Coffers A number of Federal employees in recent months have been caught using their

government credit cards for personal use. A reportedly $2.4 million problem since 2010, over

260 cases of government employee misuse have been adjudicated in that time. With roughly

200,000 vehicles in federal government service, that equates to about $12 per vehicle.

60

A handful of adjudicated cases from April to September 2014 shed light as to the

repercussions for this conduct. First, a Department of Homeland Security contractor was

accused of government credit card misuse and pled guilty in May to using a number of GSA

credit cards to fuel his vehicle. His sentencing included a six month jail sentence, one year of

probation, debarment from government service for three years, and $3,920 in restitution.

Another federal employee, employed by the Navy, pled guilty to similar offenses and received

five months in jail, a bad-conduct discharge, and was required to pay $20,000 in restitution.

Bottom Line: Don’t syphon gas—literally and figuratively.

(Source: The Washington Post; published 27 Feb 2015)

Furlough No Defense to Misuse of Government Credit Card When the Government shut down occurred nearly two years ago, a Federal employee

decided to use his Government credit card to purchase nearly $12,000 worth of groceries, hotel

rooms, cable TV and ferry rides. The employee, from the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), was not immediately caught for misuse of the card because the supervisors

overseeing the use of the Government credit card were also on furlough. Nevertheless, sometime

after the furlough, the misuse was detected. The HUD employee was placed on administrative

leave until April 2014, and is now in a court-ordered drug rehabilitation program. The employee

is required to pay full restitution. (Source: The Washington Post: published 24 July 2015)

Agency Credit Card Swindler 2 A Drug Enforcement Administration manager admitted to opening and using dozens

of government credit cards under fake employee aliases. In pleading guilty, the manager

admitted to having opened 32 fake credit cards to withdraw $114,000 in cash from ATMs.

This conduct spanned over three years. The manager had duties permitting her authority to

approve and issue credit cards for agency employees. Wire fraud, the offense the employee pled

guilty to, carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. As part of

her plea arrangement, however, a three year jail sentence is expected and she will be required to

pay full restitution for the withdrawals.

(Source: The Washington Post; published 17 Apr 2015)

61

Government Travel Cards Are Not a Blank Check An officer has been reprimanded for misuse of his Government Travel Card (GTC).

According to DoD regulations, GTCs are only to be used for costs related to official government

travel and not personal, family, or household purposes unrelated to official travel. According to

witnesses and the officer’s own admission, he knowingly misused his card, and allowed his wife

to misuse it as well, in purchasing groceries, toys, and household items. These “extras” were

purchases in part, per the officer’s sworn statements, because he had been taking care of his

sickly mother. This misconduct occurred despite having recently received remedial GTC

training in 2013 after purchasing dinner for his future boss and family. Upon further

investigation, other non-travel related purchases were discovered to have been made after this

training as well. For his failure to safeguard and use his GTC appropriately, the officer was

served with a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand.

(Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General; 2015)

Government Employees Double Down on Taxpayer-Funded Gambling Two Government employees used their government-issued credit cards to fund their

gambling and bowling binge, to the tune of almost $35,000. Unfortunately, gambling was just

not enough. One of the employees, a manager, racked up an additional $13,000 in expenses to

cover car rentals for personal use. In the end, approximately $47,000 of the tax payer’s money

bankrolled the employees’ fun and games. The manager, spending a total of $45,000, repaid the

debt to the Government and took an early retirement. The other employee, spending a total of

$2,400, repaid the debt to the Government and was fired.

Sporting Goods Scam Steals from Uncle Sam It seemed like the perfect scam: Owners of a sporting goods store near a military

installation allowed service-members to charge personal items on government purchase cards

(GPC). Service-members would overcharge the cards and then split the extra cash between

themselves and the store owners. One unlucky E-6 was caught when he charged $1950 on a

GPC and pocketed $850, which he used to buy a number of sporting goods. The perfect scam

62

didn’t work out so well for the E-6. He was convicted in a court martial, reduced to E-1, given

18 months confinement, and given a bad conduct discharge.

Pin-Heads Ignore Government Purchase Card Procedures The Manager of an Army Bowling Pro Shop received factory rebates for the bowling

products he purchased for the shop using a Government credit card. Government Purchase Card

procedures stipulate that cardholders should take advantage of any rebates offered, whether cash

or merchandise, and that manufacturer and retailer rebates should be made payable to the

appropriate Government agency. The Manager purchased property for the shop, a MWR entity,

on a Government contract; therefore, the rebates were the property of DoD and should have been

turned in to the agency’s financial officer. Instead, the Manager kept the rebates, which were in

the form of Best Buy gift cards, for his personal use. He was even heard bragging about all of

the free stuff he would be able to buy. Furthermore, he improperly lent his Government impact

card to another civilian bowling facility employee in violation of Government Purchase Card

standard operating procedure which requires that only the named individual on the card may use

it for official purposes in compliance with agency accounts. This employee kept the cash and

gift card rebates he received from using the Manager’s card; failing to provide them to the MWR

finance officer and resulting in a $230 cost loss for the Government. These actions constitute

larceny and improper use of a Government purchase card. The Manager resigned in lieu of

further disciplinary action. The employee also resigned.

Electronics Scam Lands Sailor in Hot Water An active duty Navy sailor and authorized Government purchase card user noticed one

day that some of the items she had purchased for her Command were missing from the

warehouse. She decided to go ahead and repurchase the items to “prevent any of her shipmates

from getting in trouble for stealing Government property.” This incident seemed to give the

sailor an idea because about two years later she decided to try to use her Government purchase

card to conduct widespread theft. Ever cautious, she first conducted a few “test runs” by

purchasing items for her personal use on her Government card. The misuse went undetected so

the sailor joined with a co-conspirator to discuss even bigger plans. They decided to buy laptop

63

computers and plasma televisions on the sailor’s Government card and to re-sell them for

personal profit. Navy auditors discovered the scheme and determined that the sailor and her co-

conspirator had defrauded the Government out of $363,243. The sailor had used her

Government card to purchase 162 notebook computers, 65 big screen televisions, 22 digital

cameras, GPS devices, camcorders, computer monitors, and home theater systems. Her efforts to

prevent her shipmates from getting into trouble and her subsequent emulation of the local cut-

rate electronic retailer led the sailor to plead guilty to one count of theft of Government property

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §641. She is scheduled for sentencing in August 2008.

Stealing Isn’t Only Way to Misuse a Government Issued Credit Card A U.S. Postal Service employee received a Government Issued Credit Card (GICC)

through Citibank to cover relocation costs. In receiving the GICC, the employee signed a

contract with Citibank stating he would pay the entire balance of the credit card within 25 days

of the billing statement closing date. He also agreed with the U.S.P.S. to pay the balance on time

regardless of whether or not he had received reimbursement. The employee accrued a balance of

over $6,000 on the account, but did not make an initial payment on the balance until four months

after the due date, and did not pay off the entire balance until 10 months after the due date. The

employee procrastinated in requesting reimbursement and then he waited six weeks before

depositing the reimbursement check and making a payment toward the balance on the credit

card. The employee also retained a portion of the reimbursement funds for himself, leaving a

balance on the card for six more months. Citibank canceled the card and the employee was fired

for failing to pay off the GICC on time and misusing government funds.

Use of Fellow Soldiers’ Government Credit Cards Earns Reprimand While conducting operations in Kuwait, an Army Major in the Corps Support Group

Advance Party needed a number of mission-essential items. He ordered these items with several

Government Purchase Cards (GPCs). The only problem, the cards were not his. Before

deployment, the Major had managed to collect a list of the numbers and security codes of GPCs

held by members of his unit who were not deploying. These cardholders then noticed a rash of

unexplained payments from Kuwait. As cardholders are personally responsible for the charges

64

on their cards, several cardholders disputed the charges in accordance with regulations. This led

to a long series of unnecessary and frustrating exchanges with the credit card company.

As a result of his actions, the Major received counseling. While there was no evidence

that he had used the cards for personal purchases, his use was unauthorized. GPCs can only be

used by their authorized cardholder with the consent of an Approving Official. Unauthorized use

bypasses the safeguards created to minimize abuse.

Credit Card Abuse and Misuse of Resources Results in Suspension An IT Specialist with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) was reprimanded

for a trio of offenses committed over the span of a year. Investigators found that the specialist

used his DISA Government travel card to pay for $2,735.45 worth of food, gas, and rental cars

while on personal trips to Indiana to visit his girlfriend. The specialist additionally claimed per

diem allowances for two days on which he was technically Absent Without Leave (AWOL).

Finally, the specialist used his Government cell phone to make personal phone calls such that

unofficial use comprised anywhere from 30-50% of his total usage.

The specialist was suspended for three days, reimbursed the Government $1,384.38 for

his cell phone abuse, paid off his Government credit card, and took two days of leave to account

for his period AWOL.

Running Up the Government “IMPAC” Card The Facts: A (former) civilian director of the Pentagon’s Graphics and Presentation

Division used her Government-issued, Merchant Purchase Authorization Card (“IMPAC”) to

make 522 fake purchases from a Seattle company created by a fellow schemer solely to carry out

the fraud. Payments by the Government for the “purchases” were made to the Seattle firm, but

the co-schemer would simply cash the checks and split the “take” with the director. The director

was caught and sentenced to three years and one month in prison and was ordered to pay $1.7

million in restitution.

The Law: Don’t steal. Theft violates various state and Federal laws.

65

Senior NCO Abuses Government Credit Card An investigation concluded that a senior U.S. Marine improperly used his Government

credit card by purchasing gas for his personal vehicle, dinners, and concert tickets as well as

obtaining cash advances—all unrelated to official travel.

The Marine was counseled by his supervisor and required to reimburse the Government for all

unauthorized purchases. He retired soon after the investigation.

DoD Employee Charges Caribbean Vacation to Government Credit Card A GS-13 Department of Defense employee used her Government credit card to pay for

her personal vacation to the Caribbean. The case was referred to the U.S. Attorney, who

declined prosecution. The employee was counseled by her supervisor and warned that if any

other inappropriate charges were made on her account she would be disciplined. (Yes, she

reimbursed the Government.)

Department of Defense Employee Makes $6,000 in Personal Charges An investigation revealed that a Department of Defense civilian employee had made

inappropriate, personal charges in the amount of over $6,000 using his government travel card.

The employee was suspended without pay for failing to follow the terms of the credit card use

policy.

Public Official Misuses Credit Card A Department of Energy employee recently pled guilty to a theft of Government property

charge. The employee made over $7,000 in personal charges on her Government credit card by

hiding the charges among legitimate Government purchases. The employee also falsified

invoices and credit card records to further conceal the purchases. The employee was sentenced

to two years of probation and ordered to pay restitution for the amount of the charges.

Department of Veterans Affairs Employee Misuses Credit Card A former Department of Veterans Affairs employee recently pled guilty to one count

of theft of Government property. The former employee used her Government credit card to

66

purchase expensive items (TVs were a favorite), which she then re-sold or kept for herself.

The judge sentenced her to five years’ probation and ordered her to pay $170,000 in restitution.

Department of Defense Civilian Employee Misuses Credit Card A Department of Defense civilian employee recently pled guilty to one count of theft of

Government property. The employee entered into an arrangement with two vendors in which

they would charge the Government credit card for non-existent goods and services. The vendors

would then give cash to the DoD employee. The vendors charged over $12,000 and kicked back

$3,000 to the employee. The employee was sentenced to two years of probation with four

months home confinement, and was ordered to pay $12,473 in restitution and a $1,000 fine.

U.S. Government IMPAC Credit Card Abuse by Air Force Employees Three former civilian employees from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, were

convicted of conspiracy to defraud the Government (18 U.S.C. 371) and conversion of U.S.

property for personal use (18 U.S.C. 641). The employees used the U.S. Government IMPAC

credit cards to purchase personal items, which included extensive home improvement products

and car-related materials. One of the employees certified on official documents that purchases

on the IMPAC credit card were properly used by members of the reserve unit.

One of the employees was sentenced to a one year and one day prison term, and the other

employees were sentenced to six months in a Federal halfway house and were required to make

full restitution.

Cardholder Supervisor Convicted for Credit Card Abuse The supervisor of four IMPAC cardholders was convicted for misusing Government

credit cards. The supervisor used the credit card numbers of his four subordinates, none of

whom were suspected of any wrongdoing, to make multiple purchases from a local auto parts

store and a military surplus store. The supervisor then proceeded to re-sell most of the products

at his bar. Some of the items purchased included gas grills, truck parts, and automobile tires.

The supervisor convinced the managers of the auto parts store and the military surplus store to

alter the credit card invoices to list what would appear to be official military supplies, instead of

67

listing the actual goods purchased. The evidence indicates that the DoD supervisor defrauded

the Government to the tune of $200,000.

The employee pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 287, for submitting false and fraudulent

claims, and 18 U.S.C. 208, for approving the fraudulent purchases. He was sentenced to ten

months in prison.

Accountant Goes to Jail for Misuse of Travel Card A supervisory accountant at the National Science Foundation (NSF) found herself at the

receiving end of criminal charges for government travel card abuse—a situation that should have

come as no surprise, given that her responsibilities included managing the NSF’s travel card

program. Investigators found that on forty-seven separate occasions, the accountant used her

travel card to make personal purchases and unauthorized cash withdrawals. When the

Investigator General began an audit of the travel card program, the accountant purged her own

transactions from the records in an (unsuccessful) attempt to hide her misuse.

The formerly footloose accountant was saddled with a $1,000 fine and sentenced to 20

weekends in jail as a condition of a two-year probation. Her misuse of the travel card not only

ended her career at NSF, but barred her from all future federal employment. Government travel

cards should only be used for expenses related to official travel.

Employee Faces 10 Years for Theft of Credit Cards Following up on two stolen Government credit cards, investigators cut short the

entrepreneurial career of a utility worker for the Norfolk Naval Station Public Works Center.

After stealing the two cards, which were used to gas fleet vehicles, the worker began to offer to

fill the tanks of other gas station patrons in exchange for cash valuing half the pump price. The

worker’s popularity was short-lived, however, as investigators quickly noticed the sudden boom

at the pumps. An internal audit conducted by the Navy revealed that the loss to the Government

from the two purloined cards totaled $44,866.

The employee faces a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment and a fine of

$250,000.

68

Friend’s Credit Card Use Costs Employee $13,000 An Army recruiter in Christiansburg, Virginia paid the price for gifting a Government

credit card to a friend – literally. When the recruiter’s office issued the recruiter a Government

Fleet credit card, he magnanimously decided to give the card to his friend. His friend

subsequently used the now-stolen card for personal expenditures totaling over $13,000, including

gasoline, automotive parts, and food. The recruiter’s “generosity” was amply rewarded by the

District Court judge, who sentenced him to two years of probation and held him liable for the

total $13,000 spent by his friend.

The Government Fleet credit card program provides for the maintenance of Government

owned and leased vehicles and is only to be used by authorized employees for official purposes.

Federal Employee Stole Credit Card Numbers to Hire Prostitutes A former Transportation Department employee pled guilty to one count of wire fraud for

using counterfeit checks and stolen credit card information to hire prostitutes while conducting

official Government business. The Federal employee, who has begun treatment for sexual

addiction, accumulated at least $39,000 from over 100 escort services. The employee stole his

colleagues’ credit card numbers and the receipts of random strangers that he found left on

restaurant tables. The employee admitted he often pretended to be the senior vice president of a

publicly traded company during his “shopping” trips. A court sentenced the official to serve six

months house arrest and three years of probation.

(Source: International Herald Tribune, March 13, 2007)

Endorsements

SES Uses Title to Promote Non-Federal Entity A Senior Executive Service employee served on the board of directors of a non-Federal

entity (NFE). While on the board, he listed his official position and DoD contact information on

the NFE’s Web site. Prior to this ethical violation, he had failed to request a legal opinion

regarding his ties to the NFE. He was counseled and told to remove his title from NFE materials.

69

Service Officer Sanctions Website by Wearing Uniform A Service officer allowed her photograph, while wearing her uniform, to appear on the

website of a non-federal organization. The website identified her as a Board Member of the

organization. The posting created the impression the officer was participating in the

management of the NFE in her official capacity, or alternatively, that the Federal Government

endorsed the organization (in violation of 5 C.F.R. 2635.702(b). The officer was verbally

counseled and the picture on the website was cropped to cover the uniform.

Be Careful from Here Onward Seven senior military officers, including four Generals, were found to have misused their

positions, improperly implying DoD endorsement or support of a Non-Federal Entity while

appearing in a promotional video for the Christian Embassy. A Pentagon Chaplain arranged for

Christian Embassy employees to obtain Pentagon building passes for filming. The video showed

interviews conducted at recognizable Pentagon locations, featuring the senior officers in uniform

and displaying their ranks as they discussed their Christian faith. Two SES Government

employees who appeared in the video without title and whose comments did not create the

appearance of DoD sanction were found to have properly participated in their personal capacity.

The military officers, however, violated Paragraph 3-209 of DoD 5500.07-R, Joint Ethics

Regulation which prohibits actions by employees suggesting DoD endorsement of Non-Federal

Entities, and C.F.R. 2635.702 which prohibits using one’s public office for private endorsement.

Financial Disclosure Violations

Valley Fraud A former official of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) received two years’ probation

and was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and perform 150 hours of community service for failing to

disclose information on his financial disclosure form. John Symonds pled guilty to violating

18 U.S.C. § 1001 for making a false material statement by failing to disclose information

70

regarding the receipt of money from a source other than his U.S. Government salary on his

financial disclosure form.

While working as a manager for TVA from November 2000 through December 2002,

Symonds was required to complete an Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure

Report, Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450, as well as update his financial disclosure

report annually by submitting Optional OGE Form 450-A. Despite owning a company that

received over $50,000 in 2002 from another company, Symonds filed an OGE Form 450-A

certifying that he had no new reportable assets or sources of income. Symonds and his former

spouse used the payments for personal expenses.

Failure to Report Gifts From Abramoff Gets DOI Official Two Years on Probation

A former Department of the Interior Officer who accepted Washington Redskins tickets,

which cost over $2,000, as well as other gifts from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, was sentenced to two

years of probation, and to pay a $1,000 fine. Abramoff was seeking official action from the

officer when he gave the officer the gifts. The officer failed to disclose these gifts on the

required financial disclosure report (Form 450), and after being investigated in connection with

the Abramoff scandal, he pled guilty to making a false certificate or writing. Public officials

who are required to file a Form 450 must disclose gifts that exceed a minimum value. Bottom

line: if public officials keep secrets about the gifts they receive from sources like lobbyists, they

will receive a gift from the federal government that they cannot keep secret — probation.

Lawyer Says Financial Disclosures Are a Nuisance, Client Gets Probation A world-renowned Alzheimer’s research scientist for the National Institutes of Health

(NIH) was sentenced to serve two years of probation and four-hundred hours of community

service after failing to disclose several hundred-thousand dollars in consulting fees he received

for services rendered to a prohibited source — a pharmaceutical company doing business with

his agency. The scientist violated a federal conflicts of interest statute and federal regulations

requiring him to disclose payments from outside sources on his financial disclosure report (OGE

Form 450). The purpose of the required financial disclosure is to help employees recognize

conflicting financial interests and avoid violating the law. The scientist’s lawyer said that it is

71

common for NIH researchers not to file financial disclosures because they consider the

disclosures a “bureaucratic nuisance.” Maybe so, but this scientist should have known, as most

world-renowned medical researchers probably do, that untreated nuisances often become

debilitating illnesses. In addition to probation and four-hundred hours of community service, the

scientist was also forced to forfeit the consulting fees he had received from the pharmaceutical

company, and was deprived of his retirement from the government.

Consultant Fails to File Financial Disclosure Report, Pays Fine Instead A DoD Consultant failed to file the final public financial disclosure report when the

Consultant’s appointment expired. The Consultant received several reminders, but chose to

ignore them and never filed the report. Unfortunately, the Consultant was unable to ignore the

Department of Justice. After substantial negotiations, the filer agreed to pay a $2,000 fine, to

pay the $200 late filing fee, and to file the financial disclosure report that should have been filed

in the first place. (And don’t forget the attorney fees) Bottom line: Failure to file a financial

disclosure report was very costly. (DoD Standards of Conduct Office)

HUD Employee Fails to Disclose Ill-Gotten Real Estate on Financial Disclosure, Loses Job

A HUD employee’s spouse-like partner submitted the winning bid for a HUD-owned

property. Among other violations, the HUD employee failed to notify the agency that someone

with whom she was living was submitting a bid for the property. After the property was

purchased, the employee’s partner transferred the property to the employee for $1. To prevent

HUD from learning that the property came to the employee through a straw-man transaction, the

employee failed to list the property on her financial disclosure report as was required. The

employee was found to have falsified her financial disclosure report and was fired.

Failing to Report Gift Leads to FBI Agent Resignation A Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) in the Charlotte, North Carolina FBI field office was

forced to resign in the wake of revelations that he had failed to disclose gifts from a suspect in an

organized gambling and money laundering investigation. The SSA had been acting head of the

White Collar Crime Squad, which was handling the investigation; he had also served as the

72

suspect’s official handler after the suspect agreed to cooperate with investigators. Due to his

duties, the SSA was required to file an OGE Form 450, the Confidential Financial Disclosure

Report. The SSA certified that he had received no gifts or travel reimbursements from any one

source totaling more than $260.00. However, investigators soon learned that on two separate

occasions, the SSA had accompanied the suspect to Las Vegas, where the suspect paid for the

SSA’s hotel and gambling expenses. The value of the trips was estimated to be in excess of

$6,000.

The SSA pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. 1018, making a false writing. He was forced to resign

from the FBI and was sentenced to two years’ probation and 400 hours of community service.

$11,000 Fine for Failure to File The Facts: A former Census Bureau official was assessed the maximum fine when he

failed to file his financial disclosure report as required by law upon ending his Government

employment. Before his retirement, the official had received multiple memos reminding him

of his obligation; after he missed the filing deadline, the official received a number of additional

certified letters informing him of the availability of extensions and the consequences of failing

to file.

The Department of Commerce eventually referred the matter to the Department of

Justice, which filed a complaint alleging that the official knowingly and willingly failed to file a

financial disclosure report. Finding the official a totally unresponsive party with flagrant

violations, a Federal court entered the default judgment and ordered an $11,000 fine, the top civil

penalty permitted under the statute. The court emphasized the flagrancy of the violation, citing

the employee’s choice to ignore the multiple notices and warnings provided to him.

(Source: United States v. Gant, No. 02-2312, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10620 (D.D.C. June 17, 2003)

The Law: The Ethics in Government Act (EIGA), 5 U.S.C. app. § 101 et seq. (2003),

requires senior officials, who file SF 278s, to file a final financial disclosure report “on or before

the thirtieth day” after termination of their senior positions (in addition to annual filing

requirements). Anyone who knowingly and willfully fails to provide such a disclosure faces

prosecution and fines of up to $10,000 (see 5 U.S.C. app. § 101(e)-(f), app. § 104).

73

D.C. Mayor Financial Disclosure The failure to report $40,000 he had earned in consulting contracts cost the Mayor of

Washington, D.C., $1000 several years ago. The Mayor violated the city's campaign finance

code by neglecting to report these earnings on his financial disclosure report.

Under 5 C.F.R. 2634.701, willful failure to file a public financial disclosure report (OGE

Form 278) or willful falsification of any information required to be reported may result in

administrative actions or $10,000 in civil penalties. In addition, criminal actions may be brought

against Federal officials who provide false information on their financial disclosure reports.

Former Government Official Convicted of Filing False Disclosure Report A former Chief of Staff (CoS) for the Secretary of Agriculture was required to file a

Public Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278) under the Ethics in Government Act.

While in office, the CoS and his wife received payments totaling approximately $22,025 from

two businessmen who were longtime friends and business associates of the CoS – and who

coincidentally – received subsidies from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) totaling $63,000

and $284,000, respectively. The CoS was required to, but did not, report these payments on his

OGE Form 278. While the USDA Inspector General was conducting an investigation of the CoS

with respect to conflict of interest allegations, the CoS made a sworn declaration that he had not

received such payments. He also stated that his only income from the time he became Chief of

Staff, aside from the sale of a former residence, was his USDA salary.

The former CoS was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1001, for failing to properly

disclose the payments received from the two businessmen and for making a false sworn

statement to the USDA Inspector General. He was sentenced to 27 months in jail.

Former EEOC Chairman Failed to File Financial Disclosure Report The former chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a

lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice for $4,000. The lawsuit alleged that the chairman

did not file a required financial disclosure report for two years that he was in Government

service. In the previous year, the chairman filed the yearly financial disclosure report required

of all senior executive branch employees (SF 278). For the subsequent two years, however, he

74

submitted a photocopy of the first year’s report. The Chairman acknowledged that the

photocopied report did not reflect changes in his income. He further maintained that the

inaccuracy was inadvertent and the result of a mistake made in good faith. The Director of the

Office of Government Ethics noted that the chairman did not respond to four requests to file the

required report over the course of two years.

Former FDA Commissioner Convicted for False Financial Disclosures and Conflict of Interest

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sentenced a former Commissioner

of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to serve three years of probation, along with 50

hours of community service, and to pay fines totaling $89,377.36. The former Commissioner

pled guilty to two misdemeanor charges involving false financial disclosures and a violation of

the conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. 208, which prohibits a Government employee from

participating in any activities in which he, his spouse, or minor child has a financial interest.

Between 2002 and 2006, the former Commissioner held several senior positions which

required him to certify and file on six occasions a financial disclosure report that included all of

his investments valued at more than $1,000. Although the Commissioner declared he and his

wife had sold the stock they owned in numerous “significantly regulated organizations,” the

couple failed to disclose that they actually retained stock in several of the companies. The

conflict of interest violation occurred when the Commissioner was acting as the Chairman of the

FDA’s Obesity Working Group. Investigators discovered two of the companies in which the

Commissioner and his wife held stock had a direct financial interest in the group’s conclusions.

Although there was no evidence that the Commissioner’s financial interests altered the group’s

conclusions, the Court concluded that his participation in the deliberations affected the integrity

of group’s findings. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, March 2007)

75

Fraud (Violations Not Covered Elsewhere)

Federal Reserve Documents End Up at Goldman Sachs A former Federal Reserve Bank of New York employee was fined $2,000, and sentenced

to a year of probation with community service after pleading guilty to stealing Government

documents. The former Bank employee provided the stolen documents to his former supervisor

from the Bank, who worked at Goldman Sachs. Some of the stolen documents included

examinations of a bank that Goldman was currently advising.

A Side Benefit Billing the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program A now retired State Department worker and his husband submitted $257,000 in claims

for pharmaceutical and medical services obtained in Germany. Sounds fair, right? However,

there was a small problem. The men had not been to Germany. Instead, they used the money to

pay for foreign travel and extended stays at spas. After pleading guilty to health care fraud, the

two were sentenced to 15 months in prison and ordered to repay the $257,000 for falsely billing

the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Are My Parents Alive or Not? The daughter of two deceased Federal workers pled guilty to a charge of theft and agreed

to return $703,000 in pension benefits received after her parents’ deaths. The Office of

Personnel Management was not informed of the parents’ deaths, and continued to pay the

benefits for an additional 14 years.

Do I Own It, or Don’t I Own It? A former National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) official pled guilty for making

false statements regarding his financial interest in a company.

The former employee worked at NGA from 2011-2015. During that period, he also co-

founded a private company for the purpose of developing and commercializing a certain type of

automated detection system. He used his position at NGA to promote the company. When

confronted with the fact that he was prohibited from representing the company before the

76

Government, he advised that he was merely a founder of the company, and had no legal or

financial connections to the company. His defense failed when investigators discovered that he

was, indeed, a co-founder of the company with ongoing legal and financial connections.

He incurred a monetary penalty and is subject to court supervision for three years.

Does It Really Matter What I Write in My Application for a Job? The Department of Interior hired an individual into a temporary position with the

National Park Service. To obtain a clearance and become a permanent employee, he had to

complete the Form OF 306, Declaration of Federal Employment. Question 12 of the form asks

if he has been fired during the last 5 years, or left an employer because of problems, or was

debarred from Federal employment by the Office of Personnel Management. The individual

answered “no.” Unfortunately for him, investigators learned that his private sector employer

terminated him for excessive absences. The Interior Department would not hire him

permanently, and he appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB not

only sided with Interior, but advised the individual to redo the Form so it was correct. The

individual did not redo the form. As a matter of fact, after appealing to the MSPB, and losing,

the individual appealed the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The

individual’s same defense was that answering the question incorrectly was merely an oversight

and a mistake. The Federal Court of Appeals disagreed and denied the appeal. The individual

lost his Federal position because he was not truthful about question 12 of his Form OF 306.

It does not “Pay” to Play with Fake Poker Chips The former deputy head of U.S. Strategic Command has learned that it doesn’t pay to

play with fake poker chips. The former deputy was fired upon revelations that he counterfeited

poker chips to use in support of his gambling habit. Investigators substantiated the claims

against the flag officer upon discovering his DNA underneath the adhesive tape that was used to

alter three $1 chips into $500 chips. Records show the deputy’s gambling habit had him

spending an average of 15 hours per week—1,096 hours in total—at a casino in Iowa prior to

being discovered playing with the counterfeit chips. His misconduct resulted in two convictions

for conduct unbecoming an officer for using the altered gambling chips and lying to

investigators. In addition to being relieved of his duties at U.S. Strategic Command, the deputy

77

was reduced in rank from three-star to two-star admiral and was transitioned to the retired list at

the lower grade. (Source: Navy Times; published 22 Nov 2014 and Official U.S. Navy Biography)

Posing as Mother? In August of 2013, the son of a deceased mother was sentenced to 14 months in prison

after pleading guilty to stealing about $350,000 by cashing social security and federal annuity

checks meant for his long-dead mother. He had negotiated and converted these checks from

March 1999 through June 2012.

Mailman Doesn’t Deliver the Mail? A Postal Service employee has learned that it doesn’t pay to get lazy on the job.

According to the former employee, being “lazy” was the root cause of his failure to deliver over

1,000 pieces of mail during a year-long period, all of which was found in bins on his front porch.

Included amongst the largely junk mail pieces were 27 voter ballots as well as over 200 first-

class and standard mailings. For his laziness, the employee has pled guilty to misdemeanor mail

obstruction. This redefining of “snail mail” has landed him a one-year probation sentence and a

$500 fine. (Source: The Associated Press; published 23 Jan 2015)

A Decade of War Makes For a Decade of Fraud After over a decade of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, attorneys at the Department

of Justice (DOJ) continue to work at identifying and prosecuting wide spread criminal business

dealings related to those conflicts. The conduct has cost American taxpayers anywhere from

$31 billion to $60 billion according to The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and

Afghanistan (the Commission). It spans from low-level fraud where individuals bill for services

not provided to multi-million dollar bribery cases of industry trying to entice the awarding

of contracts. Per one national security academic at George Washington University, the U.S.

military was not equipped to provide appropriate oversight and lacked accountability processes.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is pursuing accountability, however, as over 230 criminal cases

were brought between 2005 and 2014 according to the Commission. One of the most recent

cases stemmed from a former officer taking advantage of the Army’s G-RAP program that

78

provided bonus pay to active duty members who referred new recruits to join the military.

This program, now discontinued, was riddled with cases where service members claimed

bonuses for referrals that were never made. The officer, who was found to have claimed

$118,000 as a result of 119 false referrals, has been sentenced to no less than three years in

prison according to the DOJ. (Source: AP News; 17 Nov 2014)

Your Posters are My Posters An army officer was convicted both for making false statements, including false

statements in his confidential financial disclosure report (failure to report an outside position and

the income from that position), and for stealing government property. The employee put in an

order at the department print shop, certifying that a series of posters were for official business.

The posters were actually for the employee’s side business. Additionally, the employee

purchased a conference table, for which his own business got a $400 credit toward a conference

table of its own. The employee was sentenced to 2 years of probation, 6 months house arrest, a

fine of $25,000, and was ordered to pay $1,600 in restitution.

Service-member Pockets BAH Money For two years after his divorce, an active duty service-member continued to list his ex-

wife on his Basic Allowance for Housing paperwork, allowing him to pocket extra funds,

including a family separation allowance. While the overpayment continued for two years, the

service-member continued to keep the money. Once the command caught on, he was court

martialed, sentenced to six months confinement, fined, and reduced in rank.

Veterinarian Technicians Pocket Thousands An E-6 and E-4, both veterinarian technicians for a service, received Basic Allowance

for Housing to which they were not entitled. They lived in base housing while receiving

overpayments. They took no action to report the mistake. Overall, the Government lost more

than $26,000. Both service-members were reduced in rank and ordered to repay all funds.

79

“I thought they were mine.” A government contractor stole eight 40-foot Container Express (CONEX)

shipping/storage units valued at $56,000 from a Service base in the United States. Investigators

found two stolen government license plates on the contractor’s personal vehicles, used to access

the base. The contractor claimed he thought the CONEX units were abandoned. He was

charged with grand larceny and debarred from doing business with the government.

“I do” … Though I Don’t Even Know You Six Service members stationed in the United States were arrested and charged with

defrauding the government for their part in a scheme to marry Russian women in exchange for

drawing military benefits. The brother of one of the service-members set up the introduction to

the Russian women while living in New York. The service-members then filed false basic

allowance for housing (BAH) and family separation allowance (FSA) claims for their absent

wives that defrauded the government of over $234,000. The investigation revealed most of the

men never actually lived with their so-called wives. The service-members were court-martialed,

reduced in rank, and ordered to pay restitution equaling the amount of money each received

fraudulently. The women, who obtained visas enabling them to stay in the States as a result of

the false marriages, were deported.

Side Business Ends Service Supply Chief’s Career A Service Chief storekeeper for a submarine in the United States was found guilty of

using ship’s funds to buy merchandise to later sell for his personal gain. The Chief made off

with over $90,000 of unauthorized items including watches, computers, PDAs, TVs, chairs,

and cameras, which he stored in his personal room until selling. He was court-martialed and

sentenced to two years in prison, reduced down to an E-1, separated under a bad conduct

discharge, and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines. His immediate supervisor, a junior Service

officer, was administratively separated from the Service. $75,000 worth of merchandise was

never recovered.

80

New York State of Mind A Service sergeant was court-martialed for fraud and larceny of government funds, for

knowingly submitting false basic allowance for housing (BAH) claims for three years while

stationed overseas. The sergeant claimed his wife and kids were living in New York City, the

highest BAH city in the system, while they were actually living in Puerto Rico. The sergeant

received over $50,000 he was not entitled to under the false claims. He was sentenced to twelve

years in prison, reduced to E-1, and dishonorably discharged.

Married or Not? A soldier got married and provided his marriage certificate to the Service, but shortly

after the marriage his wife returned to her home in another state. Nine months later the marriage

was annulled. The soldier did not report that he was no longer married, and continued to collect

a housing allowance for himself and his now former wife. He also listed her on travel

reimbursements and received additional per diem for trips where she did not accompany him. In

total, the soldier was paid approximately $45,000 in funds that he was not eligible to receive.

At some point, the soldier appeared to sense that he was going to be caught because he

tried to throw off the investigation by filing for divorce even though the marriage had been

annulled much earlier. He then informed investigators that he was not aware that the marriage

had been annulled prior to his divorce filing. The ruse was not particularly effective because

court records showed the soldier was physically present at the annulment hearing. His case was

referred for court martial.

Imaginary Ball and Chain Drags Staff Sergeants Down An Army Staff Sergeant stationed at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina continued to receive Basic

Allowance for Housing (BAH) at the married rate even after he was divorced from his wife.

He knowingly and willfully failed to submit documentation to reflect this change, thus receiving

more money than he was entitled to and therefore committing fraud and larceny. The Staff

Sergeant was charged with larceny under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and found guilty

by General Court Martial. He was sentenced to five months in confinement, forfeiture of $5,000

and a reduction in grade from Staff Sergeant (E-6) to Private First Class (E-3). In a similar case,

a Staff Sergeant at U.S. Army CENTCOM was caught illegally receiving BAH at the higher

81

married rate when he was actually single. The soldier submitted a false marriage license,

ultimately receiving $15,100 in Basic Allowance for Housing and Family Separation Allowance

to which he was not entitled. His “wife” also fraudulently received $13,200 in Tricare healthcare

benefits. The relationship must have gone sour though, because she ended up turning him in to

military investigators. After such a betrayal, one can only assume he will now be filing for a

fake divorce.

All-Expenses Paid Bachelor Pad with Maid Service Included? A Lieutenant Commander working as the Naval Station Great Lakes Bachelor Housing

Officer misused Government resources when he lived in the quarters without cost and received

free housekeeping and amenities. He was charged on three counts under the Uniform Code of

Military Justice (Articles 81, 92, and 134) and issued a Letter of Reprimand as a form of Non-

Judicial Punishment. A civilian Government official who was aware of the Lieutenant

Commander’s illegal conduct, but failed to report it was also issued a Letter of Reprimand for

violating the Basic Obligation of Public Service requiring that he disclose any known fraud,

waste, abuse, and corruption (C.F.R. 2635.101(b)(11)).

Handling Service Members’ Injury Claims Wounds Government Financially A Navy civilian Medicare claims examiner was employed to represent Government

interests in the settlement of Medical Care Recovery Act (MCRA) claims. Her job entailed

regularly negotiating with insurance companies and injured military personnel in order to recover

Government expenditures on medical care for service members and their dependents who were

injured due to the acts of uninsured third parties. Although the Navy has authority to waive its

claims on behalf of injured service members against insurance companies, the examiner

orchestrated a scheme in which she used her position and authority to waive claims and to

fraudulently obtain money for herself that was owed to the Government. In one case, the

examiner handled the claim for a Petty Officer who had been injured in a motorcycle accident.

She told the service member that she could increase the amount of his settlement if he agreed to

split the amount with her. When he agreed, the examiner notified the insurance company that the

Navy was waiving its MRCA claim. When the company sent the Petty Officer a $6,000 check,

82

he sent her $3,000 cash just as she had directed. It turned out that the Petty Officer had been

working with law enforcement authorities all along.

The U.S. Attorney prosecuted the examiner and obtained a conviction for one count of

Mail Fraud. She was sentenced to two months in prison, two years of probation, a $100 special

assessment, and was debarred by the Navy for three years.

Invoices Submitted on Behalf of MakeBelieveCompany, Inc. A civilian employee and Government purchase card holder working at the Naval Surface

Warfare Center (NSWC) in Maryland conspired with an outside vendor to create fraudulent

invoices in the name of fictitious companies such as Greenway Supply, Government Supply, and

Aerospace Technologies. The invoices fraudulently showed that these imaginary companies had

provided goods and services to NSWC when in fact no products or services were ever provided.

The Government employee used his purchase card to pay for hundreds of such invoices, all in

amounts of less than $2,500 so as to avoid attracting too much scrutiny. When NSWC took

away the employee’s purchase card, the vendor continued to submit the false invoices in

cooperation with a second employee. Ultimately, the vendor made between $200,000 and

$400,000 in profit from the conspiracy. All three people involved were guilty of making false

and fraudulent statements to the Government and embezzling money belonging to NSWC.

The vendor pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the Government, 18 U.S.C. §371.

The Navy debarred the vendor and both employees for three years.

Marine Corp Says Goodbye to Officers who Schemed with Thai Vendors Three U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific, Joint U.S. Military Group, Thailand

(JUSMAGTHAI) officers were caught receiving bribes and kickbacks from a Thai vendor.

A Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation revealed that a Marine Corps Major, either

directly or through his wife, accepted approximately $100,000 in gifts from a Thai vendor, to

include a truck and a loan for a house. The Major continued to engage in business with the

vendor and awarded him contracts, but did not disclose his personal financial conflict of interest

to his agency designee as mandated by 18 U.S.C. §208. He also passed inside information to the

vendor, allowing her to increase her bid while still ensuring she was the lowest bidder and

therefore increasing her profit margin. He was also charged with maintaining a sexual

83

relationship with a woman who was not his wife, which is illegal under the Uniform Code of

Military Justice. Another Marine Corps Major received gifts, including free hotel rooms, from a

prohibited source in violation of 10 U.S.C. section 892 and section 933. A third Marine Corps

Major also worked with the vendor to defraud the Government. The Major, taking advantage

of his position as the first person in the logistics chain to come into contact with goods and

services provided by contractors, signed receipts for delivery of purchase orders even though the

vendor had only delivered incomplete shipments. The Government was nonetheless billed the

cost of full shipment, while the conspiring parties split the profits from these “ghost shipments.”

The Major signed orders for at least five ghost shipments and received $2,324 in bribes for his

participation. All three Majors were debarred from Government contracting by the Navy

Acquisition Integrity Office. Furthermore, they were all charged under the Uniform Code of

Military Justice. The first Major was dismissed from active duty, sentenced to four years in

confinement and a $25,000 fine. The second Major received a Punitive Letter of Reprimand and

was subjected to a $3,060 forfeiture of pay. The third Major was discharged and sent to spend

six months in the brig.

Overpricing by Contractor Results in $44,000 Refund An Army technician ordering a Seal Replacement Parts Kit from a defense contractor

noted that the price of the kit seemed unusually high based on the price of each individual

component, and contacted investigators. Investigators examined the price of the components

and the cost the company incurred to assemble each kit, and discovered that the contractor

was marking up each kit by approximately $500. Investigators further discovered that the

Government had purchased a large number of the kits at the inflated price.

As a result of the observant technician’s number-crunching, the defense contractor agreed

to a voluntary refund of $44,000.

Favoritism Results in Senior Official’s Resignation A senior official at the National Defense University left his post after his relationship

with a subordinate came to light. Employees told investigators that they had witnessed

inappropriate physical contact between the official and a component program director.

The official allegedly favored the program director by approving leave requests during critical

84

periods, affording her more authority than her position entitled her, giving her leniency regarding

her work schedule, and consistently relying on her opinion above others. The official was also

accused of creating a hostile work environment by repeatedly demeaning employees.

The program director was separately charged with misusing Government property by taking

excessive leave and misreporting time and attendance.

The official resigned his post, and the program director was detailed to a different

component and received counseling.

Contractor Fraud Results in Investigation Contractors who were awarded a $564 million contract to construct the Olmsted Dam on

the Ohio River found themselves high and dry after the discovery of fraudulent reimbursement

charges billed to the Government. The contractors had purchased a number of vehicles to be

used on the job, and properly billed the purchase cost to the Government. However,

investigators discovered that the contractors allowed eight senior-level employees to drive their

vehicles home at night as part of an “incentives” program. These contractors were further

involved in three accidents with the vehicles, the cost of which was submitted for reimbursement

to the Government.

To Defraud or Not To Defraud? That’s an Easy Question! The Facts: An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officer conspired with two private tax

preparers to develop a scheme to defraud the United States Government. The tax preparers told

persons owing money to the Government that they could negotiate a lesser debt if they would go

ahead and pay off what was owed. The IRS officer would then enter false information into the

relevant files showing that the individuals in question had insufficient assets to cover their debts.

This convinced the IRS to halt collection efforts. Strangely (or not), the money paid to the tax

preparers never made it to the IRS. The tax preparers were sentenced along with the IRS officer,

who, for tinkering with the debts of others, ended up with quite a “debt” of her own: She was

sentenced to 3 years and one month in prison, to be followed by 3 years of probation, and

ordered to pay in restitution $322,135.

85

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2003) authorizes fines and imprisonment for up to five years for

anyone conspiring with one or more other persons to defraud the United States, if any one of the

conspirators takes any action to carry out the fraud. In this case, all three persons appear to have

taken such an act. The IRS officer was also charged under 26 U.S.C. § 7214 (2003) of the

Internal Revenue Code, which requires that any IRS officer who conspires to defraud the

Government be discharged from their office and, if convicted, pay up to $10,000 in fines, serve

up to five years in prison, or both.

Conflicts of Interest and Lies Garner Federal Convictions For Alderwoman and Daughters

A Milwaukee alderwoman and her two daughters found themselves as defendants in

federal court for funneling city funds to a non-profit organization they had created. The alderwoman, before her election, founded a non-profit organization eligible to carry out

neighborhood social grants; it was largely funded by Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

grants awarded to the City of Milwaukee. These grants were given to the city upon the condition

that each grant recipient complies with HUD regulations. Among these regulations was a

conflict-of-interest provision preventing any elected official that participated in the

apportionment of the HUD grants from obtaining a financial benefit “either for themselves or

those with whom they have business – or immediate family ties.” Upon the alderwoman’s election, she turned the executive directorship of the non-profit

organization over to her two daughters, who both drew a salary from the organization. Both

daughters had different last names from each other as well as the alderwoman, and the

relationship between the three was unknown by the City and HUD. After taking office, the

alderwoman secured membership on the Community Development Policy Committee, the

committee that apportioned HUD grants. She was informed by the City Attorney of the HUD

conflict-of-interest rules, and wrote a memo assuring the City that her husband and (singular)

daughter only worked for the non-profit on a volunteer basis. This deception persisted the

following year, when the City began to suspect a scam; the alderwoman wrote another letter to

the city attorney admitting that her (singular) daughter had been an employee of the non-profit,

but assuring that she had since left her position (which was untrue). However, by this point, the

86

City was aware of the alderwoman’s deception, and she was charged with various violations of

federal law.

During the time period the alderwoman was in office, the non-profit accepted a number

of lucrative HUD grants from the city. Each contract included a recitation of the HUD conflict-

of-interest provisions, and was signed by both daughters in their capacity as executive officers.

When queried by the City regarding the familial relation of the two daughters to the alderwoman,

the daughters chose not to respond. This duplicity earned both daughters charges in federal court

alongside their mother.

The alderwoman and one of her daughters pled guilty to various violations of federal law.

The second daughter chose to go to trial, and was convicted and sentenced to two years’

probation and a $1000 fine for violating her contractual duty to disclose her familial relationship

with the alderwoman. (Source: 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10878)

Employee Gets Ten Years for Authorizing Fraudulent Retirement Benefits A retirement benefits specialist at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

developed an embezzlement scheme that eventually involved 15 cohorts and resulted in the theft

of $3.7 million from the Civil Services Retirement Trust Fund. The specialist’s duties included

authorizing monthly benefits payments as well as one-time payments intended to retroactively

adjust Federal benefits. Instead of authorizing payments for the proper recipients, the employee

began to authorize payments to fellow employees. The scheme allowed at least 25 people to

obtain illegal one-time payments from the Retirement Trust Fund, after which they paid

kickbacks to the OPM employees.

The specialist was sentenced to 10 years in prison for her role as the ringleader of the

operation. Her coconspirators received lesser terms.

Boyfriends Can Be Very Expensive For Employees Who Steal Funds A U.S. Forest Service employee faced a maximum of 13 years in prison for stealing over

$642,000 and committing tax fraud. The employee paid restitution of the entire $642,000 prior

to sentencing.

87

The employee admitted that during her job of overseeing payments with Federal charge

cards and Government checks, she wrote Government checks to her boyfriend, who occasionally

contracted with the Forest Service. Disguised as firefighting payments, the checks were

deposited in the couple’s joint bank account and used to pay for expenses and gambling.

It appears this relationship came at a very high price. (Source: OregonLive.com)

Contractors and Federal Personnel Working Together, Defraud Government and Go to Jail

An investigation by several Government agencies in support of the Justice Department’s

National Procurement Fraud Task Force revealed a complex scheme to defraud the Coalition

Provisional Authority – South Central Region (CPA-SC) in al-Hillah, Iraq. The perpetrators,

a former Department of Defense (DoD) employee, several former soldiers and numerous public

officials, including two high-ranking U.S. Army officers, conspired in a fraud and money-

laundering plan involving contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq.

The Task Force discovered the co-conspirators connived to rig bids on contracts so that

CPA-SC awarded them all to the same contractor. In addition, the conspirators stole over $2

million in currency that CPA-SC had slated for reconstruction. As a reward for their efforts, the

contractor provided the officials with a variety of gifts, including over $1 million in cash, sports

cars, jewelry, computers, liquor, and offers of future employment.

The Task Force charged a former Lieutenant Colonel, two active Lieutenant Colonels, a

Colonel and two civilians in a 25-count indictment. The court sentenced the civilian DoD

employee to serve 12 months in prison, while the former Lieutenant Colonel earned 21 months in

prison for his role. Another former soldier received nine years in prison and a forfeiture of $3.6

million for charges of conspiracy, bribery, and money laundering, as well as weapons possession

charges.

The contractor at the center of the conspiracy pled guilty to related charges, and received

a 46 month prison sentence. In addition, the court ordered him to forfeit $3.6 million. (Department of Justice 07-449, June 25, 2007, www.usdoj.gov)

88

Official Steals Himself Jail Time A former Intelligence Contingency Funds (ICF) officer for the Department of Defense

stole over $100,000 from his former employer. The ICF official pled guilty to one count of theft

and embezzlement of Government property, admitting that over a period of three years he had

used his official position to withdraw cash from a Government bank account. By falsifying DoD

accounting vouchers and forms, the official increased his own bank account with DoD funds

while he performed his official budgeting, disbursing, and accounting duties for ICF.

The U.S. District Judge sentenced the official to serve 12 months in prison, pay $106,500 in

restitution, and serve three years of supervised release. (Source: Department of Justice 07-416, June 8, 2007)

Gambling and Other Contest Violations

Federal Employee Rides into Trouble A local motorcycle dealer sponsored a "motorcycle poker" event across public lands.

The off-road bikes followed a pre-set route, stopping along the way to pick up playing cards.

The one with the best poker hand at the end won a new motorcycle. The winner? The on-duty

Government employee who was to follow the contestants, making sure that nobody had fallen

off his bike or gotten lost. He didn’t get to keep the bike because he won the prize while

carrying out his official duty. While section 2635.203(b)(5) of the Standards of Ethical Conduct

for Executive Branch Employees allows Federal employees to keep prizes in contests that are

open to the public and not related to the employee’s official duties, in this case, the employee

won while performing official duties.

Fantasy Football IS Gambling Gambling allegations were made against a Department of Defense employee who was

operating a “fantasy football league” in his workplace. The participants each paid $20 to

participate. The funds were used for a luncheon at the end of the season and trophies were

purchased for the winners.

89

Although upon the surface the “fantasy football league” does not appear to be gambling

per se, the General Counsel ruled that the activities constituted gambling in the workplace in

violation of paragraph 2-302 of DoD 5500.07-R, Joint Ethics Regulation.

NOTE: This case occurred prior to the passage of 31 U.S.C. 5362.

Fantasy Football IS Gambling II Allegations were made regarding Air National Guard members running a “fantasy

football” league on Government computers. Each member of the league contributed $10 to play,

with the winner buying all of the other participants’ pizza at the end of the season. It was

determined that the winner actually expended more on the pizza than the amount of the

winnings. It was also determined that activities associated with the game were conducted on

break and lunch times.

Section 2-302 of DoD 5500.07-R, Joint Ethics Regulation, prohibits gambling by DoD

personnel while on duty or while on Federal property. In addition, it was a misuse of

Government resources to carry out such an activity on Government computers. The guardsmen

involved were counseled by their commanding officer.

Gambling Ring Garners Federal Charges Tipped off by a coworker, investigators discovered that a painter at the Department of

the Interior was running a full-fledged gambling operation on Government premises. While on

official duty, the painter received betting slips from other employees and made payoffs. The

painter’s subsequent threatening phone call to the tipster earned him a further charge of conduct

unbecoming a Federal employee.

41 C.F.R. § 102-74.395 forbids all persons entering in or on Federal property from

participating in games for money or other personal property, operating gambling devices,

conducting a lottery or pool, or selling or purchasing numbers tickets.

90

Gift Violations

Beware of Gifts (Gift Violations) Three admirals were censured for accepting dinners and gifts from the contractor,

Leonard Glenn Francis, a Singapore-based businessman widely known in maritime circles as

“Fat Leonard.” Violations included improper solicitation and acceptance of gifts from a

prohibited source and improper endorsement of a commercial business. This is part of a larger

investigation that has resulted in the arrests of a number of other naval personnel.

Drinking, Sex and Free Trips The Navy reprimanded a two-star admiral for getting drunk and wandering naked around

a Florida beachfront hotel while attending a conference with defense contractors. Also, a one-

star admiral was reprimanded and relieved of his command after an investigation found that he

had spent hours watching pornography on a Government computer while at sea.

And finally, there was the Commander who traded military secrets about ship movements

in exchange for cash, plane tickets, prostitutes, and a Lady Gaga concert. To add insult to injury,

the Commander’s immediate relatives also received gifts such as free airfare. The Commander

pled guilty to bribery charges, and, worst of all, his wife divorced him.

These cases are also part of a larger investigation.

Apparently VA Stands For “Valuable Appetite” The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has upheld the Department of Veterans

Affairs’ (VA) firing of one of its regional healthcare system directors. The firing, coming in the

wake of one of the biggest VA scandals to date, was upheld based on the director’s acceptance of

a number of “inappropriate gifts” including a trip to Disneyland for her family costing $11,000

and $729 for Beyoncé concert tickets. These gifts were offered by a consultant in the Phoenix

area whose job is to land government contracts. Veterans and watchdog groups liken the VA

and MSPB decisions to Al Capone’s conviction based on tax evasion and not his gangster

misgivings given the severity of other accusations levied against her. The most enraging of these

accusations was that she knew or should have known of subordinates lying about healthcare wait

91

times for veterans in her Phoenix region—many of who have severe illness ranging from post-

traumatic-stress disorder to cancer. Notwithstanding the scathing, yet unsubstantiated,

accusations of misrepresenting wait times, having received nearly $12,000 in kick-backs from an

industry consultant was more than enough to secure the director’s forced retirement.

(Source: The Washington Post; published 26 Dec 2014)

Field Activity Employee Solicitation An employee recently received a letter of warning for soliciting donations while on duty on a

military installation. As a general rule, employees are barred from soliciting gifts while on duty.

This employee, however, whether ignorant, defiant, or indifferent to the rules, spent a week

asking individuals visiting the base if they would be willing to donate items for a school event.

In doing so, the employee, according to witness testimony, would actually accompany willing

individuals around and point out items to be bought and donated. Upon purchase, the employee

would spend additional time preparing and wrapping the gifts. The letter of warning included a

discussion of his violations such as gift solicitations, misuse of official position, and misuse of

government time. (Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General; 2015)

A Gold-Plated Retirement A former General commanding U.S. forces in South Korea improperly accepted over

$5,000 in gifts and cash, including gold-plated pens, from a South Korean benefactor. The

General claimed that the gifts were accepted because the South Korean was a longtime and

personal friend, despite the fact that the South Korean did not speak English and they were

forced to communicate through hand signals and gestures. The General repaid the South Korean

in full and was allowed to retire at a lower grade.

Sampling of Gift Not Sufficient A Lieutenant Colonel committed dereliction of duty when, in violation of the JER, he

received a bottle of Ballantines 30 year-old Scotch valued at $400 and failed to report it and

properly dispose of it. In lieu of a court martial, the colonel resigned from the military service

for the good of the service under other than honorable conditions.

92

Like a Private Helicopter Ride to Work? How About a Model Ship? The Facts: According to sworn testimony and documentation acquired by the office of a

military service Inspector General, a senior military officer accepted gifts from the owner of a

corporation that serviced and provided landing facilities for military aircraft. The gifts to the

officer included a helicopter ride to work, a shirt with the corporation’s logo, a miniature model

airplane, meals at a Christmas party, and a leather jacket. The officer allegedly returned the

jacket but did nothing to compensate for receipt of the other gifts, the value of which exceeded

(and probably well exceeded) $100. This conduct occurred as one of a series of alleged offenses

that resulted in the officer being relieved of command, issued a punitive letter of reprimand, and

ordered to forfeit $1000.

The Law: 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(14) (2003) requires all Federal employees to avoid

any actions that a reasonable person, who knew the relevant facts, could take to be a violation of

the law—including the prohibition on providing “preferential treatment to any private

organization or individual,” mentioned at § 2635.101(b)(8). In this case, the value of the gifts

the officer accepted could make it appear that he might influence Government contracting in

favor of the corporation. To be sure, he enjoyed some neat gifts—for a time. However: “Public

service is a public trust,” and it requires that Federal employees place loyalty to “the laws and

ethical principles above private gain” (§ 2635.101(b)(1)).

Even more directly on point, 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.202(a) and 2635.203(d) apply the general

principles mentioned above by prohibiting Federal employees from (among other things)

soliciting gifts or accepting gifts—whether solicited or not—from any person who “[d]oes

business or seeks to do business with the employee’s agency.”

There are some exceptions to these rules. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204, for example, allows the

acceptance of “unsolicited gifts having an aggregate market value of $20 or less per source per

occasion,” provided that the value of gifts accepted under the “$20 rule” from a single source do

not amount to more than $50 in a given calendar year. In the case above, the officer’s gifts

exceeded – probably well exceeded – this limit.

If you have received a gift or gifts and anticipate that it has put you in jeopardy of

violating these, or any other, regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.205 tells you what you must do

— and that does not include covering it over (which might make things worse). First, if the gift

is an item and not an activity like a helicopter ride, you may return it to the giver or pay the giver

93

the fair market value (see subsection (a)(1)). If that is not practical, you may — “at the

discretion of the employee’s supervisor or an agency ethics official” —donate the item to an

appropriate charity, share the item with your office, or destroy the item (see sub-section (a)(2)).

For an activity or event, you obviously can’t return the gift, but you can and must pay back the

giver the market value of the gift; simply giving back something similar will not suffice (see sub-

section (a)(3)). If an employee “on his own initiative, promptly complies with the requirements

of this section” (that is, § 2635.205), and the gift was not solicited by the employee, then he or

she will not be considered to have improperly received that gift.

"Great dinner, thanks for the tip." Just prior to a major contract award, a Bureau Director went out to dinner with one of the

potential competitors at a swanky Washington restaurant. The wine alone cost over $100 per

bottle. Too bad the Director didn't realize that a Washington Post reporter was at the next table.

The story received front-page coverage in the next day’s Post. By that afternoon, the Director

announced that he had accepted a job in private industry — a job he couldn't refuse (with his

father-in-law).

The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 C.F.R. Part

2635) generally prohibit Federal personnel from accepting gifts (including meals) from persons

who do business or seek to do business with the employee’s agency.

One Party Too Many The Big Boss was retiring and his second-in-command called the secretary to ask her to

set up a retirement party. He directed her to send a memo to the staff advising them of what they

were expected to contribute. She was assigned paper plates, napkins, plastic utensils, and a

paper tablecloth. Everyone, including the secretary, was expected to contribute $25 for food

and gifts. To the surprise of no one, the second-in-command was selected as the new Big Boss.

His new branch chief called the secretary to have her set up a "promotion" party. The branch

chief’s memo to the staff advised them of what they were expected to contribute. For the

secretary, it was once again paper plates, napkins, plastic utensils and paper tablecloth.

Everyone, including the secretary, was again expected to contribute $25 for food and gifts.

To no one’s surprise, the branch chief was selected as the new second-in-command. Her senior

94

analyst called the secretary and asked her to set up a "promotion" party . . . The secretary

contacted the Ethics Office instead, where disciplinary action was initiated.

Subpart C of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch

(5 C.F.R. 2635) establishes the rules for gifts between employees. In general an employee may

not give a gift or make a donation to a gift to a superior. Furthermore, employees may not

generally accept gifts from other employees who receive less pay. There are certain exceptions,

of course.

Gift from a Prohibited Source As a gesture of thanks, a retailer gave an Army soldier a briefcase after the soldier, using

his Government credit card, had purchased office supplies from the retailer. The soldier

accepted the briefcase in violation of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the

Executive Branch (5 C.F.R. Part 2635), which generally ban acceptance of gifts by Federal

personnel from persons who do business or seek to do business with the employee’s agency.

After an investigation, the soldier returned the briefcase and was counseled.

Gift from Subordinate Results in Removal A Supervisory Contract Specialist at Andrews Air Force Base was terminated after it was

discovered that she had accepted a total of $2820 from a subordinate (a subordinate that the

specialist had, in fact, personally hired) on two occasions.

Despite the specialist’s claims that she did not know that accepting the gifts was wrong,

an Administrative Judge affirmed the termination of a 20-year federal career.

5 C.F.R. Part 2635, the “Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive

Branch,” forbids employees from accepting gifts from lesser-paid employees unless

(1) the employees are not in a subordinate-superior relationship, and (2) there is a personal

relationship between the two employees that would justify the gift.

Employee Cited for Improperly Accepting Pharmaceutical Samples The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) conducted an investigation after it found that

an employee at the VA Medical Center at Chillicothe, Ohio, had misused his position and

improperly solicited and accepted pharmaceutical drug samples. Upon questioning, the

95

employee acknowledged accepting five different medications from representatives of four

pharmaceutical companies, gifts totaling approximately $600. The pharmaceutical

representative required a physician to sign for the samples. While a physician did indeed sign

off, he testified that he only did so due to pressure from the employee. The investigation

uncovered agency-wide confusion regarding the acceptance of drug samples.

Federal gift rules prohibit an employee from accepting or soliciting a gift from a person

doing business with the employee’s agency. An employee may accept unsolicited gifts having a

market value of $20 or less per occasion, provided that the aggregate market value of individual

gifts from any one person does not exceed $50 in a calendar year. There is no exception,

however, that allows for the acceptance of solicited gifts. In response to the agency-wide

problem identified in the investigation, VA officials issued a statement explaining the application

of the Federal gift rules to the acceptance of pharmaceutical samples, and developed a fact sheet

for agency employees with specific guidance.

Involvement in Claims Against the Government or in Matters Affecting the Government (18 U.S.C. § 205-Type Violations)

Don’t Play Attorney Against Your Federal Employer! The Facts: In the “off-time” from her work with the Social Security Administration, a senior

attorney opened her own legal practice and represented clients with claims against that very same

Administration. For her double-duty, she was sued by a U.S. Attorney and ended up agreeing to

a settlement that required her to pay the United States $113,000 for this and other violations—

not a typical attorney’s fee! (Source: Office of Government Ethics memorandum, Oct. 2002)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 205 (2003) forbids any current Federal employee from acting as an

attorney in prosecuting a claim against the United States—where this is not performed as part of

his or her official duties for the Federal Government. For any such violation, the law authorizes

fines and possible imprisonment—of not more than one year, unless the conduct is “willful,” in

which case it can be for up to 5 years (see 18 U.S.C. § 216(a)).

96

Department of Justice Attorney Sentenced for Two Felony Counts A high-ranking attorney for the Department of Justice was convicted of representing a

private party before a Federal Agency in a matter in which the U.S. was a party in interest, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. 205. He was also convicted of theft of Government property, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. 64l. The attorney represented Native Americans before the Department of the

Interior in private litigation, and submitted false travel vouchers for Government reimbursement

while he served as an employee of the Department of Justice.

The attorney pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four months of home detention and one

year of probation. The plea agreement also stipulated that the attorney pay restitution to

Department of Justice in the amount of $5,000, pay a $5,000 fine, and pay approximately $2,500

in probation costs. Section 205 prohibits Federal personnel from representing anyone before a

Federal Agency or court in connection with a particular matter in which the United States has a

direct and substantial interest.

Air Force Civilian Employee Improperly Represents Fellow Employees Before U.S. Government

A civilian employee of the Oklahoma City, Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC), who was

also the former OC-ALC shop steward, was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 205. The

employee, who was not an attorney, owned a private company called Associated Labor

Consultants. This company provided legal services to other OC-ALC civilian employees by

filing legal briefs on behalf of the civilian employees and by representing them before various

board hearings against the United States. The employee collected approximately $1,050 in fees

from OC-ALC civilian employees for his services, and had billed out but had not collected an

additional $1,853.

The Air Force employee was charged with a civil violation of 18 U.S.C. 205. The case

was dismissed without prejudice. On February 2, 1998, the parties entered into a stipulated

agreement in which the accused agreed to pay the United States $3,000 and to refrain from

advising, counseling, or representing persons with claims against the United States.

97

FAA Employee Improperly Represents Co-worker Before DOJ An engineer employed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at the Mike

Moroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 205

(among other charges). While employed by the FAA, the engineer attended and graduated from

night law school. The new attorney continued his employment as an engineer but prepared wills,

powers of attorney, and other legal documents on his own time. Without permission from the

FAA, he agreed to represent a fellow FAA employee who was the target of a criminal

investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office, and subsequently contacted the U.S. Attorney's

Office on behalf of his client.

The United States brought a civil action against the FAA employee pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

205(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C. 216. The parties entered into a consent judgment in which the FAA

employee agreed to pay a $1,200 penalty.

Deputy Secretary of Commerce Improperly Contacts Official at Department of Veterans Affairs

The Deputy Secretary of Commerce received from his father-in-law, the owner of a

company doing business with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), a letter complaining of

delays experienced by the company in modifying its contract with the VA. The Deputy Secretary

of Commerce referred the letter to his counterpart at the VA on behalf of his father-in-law, and

also contacted the VA by telephone. As a result of the intervention, the company received the

modification it sought more quickly than it would have, absent the action by the Deputy

Secretary.

A complaint for civil penalties was filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 216(b) for a violation of

18 U.S.C. 205. The Deputy Secretary agreed to a civil settlement, including a $5,000 fine, which

would have been the maximum fine available under the sentencing guidelines had the case been

prosecuted criminally. Section 205 prohibits Federal personnel, other than in the proper

discharge of their official duties, from acting as an agent or attorney for another before any

Federal agency or court, in connection with a particular matter in which the United States is a

party or has a direct and substantial interest.

98

VA Employee Represents Company Before U.S.A.I.D. An architect employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was charged with

violating 18 U.S.C. 205. While employed by VA, the architect represented a Beltsville,

Maryland, company in connection with an application for a contract with the United States

Agency for International Development in Dacca, Bangladesh. The architect made two trips to

Bangladesh to represent the company while employed by the VA, including a trip for which the

company paid him $2,090. Prior to the effective date of his resignation from the VA, the

architect was paid an additional $5,603 by the company. During this same period of dual

employment, he earned $5,540 from the VA.

The architect was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 205(a)(2). He was sentenced to two

years probation, 100 hours of community service, and was required to pay a fine of $1,000.

Section 205 prohibits Federal personnel, other than in the proper discharge of their official

duties, from acting as an agent or attorney for another before any Federal agency or court, in

connection with a particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and

substantial interest.

Misuse of Government Resources and Personnel

No Free Government Trinkets A supervising employee has been forced to repay the Government for giving away

property in violation of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.704. The employee presented a local foundation with a

unit flag and guidon “as a gift from the unit in appreciation for dedication and support of soldiers

who experience and live with PTSD.” Unfortunately for the employee, federal rules dictate that

US Government employees have a duty to protect and conserve government property and shall

not use such property for other than official purposes. In this instance, the flag and guidon were

ordered by unit supply and not paid for by private funds. The employee did not seek permission

and was apparently unaware that giving away the unit flag without authorization was a violation.

The rules are unsympathetic of this ignorance, however, and the employee was required to

99

execute a Statement of Charges for the amount of $112 to pay for the cost of the equipment.

The employee also received formal counseling from his Commander.

(Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General; 2015)

All Your Hotel Points Belong to Me While working at the Air Force Legal Operating Agency, an official directed Air Force

JAGs to stay at local hotels at a higher monetary rate when housing was available on Maxwell

AFB at a much lower rate. This official used his Marriott reward points to reserve hotel rooms

for visiting military personnel so that he could use his public office for private gain and collect

the mileage for himself. As a result of the scheme, the official received a total of 587,282

Marriott reward points and an additional 100,000 reward points for other room arrangements.

He pled guilty and was sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine and $90,356 in restitution to the

Government for defrauding the Air Force.

An Official U.S-Russian Party A high-level U.S. military official in charge of nuclear weapons had a real blast on his

official trip to Moscow, where he imbibed to his heart’s content, mingled with “suspicious”

foreign women he met at a bar, and topped it off by insulting his Russian hosts. After a series of

other embarrassing gaffes, higher-ups relieved the General of his command. He has since

received a letter of counseling and has been reassigned.

Always Read the Fine Print A former State Department official used her position to funnel millions in government

contracting work to her husband’s company by persuading a contracting officer to sign the

contract without looking at the fine print. How much money was at issue — $39 million —

enough for the official to buy a Lexus, a half-million dollar yacht, and nearly a quarter-million

dollars in jewelry within two years. The proceeds were going to her company, and she kept

secret that the company was owned by her and her husband.

While the contracted work was completed, the 64 year old State Department official was

ordered to serve two years in prison for committing fraud against the Government.

100

I Wasn’t Really “Driving” Officer… An army employee decided to drive some co-workers home after a night of drinking.

Unfortunately, the driver had also taken part in the merriment and used a government vehicle.

This led to the driver running his vehicle aground on top of a sandbar, stranding himself and his

passengers. The driver offered two unidentified individuals a ride in his government vehicle if

they helped free the vehicle from the sand pile. Before they were able to free the vehicle, police

officers arrived on the scene and arrested the driver. The Government vehicle was impounded

the Federal employee was charged with Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test and Driving Under

the Influence, and jailed for 10 days. The employee failed to inform his supervisor about the

incident including where he was for the 10 days he was in jail.

The employee plead guilty in state court to Refusal of a Breath Test and was

subsequently removed from federal service for driving under the influence, misuse of a

government vehicle, loss of driver’s license, and attempting to deceive his supervisor.

Pointing and Shooting for Personal Gain An O-5 in communications decided that his day job wasn’t enough, so he started a side

business photographing local sports events. While on duty, he asked a subordinate to create

photo products for his personal business during official time. The officer also requested a press

pass on behalf of the Defense Media Activity, which he then used to gain exclusive entry into

sporting events to take pictures in his off-duty time. When he was finally caught for misusing

the press pass, he received a letter of concern from command.

Hors D’oeuvres and Wine…On the Taxpayers’ Dime A member of the Senior Executive Service authorized the use of appropriated funds for

two optional, off-site “teambuilding” events: a wine tasting event and a hors d'oeuvres tasting

event. The SES member argued that these events were justified as “necessary teambuilding”

events. It turns out that the events were not so “necessary” after all: no employees were actually

required to attend the events, which took place off-site.

101

The Inspector General found that the SES had improperly authorized the use of

appropriated funds for these events, which were not necessary. She was counseled by her

superiors as a result.

A Personal Postal Service One audacious officer stationed in Afghanistan developed a love for fancy rugs and

shotguns produced in Turkey. He liked them so much, in fact, that he created his own courier

service to get extra cash from the U.S. to increase his collection. The officer, an O-5, submitted

a fraudulent courier order, which requested that an enlisted service-member personally transport

an “important package” from the U.S. to Afghanistan. The enlisted service-member even

received preferred seating on a government flight to undertake his “special” task. When the

enlisted service-member arrived in Afghanistan, the O-5 told him that the “important package”

actually contained $4,000 in cash for the purchase of more rugs and shotguns. The O-5 needed

the money to reimburse people from whom he had borrowed funds to purchase rugs and guns,

and to buy more of these items for his family and friends.

The enlisted service-member then sat around on the base for 10 days on his courier

orders. When interviewed, he stated that he had received no assignments on base, and spent

those 10 days watching movies, eating meals, and doing no work. When the command got wind

of this misuse of funds and personnel, the O-5 was relieved of his duties and forced to fully

reimburse the government for thousands of dollars.

If the Gloves Fit, No Need to Acquit A Service NCO admitted to stealing government property while performing duties as a

security police officer at a base in the United States. The NCO was observed removing uniform

items, flight gloves, and flashlights from an unsecured supply building while making his security

rounds. On another occasion the NCO took self-inflating air mattresses and mess kits from the

same building. The guard used his police vehicle to stash the stolen goods, before taking them

home. The NCO admitted to stealing the items, and was forced to take an early retirement.

102

It’s Five O’clock Somewhere A government employee attached to a Service base in the United States ended up taking a

permanent vacation after a pattern of working an abbreviated work week. The investigation

showed the employee worked an average of three hours a day, before leaving around nine or ten

each morning to spend the rest of the day drinking at a local bar. The employee put in for

retirement in lieu of disciplinary action

Un-Captain-like Behavior A Service Captain lost his command for abusing his position, committing larceny, and

accepting gifts. The Captain coerced the ship’s MWR committee to purchase his personal items,

for cash, to use as prizes in a command golf tournament. During port visits, he used his position

to mandate compulsory wardroom attendance to sales events he orchestrated with specific

vendors, in exchange for discounts and free merchandise for himself. At a banquet with an ally

military command, the Captain ventured into the other military’s Admiral’s Mess and removed a

pair of ceremonial salt and pepper shakers. Back in port, he accepted a helicopter taxi service

and a free round of golf from a non-federal entity in exchange for being a guest speaker, a

violation of 5 C.F.R. 2635.202/203/204 (Gifts from Outside Sources). The Captain was relieved

of his command.

“I was dozing off – not sleeping!” A Government employee was reported by his co-workers for sleeping on the job. When

confronted, he admitted that he may have dozed off a time or two, but never actually slept at

work. His three day suspension was reduced to one day after he revealed that drowsiness was a

potential side-effect of his prescribed medication.

Go Speedracer A civilian reported seeing three Government vehicles traveling at high speeds, tailgating

and weaving through traffic in a dangerous manner. When questioned, several service members

admitted to driving in excess of the speed limit, passing on the right and driving aggressively.

103

Two of them were given formal counseling on the proper use of Government property and the

third was given a non-punitive Letter of Instruction.

Government Parking The Inspector General received a report that an officer had been using a Government

vehicle parking pass to park his personal vehicle while he was at work. The report indicated that

on several occasions other employees were forced to pay for parking a Government vehicle

because the officer’s personal vehicle was using the parking pass. The subsequent investigation

revealed that the officer had been using the pass for parking his personal vehicle, and that his

superior officers had not been informed or given him permission to do so. Although the officer

advised that he only used the pass when going to work, and did not use it when he believed a

Government vehicle would need it, he received a letter of counseling.

Government Property for Sale The Government received reports that a military reservist was attempting to sell

Government property, including military backpacks and boots, to civilian employees at a steep

discount. The reports seemed to indicate that the reservist had access to a great selection of

military equipment because he advertised that he could supply boots in any size that his fellow

employees might need. Investigation discovered more than $3,000 worth of Government

property in the reservist’s home. He received verbal counseling for his misuse of Government

resources.

Personal Phone Calls A civilian employee received a letter of reprimand for her excessive use of her

Government telephones for personal calls. The employee had been warned about the issue

before, and an investigation revealed that she had spent approximately twenty-one hours of duty

time on personal telephone calls to her friends and family over a five month span.

104

Employee Receives Reprimand for His Side Business A civilian employee was reported for running a side business through his office. It turns

out that the employee had developed a computer program during duty hours and on Government

equipment. He then marketed the program, and his consulting services, via the internet. He also

used his Government APO address as his business address so that he would be able to handle all

of his personal business at his Government office.

The employee received a letter of reprimand and was forced to stop selling the software.

Since it was developed on Government time and using Government resources the program was

deemed Government property.

Taking the Blackhawk Out for Lunch A concerned citizen contacted the Inspector General after seeing a Blackhawk helicopter

parked in a field behind a restaurant. Inside, he found five service members that had stopped for

lunch and were enjoying their meal with several civilians. An investigation revealed that the

soldiers were on a training mission, but they had properly listed the restaurant stop in their

mission plan. Since the stop was properly listed, the soldiers had not violated any regulations,

but they still received verbal counseling because their actions created an appearance of

impropriety.

Unwelcomed Whistleblowers A military service Captain denied reenlistment to a Staff Sergeant on the basis of a

protected communication. The denial was based in part on congressional inquiries the Staff

Sergeant had filed concerning actions of military officials. The denial violated 18 U.S.C. 1034,

which prohibits reprisal against a military member for making a protected communication. The

Captain was issued a letter of counseling.

In a similar case, a Captain issued an adverse fitness report after an Ensign had alleged

that she had been sexually assaulted by another military service member.

The Ensign had her record corrected after whistleblower reprisal was found under

10 U.S.C. 1034.

105

Better Call U-Haul Instead A military service officer used two government owned vehicles to move her belongings

from one residence to another. The use of the vehicles, totaling over 250 miles, earned her a

memorandum of reprimand from her commander for misuse of government vehicles. Another

officer was issued a memorandum of counseling for improperly authorizing the use of the

vehicles.

In a similar case, a military service Colonel authorized a subordinate to use a military

vehicle to pick him up at his residence and take him to work. He was counseled for improperly

using Federal Government resources, including personnel and equipment, for a non-official

purpose, in violation of JER 2-301, Use of Federal Government Resources. $130 was collected

from the Colonel to reimburse the government for the mileage cost incurred.

Chiefly Wasteful A chief of maintenance and logistics at a military facility purchased, at a cost of $30,000

each, 6 forklifts designed for inside use despite the fact that the command needed lifts for outside

use, even for use in inclement weather. The forklifts rusted for 8 months in an outdoor storage

area. In an even more impressive display of waste, the chief purchased a $400,000 patrol boat

with a bad generator that left the boat inoperative - and that went unrepaired.

The chief’s actions violated Federal Acquisition Regulation 3.101-1, which sets forth the

standard that transactions related to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of

public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct.

The chief was removed from his position.

On-Duty Classes Two Military Sergeants First Class were handed memorandums of admonition for lack

of good judgment for improperly using Tuition Assistance. They attended school during on-duty

time when they should normally have performed their military duties.

Their civilian supervisor was also given a memorandum of admonition for improperly

allowing the soldiers to take such time.

106

Significant Penalties for Significant Wrongdoing A former employee at the NASA Ames Research Center, Christopher Burt Wiltsee, was

sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine after pleading guilty to

possessing child pornography on his government computer. Wiltsee admitted to possessing

more than 600 images.

He is at least the third person connected with NASA Ames to be convicted of possessing

child pornography. Another former NASA employee, Mark Charles Zelinsky, likewise pled

guilty to possessing more than 600 images on his government computer. Zelinsky received three

years in prison.

Save Your Job; Pay with (Your Own) Cash A former manager at the U.S. Postal Service was removed from his position for, among

other things, improperly using his government credit card and making false statements during the

investigation regarding that use. William Hickmon was found to have made personal purchases

on his Postal Service travel credit card that totaled over $450. The charges included five gas

station charges and an 11-day car rental charge. Though he eventually paid the charges, the

improper use was a factor in his eventual removal.

Colonel Finds It’s Too Late to Turn Back Time on Unethical Request An Army Colonel was scheduled to go TDY and asked one of her contract employees to

make a reservation for her mother on the same flight. When she was told that such action would

be illegal, she responded that it was “alright” and that she had asked him as a “personal favor.”

After even more people counseled her on the illegality of her actions, the Colonel attempted to

stop the employee from making the flight reservation, but it was too late. She was found to have

violated Paragraphs 2-301 and 3-305 of DoD 5500.07-R, Joint Ethics Regulation, which prohibit

use of Federal Government resources, including personnel and equipment, for other than official

purposes.

107

Cyber-Savvy Teacher Learns a Lesson A civilian teacher employed with DoD in Japan was caught using his Government

computer to send frequent messages on MySpace, Yahoo Chat, and MSN chat during duty hours.

He also used the computer to both view and send pornographic material. Students reported that

instead of teaching classes he spent most of his time chatting with his girlfriend and family in the

United States. Adverse Personnel Action was taken against the teacher and he resigned.

Majorly Out To Lunch An Army Major was scheduled to work 0730 to 1600 hours. Instead, he would show up

as late as 1030 and leave as early as 1200. Somehow, during his short stay at the office he also

managed to take “excessive lunch time.” He was subjected to counseling for his time and

attendance violations.

Prognosis for Army Doctor Does Not Look Good A civilian doctor working at an Army clinic was caught ordering medication and tests for

herself at the clinic even though she was not entitled to medical care by the military. She had

also been seen by occupational health providers at the clinic about 20 times.

The doctor was suspended for two weeks without pay for receiving unauthorized medical

care – and was retrained on her eligibility to receive medical services.

At Today’s Gas Prices, Better Refill the Government’s Tank! A group of interns used a Government rental vehicle to attend a 5-day Defense

Acquisition University (DAU) class in Alabama. However, after the class was over they decided

to drive to Nashville for a little weekend vacation, ultimately dropping the car off with an empty

tank of gas. They charged the Government an extra two days for the weekend car rental and the

$5/gallon gas refill. They were also improperly paid for an extra day of per diem during their

boondoggle to Music City. The original vouchers claimed days that were not part of the interns’

official TDY, but were subsequently corrected. The intern group was counseled, received

training on filing travel vouchers, and was made to contact DFAS regarding reimbursement to

the Government for the improper expenditures.

108

A Swing and a Miss for Senior Officers Using Government Funds on Golf Outing

Four senior officials, including two Air Force Generals, a Marine General, and a Navy

Admiral, with staff personnel extended their official TDY by an extra day in order to attend a

golf outing following a formal conference in Tokyo. They utilized Government transportation

and received per diem for the tournament. There were no business events that day, and the all-

day golf event was attended by less than half of the conference participants. Attendance at the

golf event, costing the Government approximately an additional $3,000, could not reasonably be

considered to be official Government business. Golf foursomes do not provide the opportunity

to dialogue with a large or diverse group of people and thus do not greatly foster communication

between conference participants. The Federal Joint Travel Regulations require that official

travel only be authorized as necessary “to accomplish the mission of the Government effectively

and economically.” The golf did not further any legitimate Government purpose, nor was it an

economical choice. The senior officials violated the Standards of Ethical Conduct for

Employees of the Executive Branch (5 C.F.R. Part 2635.704 and 2635.705) by misusing

Government property and time. They were directed to reimburse the Government for both the

lodging and per diem costs incurred due to the golf outing.

Not a Liar, But the Army Still Can’t Train Your Fiancée’s Son to Fight Fire The Fire Chief at an army installation did not have enough students to fill a pre-paid,

DoD-funded Airfield Rescue Fire Fighter Class so he sent his fiancée’s son to the training to fill

one of the unused seats. Although he was not a DoD employee and did not possess any previous

firefighter training or experience, he was issued Depot firefighting equipment and sent to the

training. This action posed a considerable safety risk to all involved and violated the class’s

safety requirements. The Fire Chief was not suspected of fraud, only poor judgment. Even

though sending the boy did not involve the expenditure of additional funds, he still violated

Paragraph 2-301 of DoD 5500.07-R, the Joint Ethics Regulation, paragraph 2-301, in his misuse

of Government resources by issuing the boy the Government equipment. The Fire Chief was

issued a written reprimand to be made a matter of record in his official personnel folder for a

period not to exceed two years from the date of receipt.

109

Staff Sergeant Tricks Out His Ride on the Government’s Dime An Army E-6 assigned to a National Guard maintenance shop improperly worked on

civilian vehicles at the shop and removed car parts for his personal use. He installed truck tires,

two solargizers and other accessories on his personal vehicle and used his Government credit

card to buy a diamond plate fuel tank and install it in his own truck while putting a regular white

fuel tank in the military truck he was working on. The Staff Sergeant not only took a

Government vehicle for his personal use, but he even took a shed from the shop and moved it to

his home. He was also suspected of using his Government credit card to pay for gas for his

personal vehicles. The Staff Sergeant was charged with larceny and wrongful appropriation

under the Code of Military Justice and the Government was able to recover $8,800 in property.

Misuse of Position A Major General and commander in a military service abused his authority by arranging

to have an enlisted member serve as his unauthorized enlisted aide. Years earlier, a review of

enlisted aide positions eliminated the billet at his center. Despite this, the Major General desired

the services of an enlisted aide to assist in official entertaining and improperly assigned enlisted

aide duties to a non-commissioned officer. The Major General was issued a letter of counseling.

Law Enforcement Official Fired for Landing Government Helicopter at His Daughter’s School

A Department of Homeland Security border officer was fired for misuse of government

property after he flew a multi-million dollar DHS helicopter to his daughter’s elementary school

and landed it on school property. The incident provoked complaints from parents and attracted

media attention. Although the employee’s immediate supervisor told him he could use the

helicopter, the employee’s actions were not excused because employees are expected to use their

own judgment and should not rely solely on the judgment of their superiors when it comes to

ethical conduct.

29-Year Veteran of the VA Loses Job Over Dirty Emails A Department of Veterans Affairs budget analyst (GS-11) was terminated for the

inappropriate use of a government computer system. The employee sent and received at least

110

119 e-mail messages containing sexually explicit material. The employee had been instructed in

the proper use of government computers and signed a statement that he was aware of the

agency’s policies, which were clearly violated by the contents of his e-mail messages. The

employee’s claims that someone else got onto his computer and sent and received the e-mails

were unavailing.

Don’t Lose Your Day Job A Treasury Department computer specialist used government Internet and telephone

service to operate a private business during work hours for several years. The agency estimated

that he stole over $63,000 in salary by running his private business on government time. After

he was issued a cease and desist order, he discontinued most of his private business activity, but

he admitted to continuing to use his work computer to transfer files relating to his private

business. He argued that this was allowed by the Department because employees are permitted

de minimis (very limited) personal use of government property. The Department disagreed.

Although Department employees may use government property for personal purposes at a de

minimis level, they may not use government property at all to pursue private commercial

business activities or profit-making ventures. This employee had been warned once and

continued to use the government’s office equipment for his private business. Thus, this

employee was left with only his night job (which he could now legitimately do during the day).

HUD Employee Discloses Non-Public Information to Lover for Personal Financial Gain

A HUD employee gave her spouse-like partner information about the minimum

acceptable bid required to purchase a HUD-owned property. This information was non-public

and gave the employee’s partner a significant advantage over other bidders in getting the

winning bid. After the her partner won the bid and purchased the property, the property was

transferred to the employee for $1—an obvious straw-man transaction used to get around a HUD

regulation prohibiting HUD employees from bidding on HUD-owned properties. Federal

regulations prohibit employees from using non-public information for furthering their own

private financial interests, or the private financial interests of others. The HUD employee was

fired.

111

Block Party for New Staff Members Not a “Hail and Farewell” A Colonel in Wurzburg, Germany drew the attention of investigators after they

discovered that he had used Government resources to host an unofficial barbeque at his quarters.

The Colonel had planned a block party to welcome new staff members to his division, and

accepted an offer by a superior officer to use Government property and soldiers for the party.

He subsequently tasked soldiers from his command during duty hours to purchase food and

beverages (with his own private funds) as well as transport and set up a Government tent and

Government-purchased tables and benches at his quarters. The soldiers used Government

vehicles to transport the party supplies, and returned to break down the tent and tables at the

close of the party. While the Colonel protested that the event was a Hail and Farewell, the event

was advertised to the community as a Block Party, attendance was voluntary, and the event was

not considered a place of duty. Thus, investigators determined that the event was unofficial, and

resulted in the misuse of government resources.

Personal Use of Government Property Earns Reprimand The Assistant Fire Chief at a military installation in California received a letter of

reprimand after investigators discovered that he had improperly authorized a firefighter to take

home a rarely-used fire station pool table for personal use. The Assistant Chief had been

instructed to determine whether the pool table was actually Government property before gifting

it to the firefighter, but had neglected to do so. Taking a “cue” from the Chief’s admission to

investigators, the firefighter returned the pool table to the station and received counseling.

Admiral Under Investigation for Use of Staff to Support Personal Travel An Admiral’s case was referred to the Chief of Naval Operations after investigators

learned that he had used his personal staff to book family travel and give him rides home from

work. Investigators discovered that the Admiral’s Executive Assistant, Aide, and Flag Writer

had on multiple occasions acceded to the Admiral’s requests to help plan and book family

vacations. The Admiral’s staff had also booked personal travel for the Admiral’s family

members to join him on official business. Investigators further found that the Admiral had

improperly driven home his Government vehicle on several occasions, and that the staff had

112

developed a custom that the last person to leave the office on a day on which the Admiral lacked

transportation was virtually obligated to give the Admiral a ride home in their personal vehicle.

The Admiral’s case was referred to the Chief of Naval Operations for misuse of

personnel, misuse of Government property, and receipt of gifts from subordinates.

Stopping at the Base Eatery Not an “Official Visit” A Non-Appropriated Fund Activity (NAFI) employee was reprimanded after it was

discovered that he drove his official Government vehicle every morning to a NAFI eatery for

coffee and breakfast. The employee readily admitted his actions, but indicated that he believed

them to be proper because they were “official visits” to an activity under his command. He

noted that he had formerly used his personal vehicle for all such visits, but with rising gas prices,

that practice had become too expensive. He further hypothesized that the person who had tipped

off investigators was simply jealous as they probably did not have a Government vehicle and

were forced to drive their personal vehicle to get food.

The employee received a written reprimand for using a Government vehicle for non-

authorized purposes.

Misuse of Culinary Specialists Results in Attention of Chief of Naval Operation An Admiral and Captain at a Naval Facility in Japan came under investigation when it

was discovered that they were using Culinary Specialists (CSs) to operate an unauthorized Flag

Mess. The two officers ordered the establishment of an on-shore Flag Mess to serve them

without following the proper procedures to receive approval. While they provided the funds for

the CSs to purchase the food for the mess, they required that the CSs prepare meals and serve

them in their respective offices. The CSs were also directed to prepare food for an unofficial

social event given by the Admiral in his quarters. As a result of their misuse of personnel, the

officers’ cases were forwarded to the Chief of Naval Operations.

Failure to Choose Cost-Efficient Flights Results in Investigation An Army National Guard Colonel found himself under investigation after the revelation

that he had committed waste and abuse in official travel. Investigators discovered that over a

113

three-year span of time, the Colonel had traveled on twelve flights in business class, adding

approximately $6,800 to the flight cost; had taken nineteen trips with non-contract carriers;

had on six occasions flown routes terminating in destinations not in his orders, such as San

Francisco; and had requested that his staff book him on a certain chain of carriers whenever

possible in order to earn frequent flyer miles. Investigators determined that the failure of the

Colonel and his staff to follow the proper procedures concerning travel cost comparisons cost

nearly $5,000 in 2005 alone.

Trashing Unused Parts Garners Employee Counseling A Sergeant in the Air Refueling Wing of the Arizona National Guard had the

responsibility of properly cataloging excess aircraft parts. This process involved filling out

the requisite paperwork and boxing loose items. The Sergeant swiftly became frustrated

with the process, and decided to simply throw the items away.

The Sergeant’s shortcut earned him counseling and a division-wide review of proper

maintenance procedures.

Email Encouraging Attendance at Military Association Meeting Earns Counseling Two senior officials of the Louisiana National Guard were counseled after sending an

email to a large number of sergeant majors in the command asking them to “focus on” the

upcoming convention of the Louisiana Army National Guard Enlisted Association, noting that

they “expect[ed]” attendance at certain sessions, and expressing their desire for “a good turnout.”

The email was in violation of DoD Directive 5500.7R, which prohibits official endorsement of

non-Federal organizations. The two officers were counseled for their violations.

Don’t Let Internet Surfing Carry You Away! The Facts: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a policy that allowed the use of

the Internet by employees for personal reasons so long as that use did not distract employees

from their duties. It also provided a list of Internet sites that were off-limits. Six months later,

the Treasury Inspector General (IG) for Tax Administration found widespread abuse of Internet

privileges. Abuses included viewing pornographic sites, downloading music and games, and

114

“chatting” online with friends. The IG recommended that the IRS require employees to sign a

document declaring that they understood IRS Internet policy and, as GovExec.com put it,

“humiliate Internet abusers by publishing their names.” The IRS has determined that it will take

stronger measures. (Source: GovExec.com, June 23, 2003)

The Law: Different agencies may have different policies as to what use employees can

make of the Internet while at work. As an employee, you must follow the policies of your

employer or face disciplinary action. Moral: Check the tide in your office before you surf.

Using Government Vehicle to “Chill” Earns Down Time By Suspension The Facts: A resident of California was puzzled to find a Dodge Ram truck owned by

a branch of the United States military often turning up in a residential neighborhood during

business hours. Concerned at this use of a Government-owned vehicle (GOV), the citizen

decided to give a Defense Department Hotline a call. An investigation ensued, which involved

surveillance of the neighborhood in question, review of timekeeping records, and interviews.

Ultimately, the driver of the vehicle — a mechanic at a military facility — admitted to having

problems with substance abuse and depression and to using the truck at times to return home

allegedly to retrieve tools (which could have been obtained by other means) and to “chill out,”

sometimes for two hours. He admitted that he knew that what he was doing with the GOV

was wrong, but he asked for a second chance since he had never been in trouble before.

The mechanic was given the mandatory minimum penalty: a 30-day suspension.

The Law: 31 U.S.C. § 1349(b) requires that an officer or employee who “willfully” uses

a vehicle owned or leased by the United States Government for other than official purposes be

suspended for at least one month or, “when circumstances warrant, for a longer period or

summarily removed from office.” In this case, the misuse of the vehicle was deemed to be

willful, since the Federal employee knew that his personal use of the GOV was wrong.

Holiday Greetings! Military Officer Sent Best Wishes on the Cheap — You Paid! The Facts: According to sworn testimony and documents uncovered by a military

service Inspector General inquiry, a senior military officer and his wife had a subordinate service

member print out on a Government office computer official cards containing their holiday

115

greetings, which they then signed, enclosed in official envelopes with printed labels, and sent to

about 100 addresses. Some of their greetings were sent overseas to foreign officials using

Government postage and marked “Official Business.” This conduct occurred as one of a series

of alleged offenses that resulted in the officer being relieved of command, issued a punitive letter

of reprimand, and ordered to forfeit $1,000.

The Law: 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101 (2003), which lays out basic obligations for and

restrictions upon public service, forbids the use of Federal property “for other than authorized

activities” (§ 2635.101(b)(9)). It thus barred the use of all of the Federal property employed to

produce and to send the greeting cards. Moreover, 18 U.S.C. § 1719 (2003) mandates fines for

anyone using an official envelope or label to avoid having to pay their own postage for private

mail. In this case, the official envelopes addressed to individuals overseas were improperly used

to gain Government postage. Admittedly, section C1.4.9 of the Department of Defense (DoD)

Official Mail Manual (DoD 4525.8-M, Dec. 26, 2001) authorizes the use of “appropriated fund

postage” by DoD “activities . . . when international diplomacy dictates.” In this case, however,

the officer’s greetings were not required for international diplomacy and were not sent on behalf

of an “activity” but were from two individuals — the officer and his wife. They thus did not fall

within the DoD exception.

"What do you mean, I can't sell real estate at work?!" A Federal employee, who had a second career as a realtor, printed her Federal Agency

phone number on her realtor business card. When she answered her phone at her Government

workplace, she announced her office as "J&B Real Estate." When advised that she could not use

her Government office for her commercial business, she left Federal service. The record is silent

regarding how much of her duty day was actually spent on Government work.

Sections 5 C.F.R. 2635.704 and 705 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees

of the Executive Branch bar the use of Government property and resources, as well as official

time, for unauthorized activities (such as conducting a private business venture).

"What do you mean, this isn't my property?!" One entrepreneurial Federal employee backed his panel van up to the office door one

night and stole all the computer equipment. He wasn't too hard to catch: he tried to sell

116

everything at a yard sale the next day — with barcodes and "Property of US Government"

stickers still prominently displayed.

Misuse of Government Resources Allegations were made that the principal of a Department of Defense school was using

the school to hold personal, for-profit craft parties after hours. After an investigation, it was

determined that the principal did improperly use Government property. It was discovered that

the parties’ original location, which had been on private property, was no longer available, so

the principal moved the parties to the school.

Section 2635.704 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive

Branch restricts the use of Government property, including DoD school buildings, for authorized

purposes only.

Improper Use of Government Resources Allegations were raised that a Navy civilian official was using his Navy office as a

headquarters for his private company. It was alleged that he used and published his Navy office

phone number as the business’s number and used Navy employees to answer the phone and take

messages regarding the business for him. It was also alleged that he used Government copiers,

fax machines, and other equipment for the business. After an investigation, all of the allegations

were substantiated. The official was reduced in grade and removed from his supervisory post.

Section 2635.704 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive

Branch restricts the use of Government property, including office equipment and supplies, for

authorized purposes only.

Misuse of Email A Department of Defense (DoD) employee inadvertently received an email message from

another employee, whom she didn’t know. The message went into great detail regarding a

private business venture that the employee was conducting with a third employee. The recipient

promptly forwarded the email to Inspector General, who investigated and determined that the

writer of the message was using the Government email system for his own private business use.

117

The employee was warned, but continued his activities even after counseling, and was

subsequently removed from his position.

Paragraph 2-301a of DoD 5500.07-R, Joint Ethics Regulation, restricts use of Department

of Defense communications systems to official and authorized purposes only. Supervisors may

allow limited personal use of DoD email systems under certain circumstances and when such use

does not overburden the communications system, create significant additional costs, and is of

reasonable duration and frequency.

Misuse of Government Telephone A Department of Defense civilian employee earned the ire of her co-workers by using her

office telephone for personal calls. An investigation determined that the employee had indeed

been abusing her telephone privileges — for nearly 90 hours in one calendar year alone. She

was ordered to pay for the improper calls but was not prosecuted for the over two workweeks

worth of time she spent on the phone during work hours. She was issued a letter of caution by

her supervisor.

"And they even pay me for doing this." The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed the decision by the Drug Enforcement

Agency (DEA) to remove a criminal investigator for willful misuse of a Government vehicle.

The former official was engaged in a social and sexual relationship with a confidential source of

information, who was also the wife of a convicted drug trafficker. The former official received

daily gifts from the confidential source. He used his official Government vehicle to travel to the

residence of the confidential source, and to transport her from her residence to the Miami airport

and to the Café Iguana for purely social reasons. He even gave her some DEA-owned

ammunition for use in her own gun.

"Sorry, Skipper, but those really aren't perks." Immediately upon arriving at his new duty station in Italy, the new commanding officer

of the Navy facility, in an effort to save money, used an official vehicle rather than obtaining a

rental car, which he was authorized to do while awaiting delivery of his personal vehicle. His

118

use of the official vehicle was discovered when the car was stolen when he was at a restaurant.

The subsequent investigation also revealed that he had used an official boat (called a barge) to

ferry himself and his social group to the island of Ischia for a social evening (a commercial ferry

would have cost the total party less than $20). The investigation also revealed that he had tried

to persuade the commanding officer of a subordinate organization to create a GS-14 position for

his spouse. The officer was relieved of his command and returned stateside.

Improper Phone Calls and Attempted Cover-up A General Services Administration (GSA) employee was removed from his position for

making 153 non-business calls on a Government telephone to the Texas Lottery Commission.

The calls cost the GSA $800. The employee also asked the recipient of the calls to provide false

information about the calls by stating that they concerned official Government business. The

employee was removed from Federal Service.

Misuse of Government Vehicle A Department of Transportation canine enforcement team leader was removed from his

position for misuse of a Government vehicle as well as for a serious lack of judgment regarding

the safeguarding of over $2 million worth of cocaine. The cocaine was used in training sessions

for canine enforcement teams. The former employee improperly took his Government vehicle

to lunch and left the cocaine unattended – all in a border town where narcotics trafficking was

a problem. The charges and the removal decision were all appealed to the Merit Systems

Protection Board. The removal was upheld.

How NOT to Get Rich Stealing Office Supplies A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) review found that a VA employee was

unlawfully removing Government office supplies and equipment from the VA warehouse and

providing them to his brother-in-law, who worked for a local retail establishment. Management

took administrative action against the employee.

119

Misuse of Government Letterhead and Postage-Paid Envelope The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determined that a VA medical center employee

used official VA letterhead as well as a postage-paid envelope to send personal correspondence

to a county judge requesting issuance of a protective order against a then-fellow VA employee.

The employee was issued a written letter of counseling and advised that future incidents may

result in disciplinary action.

Don’t Misuse Government Vehicles — Even to Help Your Family! The Facts: The son and nephew of a high-level Federal employee were having car

problems and needed lunch. With what may have been good intentions, this high-level employee

decided to use a Government vehicle to help. He damaged the vehicle, and his act was

discovered. His reward for helping his family with a Government vehicle: suspension without

pay for 45 days and reassignment to a new position.

(Source: Donald Bucknor v. U.S. Postal Service, NY-0752-01-0027-I-2, Jan. 24, 2003)

The Law: 31 U.S.C. § 1349 (2003) requires that any Federal officer or employee who

“willfully uses or authorizes the use of a passenger motor vehicle or aircraft owned or leased by

the United States Government,” except for official purposes, be suspended without pay for a

minimum of one month and, “when circumstances warrant, for a longer period” or be “summarily

removed from office.” Moreover, in Brown v. United States Postal Service, 64 M.S.P.R. 425,

433 (1994), the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed that supervisors could be held to higher

standards of conduct than non-supervisors, because supervisors occupy positions of greater trust

and responsibility.

Misuse of Property Causes Admiral to Lose Promotion A links-loving Vice Admiral let his love of the game go too far. According to the

Inspector General, the Vice Admiral misused Government property, subordinates, and official

time to sponsor a private golf tournament—a golf tournament that he advertised as an official

event. Tournament participants were rewarded with gifts improperly solicited and accepted by

the Vice Admiral from contractors. This led the Secretary of the Navy to withdraw the Vice

Admiral’s nomination for a fourth star and issue him a letter of instruction and caution.

120

The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch limit the use of

Government property to authorized purposes only, and official time is limited to the performance

of official duties. These regulations also prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of gifts from

prohibited sources. The lesson: don’t let your activities as a “fore” star keep you from becoming

a four-star.

Misuse of Official Mail Leads to Removal A GS-11 Administrative Services Specialist was removed for falsifying documents and

misusing Government property and official mail. The specialist’s supervisor had prepared a

letter in his personal capacity expressing his disagreement with judicial actions to free the

individual charged with shooting and killing his son; this letter was mailed to individuals in the

law enforcement community in nongovernment envelopes with privately-paid postage. The

specialist took the letter prepared by her supervisor, placed it on Department of Justice

stationary, copied the supervisor’s signature onto the letter, and sent it out in franked agency

envelopes directed to members of the judicial community, the Federal Public Defender’s Office,

and a law school dean, all without the supervisor’s knowledge or consent. The removed

employee initially denied having taken such actions under oath, but later admitted that the

allegations were true.

As a consequence of the specialist’s falsification of documents, misuse of Government

property, and abuse of official mail, she was removed from her position and recommended for

possible criminal charges.

Use of Government Property for Private Business Leads to Removal After repeated warnings, a Department of the Treasury computer specialist was removed

from his position for unauthorized use of Government property in support of his private business.

The employee had used his Government computer to copy his commercial business computer

files from one floppy disk to another floppy disk, and computer records showed extensive

activity related to the employee’s comic book business. A subsequent investigation showed that

the employee had falsified his timesheet so that it did not reflect time he had spent running his

121

private business during work hours, leading to an extra $63,000 in payment for work the

employee did not actually perform.

Many agencies allow limited personal use of Government property when the use

involves minimal additional expense to the Government and does not overburden any of the

agency’s information resources. Nevertheless, employees are specifically prohibited from the

pursuit of private commercial business activities or profit-making ventures using the

Government’s office equipment.

Misuse of Government Property Results in Removal A GS-5 employee of the Department of the Interior was removed for misuse of

Government property, failure to follow a supervisor’s instructions, and misrepresentation of facts

on official documents. Investigations revealed that the employee made 1,609 unofficial calls on

his Government-issued cell phone at a cost of $752.08, and used his assigned laptop computer to

access unauthorized sites. The employee further failed to follow a supervisor’s instructions

when he charged meals on his Government credit card and used a Government vehicle after

receiving instruction to the contrary. Lastly, the employee misrepresented facts on official

documents when he submitted a travel document requesting reimbursement for a day when he

had not actually been on official travel, and falsely claiming to have held the designation of

Agency Representative on three occasions.

The Administrative Judge concluded that the employee’s conduct was intentional and

that he showed minimal, if any, potential for rehabilitation. Consequently, the employee was

removed and banned from seeking Federal employment in the future.

Misuse of Official Vehicle Earns Employee 30-Day Suspension A U.S. Postal Service employee who used a Government-owned law enforcement vehicle

to shop for a personal computer found himself defending his actions before an appellate court

judge. The employee argued that the use was “official use” because he sometimes used his

personal computer for business purposes; however, the employee admitted to owning a backup

computer in addition to the broken one he was shopping to replace, and failed to explain why he

could not shop for a computer while off-duty.

122

The judge was likewise unconvinced by the employee’s claim that the use was “official” because

he could respond to emergencies while shopping. The judge affirmed the Postal Service’s

suspension of the employee for thirty days without pay.

Misuse of Official Vehicle, Again A High Voltage Electrician at the Naval Base in Point Magu was penalized for willful

misuse of a government vehicle when he reported to work, checked out a vehicle, and drove to

the galley for breakfast. The employee argued that he had never received notification of the

restriction against driving government vehicles to meals, a claim somewhat undercut by the fact

that he had signed a document the previous month indicating his receipt of the rules regarding

misuse of government vehicles. The employee also argued that he was on call for emergencies

while eating breakfast, and thus his use was “official.” An appellate court judge rejected this

claim, finding no evidence that his position as a High Voltage Electrician required him to be “on

call constantly” as described.

The judge affirmed the electrician’s thirty-day suspension without pay.

Misuse of a Government Vehicle and Weapon Leads to Removal A series of egregious judgment calls by a criminal investigator for the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) made for eight hours that ended his federal career.

The investigator’s bad day began when he decided to leave while on duty in order to show a

rental house he owned to a prospective tenant, a bad idea made even worse by his decision to

drive his official vehicle. Upon arriving at the house, the investigator found an intruder, at which

point he decided to draw his service weapon and chase the intruder out, firing a shot in the

process. The investigator called the police to report the break-in, and upon searching the

premises, the police turned up a second intruder hiding in a closet (presumably petrified in

terror). However, somehow absent in the investigator’s recitation of the original incident was the

shot fired at the fleeing intruder, and the police quickly departed to take the second intruder to

jail. Apparently nonplussed at the afternoon’s events, the investigator next decided to drive

across town (still in his official vehicle) to meet yet another prospective tenant. At this point the

123

police officers learned about the gunshot from the second intruder, and requested the

investigator’s presence at the police station.

The investigator was charged with (1) mishandling of a service weapon, (2) failure to

report discharge of a service weapon, (3) misuse of a government vehicle, and (4) lack of candor.

Needless to say, that fateful day was the investigators last in federal service.

Misuse of Government Credentials Results in Demotion A Supervisory Special Agent, GS-14, found herself demoted to Special Agent, GS-13,

after misusing her government credentials in a traffic stop. The agent was riding as a passenger

with a friend when the car was pulled over by the police. Although the police officer did not

request that the agent identify herself, she immediately displayed her federal credentials when

the officer approached. Although the agent never requested special treatment from the officer,

the Administrative Judge noted that “mere self-identification by a law officer can result in

favorable treatment by another law enforcement officer,” and for this reason agents are trained to

be careful not to use their credentials for personal gain. The agent was also separately cited for

improperly securing her government-issued weapon, which she stored at home “behind the

coffee mugs on the refrigerator” because she had “forgot[ten] the combination” to her gun safe.

In addition to her demotion, the agent was also suspended for 14 days.

(Source: 2005 MSPB LEXIS 1812)

Employee Removed for Misuse of Government Computer The Installation Strategic Planning Officer at Fort Steward was relieved of his duties after

it was discovered that he had been using his government laptop to both view sexually-explicit

materials and type up notes for his church. The officer will have plenty of time to ponder his

actions, as the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed his removal from federal service.

Lavish Agency Party Earns Federal Probe On the eve of its two-year anniversary, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

spent nearly a half-million dollars on an awards ceremony at a luxurious Washington, D.C. hotel.

124

The lavish celebration had over a thousand attendees and was held at the Grand Hyatt, which

bills itself as “one of the most magnificent” hotels in Washington, D.C. The ceremony included

finger food averaging $33 per person, seven cakes totaling $1,850, and three cheese displays

worth $1,500. TSA planners paid an event planning company $81,767 for plaques, which they

presented to 543 employees and 30 organizations. Planners also spent $1,486 on three balloon

arches, $1,509 for signs, and $5,196 for official photographs.

In honor of this over-the-top celebration, TSA was awarded an investigation by the

Homeland Security Department’s Inspector General.

(Source: Associated Press, 10/14/2004)

Certifying Officer Personally Liable for Unauthorized Staff “Sunset Cruise” When reviewing the expense report for a week-long staff retreat, the Veterans

Administration (VA) Inspector General noted an interesting charge. Included in the $21,000

bill for the 20-person Florida retreat was an $823 charge for a “sunset dinner cruise.”

Determining that this item was an “entertainment expense,” and noting that the VA’s

appropriation does not authorize funds for entertainment expenses, the Inspector General

recommended that the office director be held personally liable for the improper payment.

Upon review, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the “certifying officer”

is indeed personally financially liable for improperly certified payments; however, the GAO

ruled that the office director was merely an approving official. The GAO ruled that the funds

should be collected either from the payee, if possible, or from the certifying officer who actually

certified the payment.

Agency Director Suspended for Personal Use of Government Property A Director of a Defense agency knew of a spare room in an agency warehouse

and thought it would be the perfect place to install a bowling lane for a little recreation.

However, the employee he recruited to install the bowling alley declined, since he was aware

that employees are prohibited from using Government property for unofficial purposes.

(5 C.F.R. 2635.704). Undeterred, the Director went to the employee’s supervisor and instructed

him to issue the order. Reluctantly, the employee obeyed his supervisor and constructed the

125

bowling lane during his official work hours. Perhaps encouraged by his success, the Director

secretly constructed another lane.

The Director violated 5 C.F.R. 2635.705(b) by appropriating Government property and

space for his own personal use, as well as wrongfully depriving the Government of resources

during the time the employee built and removed the lane. This regulation prohibits personnel

from “encouraging, directing, coercing, or requesting 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.” For this violation, the Director received a suspension.

On a side note, the employee’s supervisor as well as the Deputy Director/Accounting

Director both received letters of admonishment for failing to report fraud, despite the fact that

each had warned the Director and even attempted to stop him. As such, it is important to

remember that personnel are accountable not just for the actions they take, but also for those

actions they fail to take. (Source: Department of Defense, Inspector General, 2007)

Senior Officer Misused Staff “for the Government’s Benefit” The Department of Defense Inspector General found that a former high ranking military

officer had exhibited a “disregard for the proper use of his staff and for conserving Government

resources” when he had his subordinates perform personal services for him during official work

hours on many occasions. Violating 5 C.F.R. 2635.702 and 2635.705(b), these offenses include

having his subordinates tow his personal boat after business hours and deliver individual family

members’ income tax returns to a tax assistance office. The officer asked his secretary to

research nursing homes for his mother-in-law, arrange personal travel for his wife, and

coordinate his weekend golf outings.

The officer also often requested members of his staff handle other various tasks, such as

picking up medical prescriptions, laundry, and his lunch. Further, he traveled to a conference a

day early in order to play golf with other conference participants as part of his official duties.

Section 2635.705 states, “An employee shall use official time in an honest effort to perform

official duties.”

When asked to explain his actions, the officer declared “unequivocally that at no time did

I knowingly violate” any of the standards of conduct. The officer argued that dispensing with

these tasks freed him to devote more time to his official duties, and therefore, “the true

126

beneficiary was the U.S. Government.” However, the officer’s superior disagreed that the golf

outing was official duty and ordered the officer to undergo counseling. The officer also had to

reimburse the agency for the lodging and per diem costs incurred for the golf outing. (Source: Department of Defense, Inspector General, 2007)

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Issues

Men Seeking Fines, Extra Duty, and Loss of Rank Military investigators discovered ads seeking sex that were posted by seventeen military

and civilian personnel while deployed to Afghanistan. Among the perpetrators were enlisted,

officers, and a non-American. The ads included men seeking women and men seeking men.

The ads, determined to be prejudicial to good order and discipline, warranted fines, extra duty,

restriction of privileges, and possible loss of rank. The non-American was ordered to leave

the country.

The Ultimate Deceit A military officer was reprimanded for faking his own death to end an affair. Worthy of

a plot in a daytime soap-opera, a Navy Commander began seeing a woman that he had met on

a dating website. The Commander neglected to tell the woman that he was married with kids.

After six months, the Commander grew tired of the relationship and attempted to end it by

sending a fictitious e-mail to his lover – informing her that he had been killed. The Commander

then relocated to Connecticut to start a new assignment. Upon receipt of the letter, his mistress

showed up at the Commander’s house to pay her respects, only to be informed, by the new

owners, of the Commander’s reassignment and new location. The Commander received a

punitive letter of reprimand, and lost his submarine command.

Misuse of Government Personnel Pentagon investigators found that the three-star Army general in charge of the U.S.

Military Academy at West Point misused his office by having subordinates perform personal

tasks. The General made staffers work at private dinners and charity events, provide free driving

127

lessons, and feed a friend’s cat. The General gave each of the staffers $30 and $40 Starbucks

gifts cards in exchange for 18 hours of work. In response to the findings, the General paid his

staffers $1,815 because the work performed was not for an “official function.” In addition to

paying the staffers, the General received a written memorandum of concern.

Serving at Volleyball Tournament Was Not Permitted A Marine Corps Commanding Officer directed, or requested, that his subordinates

use their official duty time to perform manual labor and other activities in support of a private

organization – in an attempt to fundraise for the upcoming Marine Corps Ball. They worked in

exchange for money and command endorsement from the organization. They ultimately

received $48,600 in compensation from the outside organization for performance of their official

duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §209 and Paragraph 3-205 of DoD 5500.07-R, the Joint Ethics

Regulation, which prohibits employees from receiving supplemental salary from a non-Federal

source for the performance of DoD duties. The Commanding Officer was disciplined and

directed to transfer all the money to the U.S. Treasury.

Re-sale of MWR Products Allegations were brought against a Naval base Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR)

Department regarding the printing and selling of T-shirts. The MWR printed T-shirts and then

sold them to military members – who then resold them at public events off-base. A civilian

businessman who owned a T-shirt business nearby complained that MWR should not be making

and selling the T-shirts that were going to be re-sold off-base. After an investigation, it was

determined that MWR was not informing the military members about the prohibition regarding

the re-sale of MWR goods and was also not informing the military members that they could not

re-sell the T-shirts, both parts of MWR written policy. MWR began enforcing the policies and

conducted training for all of their staff.

128

Political Activity Violations

“I’m Uncle Sam, and I Approved this Message” An O-5 reservist running for state office decided that the usual suit, tie, and American

flag pin didn’t cut it. He took a number of photos of himself in his uniform, including his unit

designators, which he then uploaded to his campaign Web site. He also prominently displayed

his rank, position, and pictures of himself on a tour of duty in Afghanistan. While he placed a

disclaimer on his Web site stating that the DoD did not endorse his candidacy, the disclaimer

was not easily visible and was in a very small font. He received a letter of reprimand after being

forced to remove the photos.

Coming to a Mailbox Near You –– A Hatch Act Violation! An O-5 running for state office issued campaign mailers of herself in full dress uniform,

and listed her rank in the mailers. She also used her military title in campaign e-mails. In none

of these circumstances did she list a disclaimer. When the command caught on, she admitted to

the uniform violation and received a written reprimand.

Politics – at Work: More than Just an Impolite Dinner Topic Two junior Service officers stationed at an overseas base violated the Hatch Act and

UCMJ articles when they sent out unsolicited political emails from their government email

accounts. The emails supported the President and lambasted other Congressmen whose politics

they didn’t agree with. The emails caught the attention of a retired military officer, who received

the messages stateside. When the retiree complained about the officers using government email

accounts for political purposes, the two officers engaged in a scathing email back-and-forth,

telling the retiree at one point, “The sooner you and people like you die off, the better.” The

officers received corrective action within the Service including verbal counseling.

The Military Says Vote for Me! A Service reserve officer was counseled for using pictures of himself in full uniform

on campaign posters, while running for a congressional seat in Virginia. The officer was

129

educated on the impropriety of using his military service affiliation to imply endorsement by a

branch of the service. The posters were removed.

More than Politically Incorrect A civilian employee in a military service sent a mass email to fellow service employees

during the presidential election promoting the candidacy of John McCain and opposing the

candidacy of Barack Obama. The email summarized a story Senator McCain told about the

importance of the Pledge of Allegiance to himself and fellow POWs during his captivity and

went on to refer to Obama as a “clown, who refuses to place his hand on his heart and say

the pledge.” Included in the email was a picture of Senator Obama with other politicians in

which only Obama did not have his hand on his heart. The email concluded by saying, “Let’s all

remember this picture on election day.”

Apparently concerned not to leave anybody out, the employee compiled a “to line” of

addressees totaling 19 pages. The employee’s actions violated 5 U.S.C. 7324, which prohibits

political activity while an employee is on duty. For his actions, the employee received a letter

of reprimand.

Sexually Explicit Emails Are Not the Only Emails That Can Get You Fired! Two federal employees, one at the Environmental Protection Agency, the other at the

Social Security Administration, were disciplined for violations of the Hatch Act. Although

federal employees are entitled to support the political candidates of their choice, the Hatch Act

prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity while on duty. During the 2004

Presidential Election, the EPA employee favored John Kerry, and while on duty, sent 31 of his

co-workers an email urging them to support Mr. Kerry’s campaign. On the other hand, the SSA

employee favored George W. Bush, and while on duty, sent a similar email to 27 of his co-

workers and other individuals. It was irrelevant which candidate each employee supported, both

were found to have violated the Hatch Act because sending emails in support of any candidate

while on duty constitutes prohibited political activity. Disciplinary actions for violations of the

Hatch Act range from a 30-day suspension without pay to termination from federal employment.

130

Passing Out Campaign Stickers at a VA Clinic Ends Federal Career In his fervor to help elect a candidate for President, a Veterans Affairs employee ignored

federal laws prohibiting federal employees from engaging in political activity on federal property

— in this case, a VA clinic in Ohio. There the employee passed out campaign stickers

promoting his candidate. The employee later acknowledged that this seemingly innocuous act

was in fact a violation of federal law (the Hatch Act). As a result, the employee has agreed to

retire from the VA. The penalty could have been termination.

Warning: Federal Employees and Some Non-Federal Employees May Not Engage in Politics at Work

The Executive Director of Delaware’s New Castle County Head Start Program received a

30-day suspension without pay for promoting a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives

in his official capacity. Violations of the Hatch Act don’t get much more blatant than this.

The Director invited a candidate to speak to his captive subordinate audience at a mandatory

office meeting. The Hatch Act prohibits federal executive branch employees from engaging in

political activity while on duty and from using their official positions, authority, or influence to

interfere with the results of an election. During the meeting, the Director introduced the

candidate, passed out campaign materials, and offered employees the opportunity to register

to vote. He later admitted that he had violated the Hatch Act. But why is the Director of the

New Castle County Head Start program covered by the Hatch Act? The answer is this: the

Hatch Act also covers state, county, or municipal executive agency employees whose duties are

connected with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants. Head Start is

one such program.

Agriculture Department Manager Suspended for Hatch Act Violation A Department of Agriculture manager received a four-month suspension after soliciting

political contributions from subordinates. The Hatch Act prohibits Federal employees from

certain activities in partisan political campaigns. The employee asked subordinates at work

to contribute to the 1992 Democratic presidential campaign. Although the Hatch Act was

amended in 1994 to allow Federal employees to participate more in partisan political activities,

131

it still prohibits employees from engaging in political activities while on duty or in any

Government office.

Employees Sentenced for Political Fundraising in a USDA Building Four employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) were convicted for political

fundraising on Federal property. The USDA employees organized a Political Action Committee

to raise money for the 1992 campaign. They collected a total of $3,250 in checks from various

individuals in a USDA building. To encourage donations, the four employees suggested that

contributions to the fund might result in special consideration from the USDA officials affiliated

with the Administration. Following the election, the four created a list of USDA employees who

should not, in their opinion, receive special consideration from the Administration. The four

defendants each received four years probation. Two of the defendants were fined $1,000 and

ordered to perform community service. The other two defendants were fined $2,500 and ordered

to serve 30 days detention in a halfway house.

Political Activities/Misuse of Government Email System Allegations were made against a Department of Defense civilian employee regarding the

distribution of political material over the Government email system. The allegation was made

after the employee sent a political attack message regarding a certain presidential candidate to

everyone in the unit—including the commanding officer, who promptly notified the Inspector

General.

An investigation determined that the material was inappropriate for distribution through

the Government email system. A written memo of counseling was placed in the employee’s

personnel file. Although the Hatch Act was amended in 1994 to allow Federal employees to

participate more in partisan political activities, it still prohibits employees from engaging in

political activities while on duty or in any Government office.

Political Activities: Two Humorous – But True – Stories An election was coming up and one enterprising young Federal employee called his

ethics officer to inquire whether it was permitted, under the Hatch Act Amendments, to stuff

ballot boxes!

132

The employee, when told not to wear a Bush campaign button, responded, “But I’m not. This is a button from his dad’s campaign!”

Postal Employee Hatch Act Violation The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced that the Merit Systems Protection

Board (MSPB) had concurred with OSC’s petition that a mail processor for the U.S. Postal

Service’s (USPS) Mid-Missouri Processing and Distribution Facility violated the Hatch Act’s

prohibition on being a candidate for elective office in a partisan election.

OSC’s petition charged the postal employee with willfully violating the Hatch Act.

The employee did not respond to OSC’s petition and instead resigned from the Postal Service

on March 5, 2001. The MSPB decision stated that “[name withheld’s] resignation does not moot

the Special Counsel’s complaint. Rather, his total failure to answer the complaint warrants the

[his] removal from USPS.” In view of the postal employee’s resignation, MSPB required the

Postal Service to place a copy of its decision in the employee’s official personnel file.

When the postal employee began his job as a mail processor in Columbia, Missouri in

1997, he was given training material that explained that Postal Service employees were covered

by the Hatch Act and could not be candidates in partisan elections. The Hatch Act prohibits

most Federal and postal employees from running for partisan office. Hatch Act penalties

for Federal and postal employees range from a minimum of a 30-day suspension without pay

to removal.

Federal Employee Removed from Position for Hatch Act Violation The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced that the Merit Systems Protection

Board (MSPB) had granted its petitions to remove two U.S. Postal Service employees from their

positions as Letter Carriers: the first in Jeff Davis County, Georgia, and the second in Nevada

County, Arkansas. OSC’s petitions, filed with the MSPB in October 2000, charged both men

with violating the Hatch Act’s prohibition on being a candidate for elective office in a partisan

election. Both men had filed papers to run as independent candidates in partisan local sheriff

races. Both were warned by the OSC and by their Postal Service supervisors that their

candidacies violated the Hatch Act. Nevertheless, when OSC filed its petitions in October, both

133

men remained active candidates and both continued their candidacies until the November 7th

general election. Both were eventually removed from their positions in the Postal Service.

The Hatch Act strictly prohibits most Federal and Postal Service employees from running

for partisan elective office. It also strictly prohibits state and local employees who have job

duties in connection with federally funded programs from running for partisan office.

EPA Official Disciplined for Hatch Act Violation A Regional Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Denver,

Colorado, agreed to a 100-day suspension to settle a petition by the U.S. Office of Special

Counsel (OSC) alleging that he had violated the Hatch Act. The administrator resigned from

EPA in order to run for a Montana Congressional seat, but lost his bid for election. He was

accordingly appointed back to his former position as Regional Administrator. OSC’s petition for

disciplinary action alleged that the administrator subsequently met with one of the remaining

Congressional candidates as well as several of the candidate’s campaign officials. During that

meeting, the participants discussed the administrator’s endorsement of the candidate and the

solicitation of campaign contributions. Shortly after the meeting, an endorsement/fundraising

letter was drafted for the administrator’s review and approval. Among other things, the letter

stated: “Contributing now to [the remaining candidate’s] campaign is absolutely critical.”

It urged recipients to “. . . make a contribution today.”

OSC’s petition alleged that the administrator reviewed the draft letter and authorized

the candidate’s campaign staff to sign his name to it, in violation of the Hatch Act. That Act

prohibits Federal employees from soliciting political contributions. Subsequently, the

candidate’s campaign distributed the signed letter to numerous potential supporters.

The Special Counsel also emphasized that while OSC stands ready to prosecute

violations of the Hatch Act, it prefers to help Federal employees avoid such violations.

“When in doubt about what is permissible or impermissible under Hatch Act,” the Special

Counsel advised, “I would encourage employees to consult our office. There’s a wealth of

information at our website, www.osc.gov, and employees can actually e-mail questions to us.”

134

Five Hatch Act Violations Made by Agriculture Employee The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced a consent judgment had been

entered in its Petition for Disciplinary Action filed against an attorney for the National Labor

Relations Board (NLRB) in NLRB’s Little Rock, Arkansas office. OSC’s petition, filed with

the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), had charged the attorney with five Hatch Act

violations: (1) participating in partisan political activity while on duty; (2) participating in

political activity or in Federal office space; (3) using his official authority for the purpose of

interfering with the result of an election; (4) knowingly soliciting the political participation of

individuals with business interests pending before the NLRB; and (5) knowingly soliciting,

accepting, or receiving political contributions.

Pursuant to a stipulation, the attorney admitted that he had violated the Hatch Act and

agreed to be removed from Federal employment. The Hatch Act prohibits most Federal

employees from engaging in partisan political activities in Federal office space or while on duty.

The Hatch Act also prohibits Federal employees from using their official authority for the

purpose of affecting the results of an election; this would include using an official Government

title and soliciting “volunteer” services from a subordinate employee. Furthermore, the Hatch

Act prohibits knowingly soliciting the political participation of certain individuals, including

those with business pending before an employee’s Federal Agency.

Employee’s Mayoral Run Violates Hatch Act When a Federal Aviation Administration employee decided to run for mayor of

Albuquerque, he wisely consulted his Ethics Counselor. He was advised that the Hatch Act did

not prohibit him from entering the mayoral race. A problem soon emerged, however, when

advertisements, press releases, and newspaper editorials started to identify the employee as a

Republican, and the employee began to accept financial assistance from the Republican Party.

The employee was swiftly contacted by the Office of Special Counsel, which advised him that he

was in violation of the Hatch Act and needed to quit his campaign or leave his federal position.

The employee, however, took the position that he was not in fact in violation of any laws, and

continued his campaign.

Unhappily for the employee, the voters did not afford him much interest, and his

campaign never truly got off the ground. He did manage, however, to catch the attention of the

135

Merit Systems Protection Board. The employee’s violation of the Hatch Act earned him a 120-

day suspension. (Source: www.fedsmith.com, April 18, 2005)

DC Mayor’s Chief of Staff Removed for Hatch Act Violations The former Chief of Staff to the Mayor of the District of Columbia was forced to

voluntarily resign after the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) charged him with two

instances of violations of the Hatch Act. Specifically, the OSC charged that the Chief of Staff —

a D.C. employee — improperly asked other D.C. employees to volunteer to work on the Mayor’s

reelection campaign; the Chief of Staff was also charged with soliciting employees to purchase

tickets to a Democratic fundraiser. In return for the Chief of Staff’s voluntary resignation and

his agreement not to seek or accept employment with the District of Columbia for a period of

two years, the OSC agreed to drop its charges.

The Hatch Act prohibits most District of Columbia and federal employees from seeking

nomination or election to a partisan political office; soliciting, accepting or receiving political

contributions; and engaging in political activity while on duty, among other things.

(Source: OSC, 3/21/05)

Co-Hosting a Political Fundraiser Earns Suspension An attorney in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice experienced the other side

of the judicial process after being charged by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) with a

violation of the Hatch Act. The attorney had self-reported that he had co-hosted a political

fundraiser for seven invitees, presumably unaware that this was a violation of the Hatch Act.

The attorney reached a voluntary settlement with the OSC in which he served a 30-day

suspension.

The attorney violated 5 U.S.C. 7323(a)(2), which prohibits federal employees from

knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions. The Hatch Act prohibits

most District of Columbia and federal employees from seeking nomination or election to a

partisan political office; soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions; using their

official authority to interfere with the results of an election; and engaging in political activity

while on duty, among other things.

136

Political Emails at Work Lead to Employee Removal An attorney for the Small Business Administration was removed from his position after it

was discovered that over a period of three years, he had received, read, drafted or sent over 100

emails from his government computer related to partisan activity. The attorney, an elected

official of the California Green Party, used the computer for emails involving issues such as

drafts of party platforms, the planning of party conventions, party fundraising, and party

recruitment. Although the attorney had previously assured his supervisor — who was aware of

his political activities—that he would not violate the Hatch Act, this assurance proved to be

deceptive.

The Hatch Act prohibits most District of Columbia and federal employees from seeking

nomination or election to a partisan political office, soliciting, accepting or receiving political

contributions, using their official authority to interfere with the results of an election, and

engaging in political activity while on duty, among other things. (Source: OSC, 11/28/05)

Humorous Partisan Emails Found to Violate the Hatch Act During the 2004 election, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) filed two complaints

alleging that Federal employees had violated the Hatch Act by sending politically partisan e-mail

messages to coworkers. In the first complaint, the OSC alleged that an employee at the

Environmental Protection Agency sent an e-mail to fifteen coworkers that contained a widely-

circulated photograph and several negative statements about one candidate. In the second

complaint, the OSC alleged that an Air Force civilian employee sent an e-mail while on official

duty to 70 recipients that contained a mock resume of one of the candidates.

The Hatch Act prohibits Federal employees from engaging in political activity while on

duty, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual

employed by the Government, while wearing a uniform, or while in a Government vehicle.

The Hatch Act does not prohibit “water cooler”-type discussions among co-workers about

current events, and consequently does not prohibit “water cooler” discussion over e-mail.

E-mail can be used as an alternative mode for casual conversation, but a line is crossed when

Federal employees disseminate their message to a mass audience, enabling them to engage in

an electronic form of leafleting at the worksite.

137

OSC has advised that in order to determine whether an e-mail violates the Hatch Act

prohibition against engaging in political activity, it will consider the following: the audience that

received the e-mail, the number of people to whom the e-mail was sent, the sender’s relationship

to the recipient, whether the purpose of the message is to encourage the recipient to support a

particular political party or candidate, whether the message was sent in a Federal building, and

whether the Federal employee was on duty.

No Politics When In Uniform A military Department chastised two political rivals when their camps ran campaign ads

displaying uniformed Marines. The Democratic and Republican opponents in one Congressional

District attempted to use the appearance of military support to ensure victory on Election Day,

but a friendly visit from a military representative quickly forced them to pull their ads. One of

the uniformed men pictured, a veteran, said he believed that because he was on inactive reserve,

he could “speak his mind.” Military spokesperson pointed out, however, “It doesn’t matter if

he or she is on inactive reserve,” regulations strictly prohibit service members from wearing

uniforms in any circumstances that might imply military endorsement of a certain candidate.

Although in such situations the individual services could take disciplinary and/or administrative

action, military investigators deemed the service members’ involvement honest mistakes. (Department of Defense, Inspector General)

Two Service Members Posed for Pictures at Political Event Two service members made a faux pas when local political leaders invited them to attend

a “Lincoln Birthday dinner.” Under the guise that their invitations to the fundraiser were in

honor of their service in Iraq, both service members attended the seemingly harmless event.

They soon found themselves in the spotlight, however, when called on stage and presented with

a U.S. flag. Although neither spoke at the function, their presence was a clever tactic for special

“photo opportunities” used to show military support of the campaign. Posted on the local party’s

website, the presentation photos violated regulations that prohibit active duty service members

from attending political events as official representatives of the Armed Forces.

Regulations stipulate that service members should avoid any activity that people may

view as associating the Department of Defense (DoD) directly or indirectly with a partisan

138

political event. DoD does permit unofficial attendance at such events but only so long as the

attendee is a spectator, not in uniform.

Upon discovering the photos, one of the service members immediately took action to

remove the photos and alert his chain of command. Because of these actions, and in light of the

fact that the party apparently lured them to the event under false pretences, the two service

members received only counseling. (DoD Inspector General)

Post-Employment Violations (18 U.S.C. § 207-Type Violations)

Once I Get a Post-Government Employment Letter, I Don’t Have to Actually Read or Comply with It . . . (Post-Government Employment)

A former Captain in the U.S. Air Force who served in Afghanistan in 2010 was sentenced

to two concurrent three-year terms of probation for violating the post-Government employment

law and making false statements to investigators.

Specifically, the Captain oversaw major US Government contracts in Afghanistan that,

among other things, procured clothing and footwear. The Captain also served on a source

selection team for a boot supply contract. Upon retirement, that Captain entered into

negotiations with the company that supplied the boots as well as clothing and footwear and

accepted employment. He even obtained an official post-Government employment letter

specifically stating that he could not represent the Afghan company, his new employer, before

the US Government on the same contracts he worked on with the Air Force.

Undaunted, the retired Captain repeatedly lobbied U.S. Government officials in person

and via email on behalf of his Afghan employer about those same Air Force contracts and was

due to receive a $250,000 bonus.

Unfortunately for the Captain, the Air Force Office of Special Investigation, the Defense

Criminal Investigation Service, the Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Special

Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and the FBI discovered what he was doing.

139

His initial defense was to indicate that his post-Government employment letter gave him

a safe harbor. He subsequently reviewed the opinion and admitted he ignored the legal advice.

In his plea agreement, he forfeited his home in the United States along with 3 Afghan

rugs all the result of purchases by ill-gotten gains.

Former AF ISR Chief debarred for Post-Retirement Lobbying The former general in charge of US Air Force (USAF) Intelligence, Surveillance and

Reconnaissance (ISR) – has been barred from government dealings. His debarment stems

from a three-year USAF Inspector General investigation into allegations of post-retirement

rule violations. The general, who aided in development of the US’ air strategy during the

Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, founded a consulting firm upon his retirement from active service

and was found to have unethically lobbied on behalf of a client, MAV 6, for a program he had

been an advocate of while the ISR chief. The USAF Office of General Counsel (GC), who made

the decision to debar the general and his consulting group until February 2016, emphasized that

the conduct at issue occurred following his retirement when he contacted several Pentagon

officials despite post-employment prohibitions he had been briefed on by the USAF GC office

upon his separation.

(Source: AP; published 21 Oct 1989)

Post-Employment “Lifetime Ban” A Government employee that was involved in approving a contract for audio/visual

equipment left the Government to work for that contractor. At the completion of work, the

Government had paid approximately $6 million for $841,000 worth of equipment. Several

individuals were charged with fraud, and the employee that left the Government for the outside

position was charged with violating the post-employment restriction in 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

He received one year probation and a $25,000 fine.

Friends in Low Places The former deputy associate director of Minerals Revenue Management at the Mineral

Management Service of the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) pled guilty to violating post

140

government employment restrictions. Milton K. Dial admitted accepting a position as a

subcontractor working for and representing a company in a contract with DOI approximately six

months after retiring from the agency. Before his retirement from DOI, Dial created the

evaluation criteria for the bids for this same contract, served on the evaluation committee that

awarded the contract to the company, and served as the contracting officer’s technical

representative at DOI for the company’s contract until the time of his retirement.

The company was owned by a friend of Dial’s, Jimmy W. Mayberry, who had likewise

been a DOI employee. Mayberry pled guilty to a felony violation of the conflict of interest law,

admitting in plea documents that he created the requirements for the same contract immediately

before his retirement from DOI with the intent of bidding on the contract immediately after his

retirement. When bidding took place, Mayberry, not surprisingly, was awarded the contract after

he was the only applicant to receive a grade of “excellent” on every qualification category.

Mayberry was sentenced to two years of probation and a $2,500 fine.

Dial’s sentencing is still pending, but he faces a maximum sentence of five years in

prison, a fine of $250,000, and a term of supervised release.

Power Point A Military Service Captain had, under his official responsibility a program with a

government contractor during his last year of service. The Captain prepared a Powerpoint

presentation recommending the service contract with this company.

After leaving the service, the Captain went to work for the same government contractor.

He was treated to an ethics counseling session after he approached the Government on behalf

of his new company and delivered - as the company’s representative – the same Powerpoint

presentation recommending the service contract with his company.

The Captain’s actions violated 18 U.S.C. 207, which prohibits former officers or

employees of the executive branch from making (with the intent to influence) communications or

appearances before a Federal Government officer or employee in connection with a particular

matter in which the former officer or employee participated personally and substantially while

an officer or employee.

141

Federal Employee’s Post-Employment Violations Cost Boeing $615 Million, Federal Employee Ends Behind Bars

The former chief procurement officer for the Air Force, who was responsible for

awarding billions of dollars in contracts, requested Boeing executives to give her daughter and

son-in-law jobs at Boeing. They did, and after the chief procurement officer retired from the Air

Force, they gave her a job, too. After a criminal investigation, Boeing admitted to corruption

charges involving conflicts of interest and other unrelated violations. Boeing settled with the

Justice Department for $615 million. The former Air Force chief procurement officer met with

Boeing’s Chief Financial Officer and discussed a potential job with Boeing while Boeing was

seeking a $20 billion contract to lease tanker aircraft to the Air Force. Federal ethics rules

require federal employees to disqualify themselves from participating in matters regarding

companies with which they are seeking employment, and federal law imposes criminal liability

when federal employees participate in matters in which they have a personal financial interest.

The procurement officer did not disqualify herself from participating in matters involving Boeing

as she should have. Rather, she used her position to get her daughter, son-in-law, and herself

jobs. She ended up serving a prison sentence for conflicts of interest violations. Boeing’s Chief

Financial Officer was also charged in the investigation and pled guilty to aiding and abetting acts

affecting a personal financial interest. He was sentenced to four months in prison, a $250,000

fine, and 200 hours of community service. In addition to settling with the government for $615

million, Boeing’s $20 billion tanker lease contract was canceled.

Conflict of Interest Earns Official One Year Probation The Chief of the Headquarters Support Branch found herself “fired” after a conflict of interest

regarding handgun procurement. The official began employment talks with a company that ran

a “reverse auctioning service” for Federal agencies; through this service, the company facilitated

online auctions for Federal contracts in exchange for a commission from successful recipients.

The official wisely consulted her ethics counselor regarding her job hunt, and assured the

counselor that she would disqualify herself from involvement with any contracts involving the

company. Unfortunately, the official subsequently participated personally and substantially in

a handgun procurement in which she knew that the company had a financial interest.

142

In addition to attending meetings and making phone calls related to the procurement, the

official directed her subordinate to require all prospective bidders to register with and utilize the

company’s services.

The official pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 208 for participating personally and

substantially in a particular matter in which an organization with whom she was negotiating for

employment had a financial interest. She was sentenced to one year of probation, 40 hours of

community service, and a $1,000 fine.

Watch Representing a Business to the Agency Where Employed the Previous Year! The Facts: A Senior Executive Service (SES) employee of the State Department, who

had been tasked with assisting the Bosnian Government in purchasing military equipment and

training, retired and within several days took employment with a private contractor of military

hardware. Six months later, he recommended to the United States Embassy in Sarajevo that it

support his bid for a contract between his new employer and the Bosnian Government. His bid

for the contract was successful, but he also succeeded in securing legal action from the United

States Government. The employee agreed to a $10,000 settlement in exchange for being

released from legal proceedings. (Source: Office of Government Ethics memorandum, October 2002)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) (2003) bars every SES employee for one year after ending

employment with the United States from knowingly communicating with the Federal agency or

office with which he or she has worked, with the intent of influencing that agency or office on

behalf of anyone (other than the Government) who seeks an official action.

DoD Official Pays $12,000 to Department of Justice to Settle Ethics Complaint A former DoD Deputy Inspector General (IG) paid $12,000 to the Government to settle

allegations that he violated 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2) – a criminal statute that prohibits former

Government employees from representing others to the Government on matters that were under

the former employee's official responsibility during his last year in office. The prohibition lasts

for two years after the former employee leaves office. In this case, during the former Deputy

IG's last year in office, his audit staff commenced an audit of a particular DoD program.

The audit report, which was not released until after the Deputy IG had left the Government,

143

recommended eliminating part of the program that was operated by a private contractor.

The same contractor hired the former Deputy IG, who had by then been gone over one year,

as an independent auditor to review the audit report. On several occasions, while acting on

behalf of the contractor, and within two years after leaving DoD, the former Deputy IG

contacted DoD employees and criticized the report with the intent to influence the judgment

of the DoD employees.

18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2) prohibits such representations. This statute is often overlooked

by Government employees. It includes all particular matters involving specific parties in which

the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest that were actually pending

under the former employee's official responsibility during his or her last year of employment.

This includes matters that the former employee may not have known about, or matters in which

the employee may not have played in role in determining, but, because of the employee's

position, were pending under his or her official responsibility. As noted above, the statute

prohibits the former employee from representing anyone to the Government regarding such

matters for a period of two years after the employee leaves Government service.

SEC Attorney Sentenced for Switching Sides After Leaving Government A former attorney with the Denver regional office of the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC) was convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. 207(a), which prohibits former

Government employees from communicating with the Government with regard to matters they

worked on as Government employees. The SEC attorney was responsible for investigating

certain stock promoters regarding their promotion of stock in a certain company that the

promoters owned. Upon departure from the SEC, the attorney was hired by the same stock

promoters to perform legal work for their subsidiary companies, including the company the

attorney had been investigating while at SEC. The attorney, in his new capacity as director and

counsel for the company, responded to a subpoena and communicated with SEC officials on

behalf of the company in question.

The attorney was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for this violation of a criminal

post-employment statute.

144

DAAG Settles Post-Government Employment Violation The Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) of the Information Resources

Management (IRM) office within the Department of Justice left Government service in January

1999. In his former position, he had managed the various functions of the IRM office, which is

responsible for maintaining, assessing, designing, and procuring the information systems and

telecommunications for the Department of Justice. At all pertinent times, he was paid at the rate

of level 5 of the Executive Service pay scale. After the former DAAG left Government service,

he joined Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). On April 7, 1999, now

working for SAIC, the former DAAG telephoned the Acting DAAG of IRM. He told the Acting

DAAG that he knew that the Department of Justice was considering not using SAIC on a new

contract, and stated that such action might require a payment to SAIC, which could, in turn,

trigger the Anti-Deficiency Act because budgeted funds would have been exceeded.

The Government maintained that the former DAAG’s conduct violated 18 U.S.C. 207(c),

a criminal statute that prohibits a former senior employee from communicating to or appearing

before employees of his former department or Agency for one year after leaving the

Government, on behalf of another, with the intent to influence official action.

Pursuant to a civil settlement agreement signed by the parties in August 2000, the former

DAAG paid the Government $30,000, and the Government released him from its claims.

Civil Complaint Filed Against FDA Chemist for Post-Employment Activities According to the Government's civil complaint, the accused chemist was employed by

the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Office of Generic Drugs (OGD)

for a period of approximately two years. In that capacity, the chemist performed reviews of

Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) submitted by pharmaceutical companies seeking

to gain approval to manufacture and market generic versions of innovator drugs. Shortly before

leaving employment with the FDA, the chemist completed the first-level chemistry review of a

pharmaceutical company’s ANDA for Miconazole Nitrate Vaginal Creme 2%, an alleged generic

equivalent to the prescription drug Monistat-7. His review consisted of an extensive analysis of

the chemical components, manufacturing process, testing methods, and labeling requirements of

the product. Approximately two years later, the chemist commenced employment as Vice

President of Regulatory Affairs and United States Agent for the same pharmaceutical company.

145

He subsequently contacted OGD officials on numerous occasions in an effort to obtain approval

of the company’s ANDA, which was still pending before OGD. His contacts consisted of status

calls in which he urged OGD representatives to speed up the process of approval of the

application and substantive discussions concerning problems with the application.

A subsequent investigation found that throughout the chemist’s contacts with OGD

officials, he was aggressive in seeking the approval of the ANDA. Further, the chemist used his

acquaintance with supervisory-level OGD officials from his tenure as an OGD employee in an

attempt to get special treatment for the ANDA. The ANDA was approved several months later.

In the complaint, the Government alleged that the former employee’s actions violated 18

U.S.C. 207(a)(1), which permanently prohibits a former Government employee from

communicating to or appearing before the Government, on behalf of another, in connection with

a particular matter, involving specific parties, in which he participated personally and

substantially as a Government employee. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the former

employee agreed to pay the Government $15,000, and the Government released him from its

claims.

Improper Post-Employment Activities by Former Contract Administrator As contract administrator for the United States Air Force, the employee was responsible

for assuring compliance with the terms of two separate construction contracts between the

Government and a private contractor. After leaving the Government, the contract administrator

was hired by the same contractor, and he became the company’s contract administrator on the

same two contracts in question. While representing the contractor, he submitted contract

progress reports to the Government in order to insure that the Government would compensate the

company. Eventually, the former Federal employee submitted to the Government an equitable

adjustment claim for approximately $574,613 on one of the contracts. The contract had a basic

value of $1.3 million.

The former Federal employee was convicted on two counts of violating 18 U.S.C.

207(a)(1), a post-employment restriction that prohibits former Government employees intending

to influence official action from communicating to or appearing before the Government, on

behalf of another, in connection with particular matters involving specific parties in which they

participated personally and substantially as Government employees.

146

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 216(a)(2), he was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, six

months of home confinement, a fine of $2000, and a special assessment of $200.

Air Force Officer Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 207 Violation An Air Force Colonel at Eielson Air Force Base worked on the 801 Housing Project,

an approximately $70 million contract to build military family housing at the base. The housing

would be owned by a civilian developer and leased to the United States. The Colonel was

assigned to oversee the project and was the Wing Commander's direct representative. He was

also the chairman of the "801 Housing Working Group," which met weekly to discuss any

problems arising from the 801 Housing Project. Through his position as chairman of the 801

Housing Working Group, the Colonel worked with representatives of the corporation which took

over as construction contractor for the project in May 1994. In October of 1995, the corporation

acquired ownership of a second corporation. In January 1996, the Colonel began to express an

interest in becoming an employee of the first corporation. He retired from active duty with the

United States Air Force during July 1996 and began to work for the company as General

Manager, Government Services Division, in August 1996. The United States continued to

engage in contractual matters with the corporation with respect to the 801 Housing Project.

In September 1996, the United States and the second, acquired corporation entered into a lease

wherein the United States leased from the corporation the military housing units of the 801

Housing Project. Under the lease agreement, the United States was to pay the second

corporation $8,688,150.00 on or about October 15, 1996, but did not make the payment until

October 21, 1996. On or about the 17th and 18th of October 1996, the now-retired Colonel,

as a representative of both corporations, contacted an employee of the Air Force to attempt to

expedite the late payment on the 801 Housing Project. In addition, on or about the 19th or 20th

of May 1997, the retired Colonel, again on behalf of the corporations, contacted an employee of

the Air Force to express displeasure regarding the Air Force's warranty claims on the 801

Housing Project.

The United States charged the retired Colonel with violating 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1) by

contacting Air Force employees regarding the late payment and the warranty claims. 18 U.S.C.

207(a)(1) bars former Federal personnel (civilians and military) from representing another to

Federal agencies with the intent to influence regarding particular matters that involve specific

147

parties in which the former employee participated personally and substantially while in Federal

employment.

The retired Colonel pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1)

and agreed to pay a fine of $5,000.

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Superintendent Commits 18 U.S.C. 207 Violation

The Indian Business Development Grant (IBDG) program was created to provide Federal

grant funds to eligible Indian persons and Indian tribal organizations. Funds to be released

through the IBDG program must be approved by the BIA. The BIA Agency Superintendent for

the Crow Reservation was found to have misapplied $103,750 of IBDG funds and $311,275 of

Crow Tribe funds for the purchase of land by the Crow Tribe from a private party. The land

purchase was never completed. The superintendent subsequently retired from the BIA in 1994

and became employed by the Crow Tribe as manager of the tribal casino. Beginning in 1996,

the former superintendent represented the Crow Tribe in appearances before the BIA in

connection with the reconciliation and justification for the release of the $103,750 of IBDG

funds that the superintendent had approved for the failed land purchase in 1992.

The former superintendent was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 207, representing the

Crow Tribe before the United States in connection with the reconciliation and justification for

the release of IBDG funds, a matter in which he had participated personally and substantially as

a superintendent of the BIA. He was also charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy to

convert Federal funds), 18 U.S.C. 641 (willfully converting Federal funds), and 18 U.S.C. 1163

(misapplication of tribal monies) and found guilty on all but the 18 U.S.C. 1163 charge. He was

sentenced to five years' probation, six months' detention, a $150 Special Assessment to the

Crime Victims Fund, and a $6,000 fine.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Officer Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 207 Violation

While a collection officer for the IRS, the accused was assigned to the collection cases

of two IRS taxpayers. After the accused left the IRS, he represented both taxpayers before the

IRS in connection with the collection cases to which he had been assigned as an IRS employee.

148

He was charged with two violations of 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1), making a communication to

and an appearance before an officer and employee of the IRS, on behalf of the two taxpayers in

connection with a matter in which the United States was a party or had an interest and in which

he had participated while an IRS employee. The accused pled guilty to the charges and was

sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service.

United States Army Officer and Procurement Official Fined $50,000 for 18 U.S.C. 207 and Procurement Integrity Act Violations

The Army Officer coordinated activities for all medical facilities within his region,

including Army, Navy, and Air Force facilities. In 1994, the officer retired from the Army

and began employment with a defense contractor. This contractor had previously been awarded

a contract to provide inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services in support of William

Beaumont Army Medical Center; while the officer was employed by the Army, his official

duties had included awarding and supervising this contract. The Army Audit Agency

subsequently began an audit of the contractor’s contract to determine whether an option to renew

the contract should be exercised. The audit was completed on January 10, 1994, and forwarded

to the officer. On July 12, 1995, a request for proposals was issued by the Audit Agency for a

follow-on contract to provide essentially the same services that were being provided by the

contractor. On October 13, 1995, the contractor submitted a proposal, which was signed by the

retired officer as the company's Senior Vice President.

The retired officer was charged with civil violations of the Procurement Integrity Act,

41 U.S.C. 423(f)(1), and of 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2), and 207(c)(1). Pursuant to a settlement

agreement dated July 23, 1998, the accused agreed to pay the United States $50,000 in exchange

for the United States' dismissal of the complaint.

Attorney for Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Division of Enforcement Violates 18 U.S.C. 207

In 1993, the SEC attorney was assigned to investigate a group of persons for securities

fraud involving the payment of bribes to manipulate the market for the shares of certain

companies. These bribes consisted of kickbacks promoters were paying brokers to tout the

stocks of their companies. As part of this investigation, the attorney investigated two stock

promoters, who cooperated in the attorney’s investigation and gave him sworn testimony in

149

which they admitted to engaging in the payment of bribes intended to manipulate the share price

of the company’s stock. The attorney left the SEC on February 20, 1995 under threat of

suspension for unrelated misconduct. He was immediately hired by the two stock promoters to

serve as their corporation’s legal counsel. In January 1996, the SEC's New York office, working

in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney's office in the Eastern District of New York, began an

investigation of the entire matter. In February 1996, the SEC issued a subpoena for documents

from the promoters’ corporation. The attorney, who was then the corporation’s counsel and also

on the corporation's board of directors, participated in responding to that subpoena.

Investigators charged that the attorney’s participation included communications with

SEC officials that violated 18 U.S.C. 207(a), which prohibits former Government employees

from communicating with the Government with intent to influence in connection with particular

matters involving specific parties in which they participated personally and substantially as

Government employees. The attorney and five other defendants (including the two stock

promoters) were indicted in October 1996 for securities fraud. After the five co-defendants

pleaded guilty, the attorney was indicted on a host of new charges, including securities fraud,

money laundering, and a violation of 18 U.S.C. 207(a). He pled guilty to three counts, including

the 207(a) charge.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Manager Resigns and Then Has Improper Contact with the Agency

While supervising the Airway Facilities Branch of the FAA, the manager had official

involvement in the procurement of "Airway Facilities Training Services." This FAA contract

was valued at $43,607,755. On March 27, 1992, the manager accepted a position with a bidder

for the above-described contract as "Manager, Training Services on the Federal Aviation

Administration's Airway Facilities Contract." On August 10, 1992, the bidder included the

former manager’s name as "Program Manager" in the bid proposal. Members of the Source

Evaluation Board, recognizing the name, became concerned as to the possible violations of

procurement integrity laws and sought advice from FAA legal counsel. The FAA legal counsel

requested an official investigation on June 8, 1993. Evidence produced during the investigation

indicated that the manager in his former capacity had personally reviewed, amended, and

corrected the Statement of Work for the bid, and had also been responsible for the nominations

150

of two selection board members for the contract. After resigning, the former manager appeared

before the FAA on behalf of the bidder, his then-employer, at meetings pertaining to the

procurement.

The former manager pled guilty to a single count of violating 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2), and

was sentenced to one year of probation and was fined $5000. This statute bars former Federal

personnel from representing a party to Federal agencies, for a period of two years after leaving

Government, regarding particular matters involving specific parties which were pending under

the employee’s official responsibility during the employee’s last year of Federal service.

Senior Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Violates 18 U.S.C. 207

Following her resignation, the former Board of Governors member was elected to the

boards of directors of a number of companies. One of these companies was affected by a

guideline issued by the Federal Reserve called the highly leveraged transaction (HLT) guideline.

The Fed requested public comment on the HLT guideline. The company in question submitted a

written comment to the Fed, and company officials met with a member of the Fed's Board of

Governors. The former Board of Governors member both arranged and attended the meeting.

She introduced the company officials to the member of the Fed's Board of Governors, but said

nothing during the substantive part of the meeting. The company paid the former employee

$1,500 for her participation in the meeting.

The former employee agreed to pay a $5,000 civil fine in connection with a criminal

investigation into whether she violated the one-year bar of 18 U.S.C. 207(c), the post-

employment activities statute. This statute prohibits former senior Government officials for one

year after leaving their senior positions from representing or appearing before employees of their

former agencies on behalf of another with the intent to influence them regarding official action.

Former Official at Agriculture’s Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Improperly Represents New Employer to Government

A major crop insurance corporation began the FCIC appeal process with respect to

adverse FCIC decisions on certain claims (including the case of a certain Maine potato farmer)

by sending to the official in question a notice of intent to appeal. Later that year, the official left

the FCIC and joined the crop insurance corporation as a consultant. After the FCIC rejected the

151

appeals that the company had initiated, the official repeatedly tried to persuade Agency officials

to reconsider the denial of the appeal involving the Maine potato farmer.

The former official pled guilty to two counts of violating the two-year restriction on

post-employment contacts codified at 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(2) and was sentenced to probation.

This statute bars former employees for a period two years from representing others to

Federal agencies regarding particular matters involving specific parties which were pending

under the former employee’s official responsibility during his or her last year of Federal service.

Employee Gets Two Years of Probation for Improper Post-Government Representations A contract specialist for the General Services Administration (GSA) pled guilty to

violating conflict-of-interest laws after her retirement from federal service. During the

specialist’s five years at the GSA, she oversaw a number of software-related contracts. She was

involved personally and substantially in one large contract in particular, the negotiation of which

encompassed the span of several years. Upon retirement from her position at the GSA, the

contract specialist sought employment with the company that had received the large contract.

Over the next several months, the specialist contacted GSA multiple times with the intent to

influence GSA to extend the company’s contract as well as award the company new contracts.

The specialist pled guilty to violating 18 USC 207(a)(1), which prohibits an executive

branch employee from knowingly making, with the intent to influence, any communication to

any agency on behalf of any other person in connection with a particular matter in which the

person participated personally and substantially as such officer or employee. She was sentenced

to two years supervised probation and substance abuse treatment.

Negotiating with Employer While Engaged in Official Matters Earns $5000 Fine The Chief of Staff for the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board (PCIPB)

in the Office of Homeland Security participated in negotiations with a company for a contract to

provide support functions for the Board. However, at the same time, he was speaking with the

company regarding prospective employment. The Chief of Staff interviewed with the company

on July 18th but didn’t submit a letter of recusal until July 24th. He received a job offer on July

23rd which he accepted on August 1st. When investigators began to look into the timeline of the

152

employment offer, the former Chief of Staff was forced to step down from the company and pay

a $5,000 fine to settle the matter.

Former Admiral Convicted for Violating One-year Cooling-Off Period A retired Admiral and current top official with a San Diego school district pled guilty

to a misdemeanor charge of violating 18 U.S.C. 207, a conflict-of-interest law. As a result, a

U.S. Magistrate sentenced him to serve one year of probation and fined him $15,000. Despite

previously holding a prestigious Government post and receiving praise from fellow colleagues,

the officer’s error in judgment cost him dearly. In addition to the probation, fine, and legal fees,

he has resigned from the company that hired him, and may lose his job as chief administrative

officer of the city school district,

Known as the one-year “cooling off period,” 18 U.S.C. 207 forbids former senior officers

of the Executive branch from representing other persons before their former agency within one

year of leaving Government. In his plea, the former officer admitted to signing a major contract

proposal and cover letter on behalf of the company – and sent it to his former employer,

specifically with the intent to influence the decision.

On a side note, investigators detected the conflict of interest just in time for the Government to

eliminate the company’s bid from consideration. (Source: The San Diego Union-Tribune, July 12, 2007)

Salary for Government Work from Non-Government Source (18 U.S.C. § 209-Type Violations)

Visa Scam Nets $3,000 Fine The Chief Consular Officer at a U.S. Embassy earned herself a one-way trip to Federal

court after investigators discovered she had traded tourist visas for pricey jaunts to Paris and Las

Vegas. Investigators learned that after becoming acquainted with a group of businesswomen, the

officer accepted several all-expenses paid trips. Two of these trips were to Las Vegas, where the

officer and family members stayed in expensive suites at the MGM Grand and Caesar’s Palace.

Airfare alone for the two trips was valued at $5,000. The officer also accepted an all-expenses

153

paid trip to Paris to attend a charitable event, including first-class airfare valued at $2,400.

Subsequently, two of the businesswomen submitted tourist visas to the officer on behalf of

various foreign individuals. The officer approved 23 visas, all for individuals who were

ineligible under standard Embassy policy.

The officer pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 209(a), supplementation of salary. She was

sentenced to one year of probation and a $3,000 fine. No terrorist links were associated with the

individuals who obtained tourist visas in this manner.

Charging Customers for Federally Funded Work — Criminal! The Facts: An Acting Assistant Director for the San Francisco Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) office charged one alien $950 for a file review (for which the

INS does not charge), asked another alien for $300 for an unneeded INS pardon, and charged

a third $250 to get a citizen application waiver that had already been approved. The Director

was sentenced to serve six months in a halfway house, to be followed by six months of home

detention and four years of probation, during which time he would be prohibited from acting

in any capacity on immigration matters without permission of his probation officer. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, Feb. 2003)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 209 (2003) makes it criminal for an employee of the Federal

executive branch or of an independent agency of the United States from receiving any

compensation for official services. For violations of this law, 18 U.S.C. § 216 (2003) authorizes

fines and prison terms for up to one year—unless the conduct is willful, in which case

imprisonment could be for as much as 5 years.

Navy Employee Commits Section 209 Violation A U.S. District Court recently sentenced a GS-14 Navy employee to one year of

probation and fined him $5000 for receiving an illegal contribution to his salary in violation of

18 U.S.C. 209. In addition to criminal penalties, the employee was suspended without pay for

twenty days. The employee was the director of a unit that marketed contracts to other activities

and then issued delivery orders to the contractors. While performing these duties, the employee

asked a contractor for, and subsequently received, a Coach leather writing portfolio and briefcase

and a laptop computer. The investigation started when a contractor employee, who saw the fax

154

that the employee had sent to the contractor requesting the items, notified the Naval Criminal

Investigative Service.

Employees may not solicit or accept compensation, including goods or services, from any

non-Government source for performing their Government duties. Even though the goods or

services may not have affected how the employees perform their work or make decisions, such

as whether to award a contract, it is a violation to solicit or accept such compensation.

Senior Official Pays $24,900 Settlement to Department of Justice To settle charges that he violated 18 U.S.C. 209 by accepting fees for speeches made

as part of his official duties, a senior official of the National Science Foundation agreed to pay

$24,900 to the Department of Justice in return for dropping criminal charges. The senior official

had delivered four speeches to universities as part of his official duties, yet accepted honoraria

amounting to $5,500 for those speeches.

Since those speeches were part of the official’s duties, acceptance of compensation

constituted supplementation of his salary from non-Federal sources, which is prohibited by

18 U.S.C. 209. Federal employees may accept honoraria for activities conducted in their

personal capacities, but not as part of their official duties.

Although honoraria are permitted when speaking in the employee's personal capacity,

employees may not accept compensation for speaking, teaching, or writing on matters that are

directly related to their official duties.

District of Columbia Employee Pleads Guilty to Section 209 Violation Several inspectors employed by the District of Columbia Department of Consumer

and Regulatory Affairs were accepting bribes and gratuities in exchange for the issuance of

construction, plumbing, and electrical permits. In one instance, a private architect paid "tips"

to one of these inspectors in exchange for speedy and favorable inspections on his renovation

projects. The architect was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor count of section 209,

and was sentenced to one year of probation and a $1,000 fine. The inspectors were convicted

on charges of violating 18 U.S.C. 201 (Bribery).

155

18 U.S.C. 209 bars the unlawful supplementation of salary and applies to officers and

employees of the District of Columbia and non-Government sources who compensate any such

officers and employees for their Government services.

District of Columbia DMV Employee Pleads Guilty to Section 209 Charge An employee of the District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was

caught accepting bribes in exchange for altering DMV computer records in order to "clean up"

the driving records of individuals who had outstanding traffic tickets or past violations that might

prevent them from obtaining a driver's license. These bribe transactions were arranged through a

middleman. The DMV employee and the middleman were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 209;

the DMV employee was sentenced to two years probation and a $200 fine, and the middleman

was sentenced to one-year probation and a $250 fine. Two citizens who paid the parties to get

their records “cleaned up” were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 201 (bribery). 18 U.S.C. 209

bars the unlawful supplementation of salary and applies to Federal officers and employees as

well as those of the District of Columbia and non-Government sources who compensate any such

officers and employees for their Government services.

Private Citizen Attempts to Bribe Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Employee The citizen tried to bribe the IRS employee by paying him $250 for favorable treatment

regarding an IRS matter. The citizen pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 209,

which prohibits the payment of supplementation to a Government employee's salary.

Civilian Employee at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia Violates 18 U.S.C. 209

An Air Force employee was designated by his Agency as the supervisory construction

representative for the Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER)

contract. Under this contract, a private company agreed to provide base engineering and

construction services at Langley Air Force Base. The prime contractor subcontracted its

electrical work to another company. A supervisor with the subcontractor subsequently provided

the Air Force employee with an air conditioning system, a Jet Ski and trailer, a home computer

system, and a laptop computer, with a total value of approximately $16,500.

156

The Air Force employee pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 209, for

receiving a supplementation to his salary as compensation for his services as a Government

employee. He was sentenced to three years probation and a $2500 fine.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Employee Drives Overseas Auto Scheme As a U.S. Federal employee residing in Egypt, the employee discovered that he could

purchase an imported vehicle in Egypt without having to pay the normal 150% excise tax. This

fact had created a black market in which Egyptian car brokers would pay U.S. employees to

register luxury cars in their names in order to allow the dealers to evade import taxes.

Investigators found that while in Cairo, Egypt, the employee had agreed to accept $25,000 in

exchange for changing the status of his personally-owned vehicle with the Egyptian Ministry of

Foreign Affairs, which would allow him to participate in the scheme.

The CIA employee was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 209 and was sentenced to six

months' supervised release, six months' home detention, and 200 hours of community service.

(Source: OGE 1998 Conflict of Interest Prosecution Survey)

Family Business Venture Ends in Violation of 18 U.S.C. 209 A contracting officer at the Naval Surface Warfare Center started a computer equipment

business with his father-in-law to provide extra income. The duo concocted a scheme whereby

the contracting officer steered Government contracts for the purchase of computer equipment

to the father-in-law, who would buy the equipment from a third party vendor through a computer

supply magazine. The two would then overcharge the Government and split the profit. This

netted a payment of $29,000 for $11,000 worth of computer equipment. Both parties split the

$18,000 overcharge.

The father-in-law pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of 18 U.S.C. 209, which

prohibits the supplementation of a Government employee's salary, and the contracting officer

pled guilty to wire fraud and mail fraud. In their pre-indictment plea agreements, the father-in-

law agreed to pay $18,000 restitution, and the contracting officer agreed to pay an amount of

restitution to be determined at the sentencing hearing.

157

Cab Company Owner and DC Official Conspire to Violate 18 U.S.C. 209

Suspicious investigators discovered that for three years, a cab company owner had

conspired with the Chief of the D.C. Office of Taxicabs to provide illegal taxicab driver’s

licenses to unqualified drivers. The drivers paid money to the company owner, who took the

money and the drivers' names to the D.C. official. The official then prepared the illegal licenses.

The company owner also paid the D.C. official money for other illegal favors, such as registering

vehicles that should not have been registered.

The D.C. official pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 209, which prohibits the

supplementation of a Government employee’s salary, and agreed to testify against the cab

company owner. The D.C. official was also convicted of nine felony counts, including accepting

bribes and gratuities in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201.

Air Force Contracting Officer Pays $6000 for 18 U.S.C. 209 Violation In return for favorable treatment in contracting, employees of a private company agreed

to provide an Air Force contracting officer with money in the form of condominium rental

payments. That money was paid through different intermediaries in order to disguise the

purpose and the source of the funds. In addition, an investigation disclosed that the company

purchased certain valuable goods and items for the condominium. Finally, the investigation

disclosed that the company purchased smaller value items, such as dinners and basketball tickets,

for the Air Force contracting officer. Due to statute of limitations problems, the investigation

focused on the payment of the smaller value items.

The contracting officer pled guilty to a single misdemeanor count of 18 U.S.C. 209,

unlawfully augmenting his salary while employed by the Air Force. He was ordered to pay a

fine of $6,000, which the Court calculated to be three times the value of those accepted items.

Payoff for Special Access at Government Auction Ends in $1000 Fine In an attempt to gain preferential treatment at a Government auction, two brothers paid

off an auction guard. Instead, they wound up purchasing misdemeanor violations of 18 U.S.C.

209 (supplementation of a Government employee's salary). Sentences of probation and a $1,000

fine were imposed on each.

158

AUSA in Tucson Illegally Possesses Sheep Skull and Horns The Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) prosecuted an individual for illegally killing a

bighorn sheep on an Indian Reservation. As a result of the prosecution, the hunter forfeited the

bighorn sheep and trophy (skull and horns), valued at approximately $5,000, to the Arizona

Game and Fish Department. Pursuant to a request from the AUSA, the Arizona Game and Fish

Department entered into an agreement with the AUSA allowing him to publicly display the skull

and horns in his office, but requiring their return upon request. However, after leaving

employment with the U.S. Attorney’s office, the AUSA took the skull and horns with him and

treated them as his personal property. When the former AUSA was questioned a year later about

his possession of the skull and horns, he claimed that an unspecified Indian had sent the skull and

horns to him in appreciation for his work on the prosecution of the hunter. Investigation showed

that such a gift would have been contrary to tribal practices and no member of the tribe could be

found who knew anything about the alleged gift.

The Government then regained possession of the skull and horns from the former AUSA

and returned them to the tribe. The AUSA agreed to plead guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 209 for

his possession of the trophy.

Secretary at Federal Prison Pleads Guilty to 18 U.S.C. 209 Violation Investigators discovered that the secretary at a Federal prison had accepted money from

an inmate in exchange for allowing him certain privileges, including allowing him to place

unauthorized calls on her office phone. The defendant pled guilty to the charge of receiving

compensation from a non-Government source for doing her Government job (18 U.S.C. 209(a))

and was sentenced to two years probation.

Postal Service Employee Convicted of 18 U.S.C. 209 Violation Investigators discovered that an assistance counselor with the Postal Service was taking

kickbacks from a nearby hospital. The counselor provided assessment, referral, and follow-up

counseling services to Postal Service employees and their families relating to chemical

dependency or behavioral problems. While performing these duties, the counselor received cash,

a telephone credit card, limousine services, food, hotel accommodations, and travel

reimbursement for himself, his wife and his brother from a Topeka, Kansas hospital. These

159

benefits had an aggregate value of in excess of $45,000. The hospital was a psychiatric care and

drug-alcohol dependency treatment facility.

The counselor was charged with fifteen counts of violating 18 U.S.C. 209, for accepting

dual compensation, and pled guilty.

GSA Employee Convicted of Violating 18 U.S.C. 209 As the Comptroller of the General Services Administration (GSA), the employee in

question was responsible for implementing and overseeing GSA's contract with Diners Club for

Government charge cards. During the life of the contract, the employee accepted numerous

expensive meals from Diners Club employees in Washington, D.C., as well as accommodations,

meals, and entertainment in Las Vegas and Phoenix.

The employee pled guilty to one count of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371) and one count of

receiving dual compensation (18 U.S.C. 209), both misdemeanors. He was sentenced to one

year of supervised probation and a $250 fine.

Citizen Pleads Guilty to Violating 18 U.S.C. 209 A private electrical contractor was charged with supplementing the salary of a Public

Affairs Officer who was a representative for small and disadvantaged businesses for the Army

Corps of Engineers. The contractor was involved in the payment of money to the officer in

return for the officer’s assistance in facilitating the sale and development of land for off-post

housing around Fort Drum, New York.

The contractor pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 209, supplementing the salary of a

Federal employee, and was sentenced to one year of probation.

Public Works Employee “Gets the Boot” for Accepting Payments An employee of the Vehicle Immobilization Branch at the D.C. Department of Public

Works who decided to supplement his salary with private funds quickly found himself with no

salary at all. The employee solicited and accepted $400 in cash for removing a lawfully-attached

boot on a D.C. vehicle. In return, the employee received three years probation, six months home

160

detention, 100 hours community service, and $300 in fines for his violation of 18 U.S.C. 209,

illegal supplementation of salary.

Easy Come, Easy Go Investigators discovered that an Immigration and Naturalization Service Adjudication

Officer had taken bribes from an immigration consultant to facilitate the consultant’s cases.

The officer pled guilty to three misdemeanor counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 209(a), receiving

compensation from a private party for services rendered to the United States.

Accepting Bribes for Priority Service Earns $10,000 Fine A Veterans Affairs rating assistant technician responsible for prepping claims files for

adjudication was found to have taken bribes from filers to green-light false and inflated disability

claims for review. He pled guilty to one felony count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 209 (a),

unlawfully accepting supplementation of government salary, and was slapped with four years

probation, $10,000 in fines, and 120 hours of community service.

Gifts from Vendor Result in Two Years Probation An employee of the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Geological Survey took

advantage of her government charge card responsibilities and started accepting gift cards from a

certain vendor in return for steering her purchases his way. Her $500 in gift cards cost her two

years of probation and 100 hours of community service when she pled guilty to one count of

violating 18 U.S.C. § 209, unlawfully accepting supplementation of her government salary.

161

Time and Attendance Violations

Travel Fraud

A government employee temporarily promoted to fill an organization’s directorship

position has been fired for misconduct related to travel. As part of his assignment, the employee,

who was stationed on the east coast, was authorized travel to his temporary unit located on the

west coast. During his directorship tenure, the employee twice flew home on TDY orders to

the east coast for the purpose of taking leave. Regulations permit personal leave to be taken

in conjunction with TDY travel, but the travel must not be for the purpose of taking leave.

There must be a driving mission requirement for the travel. The employee, upon being

confronted about the legality of the TDY orders, stated that he had conducted official business

while back on the east coast. The evidence established otherwise, and investigators substantiated

the allegations of improper travel. In response to these substantiated findings, the employee’s

temporary assignment on the east coast was terminated and he was immediately directed to

return to home station. TDY money accrued during the employee’s travel was recouped

and a letter of requirement was issued to him outlining his violations and directing

subsequent compliance. Probably the worse outcome for the employee, however, was

foreclosing the opportunity to convert this temporary promotion into a permanent promotion

had it gone well. (Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General; 2015)

Contractor On-The-Clock Outside Employment A government contractor has been fired for running a personal landscaping business

while being paid by the government during duty hours. Co-workers heard telephone discussions

pertaining to his business placed from his government telephone and he was found using

government printers to print advertising materials. Upon hearing of the misconduct, the contract

company took swift action in terminating the official upon the conclusion of its own

investigation. The Government, however, is expected to continue pursuing all contract remedies

as a result of this misconduct, including reimbursement for overpayment of time charged by the

contract for work not performed. (Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General; 2015)

162

Employee T-Shirt Business According to government rules, supervisors are not permitted to solicit from

subordinates. One supervisor recently found herself the scope of an agency inquiry into

this provision – when subordinates inquired into her personal t-shirt and vitamin business.

Despite not “directly” engaging subordinates to buy her merchandise – and only fielding

unprompted inquiries from them about the prospect of purchasing her products – sales resulted

and this was deemed a violation of the rules given that the sales could have easily compromised

her position of authority.

5 C.F.R. § 2635.705 also regulates the use of government time. Notwithstanding being a

long term employee with six years of supervisor experience, the supervisor was unaware that

conducting personal business during official work hours is prohibited. While all transactions

were conducted during breaks, some of them took place within the building and it was deemed to

not promote the intent of the law by selling during breaks. The supervisor was found to have

executed poor judgment and should have inquired as to the legality of selling merchandise and

conducting business at work. Possible repercussions of her actions could have included creating

conflicts of interest – negatively affecting office productivity or the tone of the workplace.

As a result of her conduct, the agency director required training be conducted on

regulatory guidance regarding solicitation in the workplace. (Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General; 2015)

College Work On-The-Clock A supervisor and subordinate have been disciplined for college work done while on the

government clock. The subordinate, going to school part-time while working as a federal

employee, was allowed by his supervisor to work on homework on his government computer

while on duty. In fact, binders, textbooks, and course syllabus were observed open such that

witnesses testified that the subordinate was “completely engaged” during the one to eight hours a

day he was working on his courses. Computer records substantiated this testimony, noting a

number of unofficial, educational, or sports related websites being visited during duty hours.

Additionally, the supervisor had been approached on a number of occasions about the

subordinate’s use of time. He took no action, however, allowing the subordinate to continue.

As a result of this conduct, both individuals were counseled on appropriate use of the

163

subordinate’s time. Also, all personnel in that office were trained on acceptable use of

government communications equipment and the supervisor was directed to more closely monitor

the subordinate’s use of time and government equipment. (Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General; 2015)

Secret Agent Man? A former high-level official at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stole nearly

$900,000 from the Government by pretending to be part of a detail to the Central Intelligence

Agency (CIA) for nearly two decades. He duped a series of supervisors, including top officials,

by disappearing from the office and explaining his absences by telling his bosses that he was

doing top-secret work for the CIA and its “directorate of operations.” No one at EPA ever

checked to see if he worked for the CIA. In all, he was paid for 2.5 years of work that he did not

perform and received about $500,000 in “retention bonuses” that he did not deserve. In addition,

he lied about contracting malaria, which cost the EPA $8,000 over three years for a parking

space reserved for the disabled. He was reimbursed for $57,000 in fraudulent travel expenses,

and he continued to draw a paycheck for 19 months after his retirement.

He has repaid the nearly $900,000 to the EPA, but still owes $507,000 in a money

judgment. He was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

A Few Unexcused Absences An employee of a military service was not particularly careful about his time reporting.

The employee arrived late, left early, and left the building for extended periods of undocumented

time. Of 289 workdays reviewed during an investigation, the employee was found to have

worked less than the required 8.5 hours on 135 occasions (47% of the time); all told, the

employee misstated his work hours by over 100 hours.

For his unscrupulous timekeeping, the employee received a letter of reprimand and was

charged leave to accurately reflect his attendance.

In a similar case, an employee of a DoD facility was issued a letter of warning and

instruction after she arrived late on several days but left at the scheduled shift completion time

without claiming leave or reporting her tardiness to management.

164

The letter instructed the employee to sign-in and sign-out. Notwithstanding the letter, it

was later determined that the employee continued to fail to fulfill her time commitments, leaving

over an hour early on multiple occasions.

The employee was issued a letter of reprimand for leaving the worksite without

permission.

DVD Bootleggers MIA During Government Work Hours A Federal employee used his Government computer to make illegal copies of commercial

DVDs in violation of copyright laws. He and another employee also used their Government

computers and duty time to watch the movies. The other employee took lunches lasting up to

three hours in order to watch the DVDs and take naps. Initially the employees’ supervisors

signed off on this behavior, even assigning extra work to others to make up for the employees’

time wasted napping and movie watching. The employee who copied the DVDs received a

written reprimand. The supervisor received an oral admonishment for failing to address the

misconduct, and another employee received a Letter of Counseling for knowingly accepting a

pirated DVD. In a similar case, a civilian employee working for the U.S. Army in Germany was

involved in selling pirated DVDs. He used the profits from his illegal operation to buy vacation

homes and luxury cars and to pay for frequent European ski vacations. He devoted some of his

duty time to the marketing and selling of the bootleg videos, including taking payments while

on the job.

Even though the employee had left Federal service by the time the accusations against

him were substantiated, administrative action was taken to bar him from US Army Europe

installations.

Out-of-Office Reply: Out Sick – Can be Reached at Bowling Alley A GS-14 Director, within an Army Command, failed to show up to work for at least three

months. He complained of needing a double hip replacement but never submitted sick leave.

Though he claimed to work from home, he was never approved for a work-at-home program.

People reported seeing him around the community and he was spotted at the PX, the

165

Commissary, and even the bowling alley! The man received a verbal reprimand and was

counseled on appropriate leave request and approval procedures.

Falsification of Time Cards Results in Removal An employee at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center had a habit of showing up for

work only one week a month. However, her supervisor soon noticed that the employee’s

paycheck did not reflect this erratic schedule. Upon questioning, the employee admitted to

changing the pay codes on her time card after they were signed by her supervisor.

The employee was allowed to resign, and is indebted to the Government for $10,383.47.

The money will be deducted from her retirement pay.

Pre-signing Employee’s Time Card Results in Counseling An Air Force Sergeant at the Field Maintenance center pre-signed one of her

subordinate’s time cards before she left for a two-week leave. Unfortunately for her, the

subordinate subsequently changed several of the boxes she had originally marked as “leave”

to “regular flex time,” and then took leave while still drawing regular pay. When investigators

discovered the discrepancy, the subordinate resigned. The trusting Sergeant earned counseling

for failing to comply with DoD Financial Management Regulations, which stipulate that

supervisors must correctly certify time cards at the end of the pay period in order to prevent

employee fraud.

Lying About Overtime Doesn’t Pay! The Facts: A former employee of the Department of Defense entered overtime hours he

hadn’t worked into a computer time-keeping system. He was caught. He pleaded guilty and was

ordered to pay the Government $7,500 and was sentenced to three years probation — not the sort

of overtime he was looking for. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, Apr. 2003)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2003) states that anyone presenting to any “person or officer

in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or to any department or agency

thereof” a claim for money from the Federal Government, knowing such claim to be false, shall

be fined and imprisoned for no more than 5 years.

166

Hung By Wire Fraud The Facts: A Defense Intelligence Agency secretary in Arlington, Virginia, improperly

obtained access to her time and attendance records on 74 occasions. She used her access to

credit herself with over 4,000 hours of overtime she hadn’t worked. She was caught and pleaded

guilty to wire fraud, for which she was sentenced to twelve months and one day in prison, to be

followed by three years of probation with participation in Gamblers Anonymous. She also had

to pay the Government $91,380 in restitution. Hopefully, she learned from this bad bet. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, Apr. 2003)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2003) mandates penalties for transmitting “by means of

wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs,

signals, pictures, or sounds” in order to execute a plan to defraud. The penalties: Fines,

imprisonment of not more than 20 years, or both — unless the fraud affects a financial

institution, in which case the fine is to be of not more than $1 million and the imprisonment of

not more than 30 years.

Falsifying Overtime Can Be a Costly Business The Facts: A Federal employee at the Pentagon decided to participate in a scheme that

involved logging false overtime hours in an electronic timekeeping system. The employee pled

guilty at trial and was sentenced to three years of probation along with six months of home

confinement, and ordered to pay over $16,000 restitution.

(Source: Federal Ethics Report, March 2003)

The Law: 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2003) mandates fines and imprisonment for up to five years

for anyone who presents a claim for money, which the person knows to be fraudulent, to the

“civil, military, or naval service of the United States.”

Improper Time Sheets Allegations were made that a Department of Defense (DoD) employee was not working

his assigned hours and was fraudulently claiming overtime hours he did not work. After an

investigation, it was determined that the employee was attending college courses at lunch for

approximately two hours and worked late to make up the time. His time and attendance sheets

167

showed him working his normal hours with no indication of the long lunch and late hours to

accommodate his college courses. The sheets were submitted without showing the modified

schedule because a clerk incorrectly told the employee’s supervisor that “the system wouldn’t

allow variations from a normal workday.” The employee, the supervisor, and the clerk were all

instructed on proper timekeeping procedures.

INS Grants Administrative Leave as Award for Contributions to CFC Officials in an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) district office rewarded

employees who contributed at least $500 to the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) with eight

hours of administrative leave. After an investigation, it was found that the employees who were

granted and used the leave did not have the leave properly documented on their time sheets. As

the district director did not carry out the violations in a knowing and willful way and because the

employees affected stated they did not feel coerced, no charges were filed. The director did

receive a letter of counseling regarding her management of the CFC program, however.

VA Physician Time and Attendance Issue An administrative investigation substantiated that a part-time Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) physician routinely worked at a non-VA clinic during his VA core hours and as a

result failed to meet his VA tour of duty obligation. The investigation also revealed that the

physician’s supervisor failed to check on him to ensure that he was working the hours required.

In response to the investigator’s recommendation, administrative action was taken against both

the physician and the supervisor. The physician was charged leave for the hours not worked and

was instructed to revise his hours at the non-VA clinic.

Employees Terminated for Abusing Religious Leave For a period of several years, two top executives at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center

had an astonishing work record — they took nearly no vacation time at all. The reason,

investigators soon discovered, was that the executives had been taking “religious compensatory

time” instead. Curiously, the executives’ absences seldom fell on any traditionally-observed

religious holidays. Instead, investigators found that the pair’s so-called religious observances

168

took place on days when they had medical appointments, sightseeing trips, and golf tournaments.

Asked whether golf tournaments could be considered religious observances, one executive

replied, “They could be for some people.”

Unamused, the Inspector General found that the two had made a “premeditated,

conspiratorial effort to defraud the Government,” and forced them into retirement. Religious

compensatory time is available for government employees who need to observe religious

requirements – but even then, it needs to be made up at a later time. (Source: www.GovExec.com, July 1, 2004)

Use of Sick Leave for Military Tours Earns Employee Dismissal A reservist’s use of sick leave to account for absences on active-duty military tours

resulted in the end of a 20-year federal career. Over a period of several years, the reservist

accounted for absences from his civilian position at CENTCOM as “sick leave,” when in fact

he was on active-duty military tours. This allowed the employee to bank annual leave, as well

as collect dual salaries from both the civil service and the military. Given the reservist’s two

decades of federal employment, the judge found the reservist’s pleas of ignorance as to the

proper leave procedures unconvincing. The judge also took into consideration the testimony of

the reservist’s commanding officer at CENTCOM, who testified that his trust in the reservist had

been wholly eroded.

As a consequence of the reservist’s abuse of the leave system, his career in the civil

service was terminated. (Source: 2005 MSRP LEXIS 6041)

Disciplined for Double Counting Civilian and Military Reserve Duties A senior agency attorney did a little “double duty,” and as a “reward,” he was ordered to

reimburse the agency for 500.5 hours of annual leave and 18 hours of sick leave. The agency

report found the lawyer spent the equivalent of about 83 days performing his Military Reserve

duties. While his dual service is admirable, by not charging military or annual leave for some

absences, the officer’s civilian leave balance exceeded that to which he was entitled. Section

2635.705 of Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations states an employee shall use official time

in an honest effort to perform official duties. While his civilian leave balance was not reduced

while the attorney was performing his official military duties, he received credit as if he was

169

performing his civilian duties at the same time. Further, the agency found the attorney had

misused his subordinates’ time, using them to schedule personal activities such as haircuts,

travel, and golf.

Although the final determination found no dishonesty, lack of integrity, or motive for

personal gain on the attorney’s part, neither the agency nor the Military Reserve found the

attorney’s actions acceptable. The attorney was admonished for failure to exercise reasonable

care in monitoring his leave balances, and also counseled for misusing subordinates to perform

personal tasks. In addition, the Military Reserve Branch counseled him “severely” for his

negligence in monitoring his leave account and for improper staff use. Working for two military

branches is legal, but it requires careful accounting for your time, including leave.

(Source: Military Service Inspector General)

Director Abused Leave and Personnel, Get’s Demoted and Loses Job The Director of a military staff office caught the eye of the Inspector General by abusing

time, attendance, and official travel regulations, and by displaying abusive personal behavior

towards her staff.

The Director failed to use proper leave or to document authorized absences involving

several trips. She also discouraged attempts by her subordinates to verify her whereabouts, often

using profane language and threatening verbal outbursts. In addition, the Inspector General

discovered the Director had covered the documents that detailed her use of leave with cross outs,

changes and other ink annotations, making them virtually incomprehensible.

As a result, the service secretary took action that resulted in her being removed from the

Senior Executive Services and demoted in grade to GS-15. As part of a negotiated settlement,

the Director agreed to retire from Federal service as soon as she was eligible.

(Source: Military Service Inspector General)

170

Travel Violations

Bermuda, Jamaica, Oh I Want to Take You A certain military general had a fancy for lavish vacations. He decided to take numerous

personal trips including one to Bermuda using a military airplane. Once his vacation regimen

was discovered, the general was required to reimburse the government for $82,000. In addition,

he was demoted upon retirement.

A Private Jet? Don’t Mind if I Do … An O-9 with over 35 years of service in the U.S. military was scheduled for a command

visit to a base. His original C-12 flight was delayed, so his staff spontaneously arranged a

substitute flight for him: a C-5 that had been previously unscheduled to fly. Despite his many

years of experience and his stated commitment to confronting travel abuse issues within his

command, he and three members of his staff boarded a near-empty jet to make the command

visit on time. The government incurred $38,000 in additional costs for the special flight. The

officer was counseled by his command about the violation.

Fasten Your Seatbelts. We’re in for a Career-Ending Ride A Service Colonel was found guilty of larceny and submitting false statements after he

used government funds to purchase round trip airline tickets from Kuwait to the States to attend

his son’s graduation. The Colonel also submitted a false travel authorization listing a fictitious

reason for the travel. The Colonel voluntarily repaid the funds and retired early.

False Travel Expenses A service member filed a travel voucher, falsely claiming expenses for driving from

Virginia to California to relocate for a new assignment – and she received pay for 10 days of

per diem. The inquiry found that the service member actually received a ride to Illinois from a

friend – and then flew from Illinois to California. She was made to repay the difference in

reimbursements and received a letter of reprimand.

171

German Holiday Two employees of a DoD Agency obtained overpayment for official travel to Germany.

The two employees – whom we will call by the pseudonyms John and Sarah – claimed hotel

lodging reimbursement for a night in which they were on a plane flying to Germany.

In addition, the two took a “rest day” before the conference on which no mission duties

were performed and no leave was taken. (They indicated that this was in order to overcome jet

lag before the conference.) Their misconduct continued after the conference. The two remained

in Germany for an extra day to visit various tourist sites in Germany – on the Government’s

dime – traveling approximately 500 miles in a Government rental car. On their travel vouchers,

they requested reimbursement for the fuel costs associated with their personal activity – as well

as lodging and per diem expenses.

Sarah later outdid John by claiming hotel costs for the night after she returned to the US

and during which she was in her own home.

John and Sarah had over $650 and over $1100 respectively withheld from their pay. The

two were also required to receive refresher training on the use of the Defense Travel System.

John, the approving official for the travel vouchers for Sarah’s trip, was also found to have failed

to exercise due diligence as a Certifying Official.

In the background of the case was a romantic relationship between John and Sarah.

Though the two denied having a romantic relationship during their trip, they admitted to

beginning a relationship eight months later – and that continued. As a result of the ongoing

relationship, John was required to recuse himself from all actions involving Sarah, including

signing as the approving official for any actions that could be to her benefit or detriment.

Abuse of Official Travel and Leave Garners One Year Probation The former Deputy Under-Secretary in the Department of Education wound up in Federal

court after investigators uncovered discrepancies regarding his travel, leave, and financial

disclosure. Investigators discovered that the official, who was also employed as a traveling

judge in the State of Texas, had made at least fourteen trips on Government expense when the

purpose of his travel was at least partly to accrue time toward a Texas state pension. On several

of these trips, the official had additionally requested and received Federal sick leave; further,

he collected reimbursement from the Government for some of his personal expenses. Finally,

172

the official failed to report his salary from the State of Texas on his Government financial

disclosure form.

The official pled guilty to the conflict of interest statute. He was sentenced to one

year of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $5,000 fine. He also reimbursed

the Government $8,659.85 for his fraudulent claims.

Military Officer Dances While the Public Pays The Facts: According to a military service Inspector General inquiry, a senior military

officer planned to attend two balls taking place within roughly an hour’s drive of his station. For

these, he obtained official orders and, according to his travel claims, received payment for hotel

lodging, meals, and incidental expenses (per diem) —amounting all told to around $500. This

conduct occurred as one of a series of offenses that resulted in the officer being relieved of

command, issued a punitive letter of reprimand, and ordered to forfeit $1,000.

The Law: The Department of Defense (DoD) Travel Regulations provide various

guidelines for travel of uniformed (in Volume 1) and civilian (in Volume 2) DoD employees.

Applicable to this case was Volume 1: “Joint Federal Travel Regulations” (JFTR). JFTR section

U2010 requires a uniformed service member to use the same care in incurring expenses when the

Federal Government is to pay “as would a prudent person traveling at personal expense . . .

Excess costs, circuitous routes, delays or luxury accommodations that are unnecessary or

unjustified are the member’s financial responsibility.” Moreover, JFTR section U4102 forbids a

uniformed service member from obtaining per diem for any temporary duty (TDY) performed

within twelve hours. Since attendance at each ball along with round-trip travel could have been

completed within twelve hours had the officer exercised prudence, this regulation made it even

clearer that the officer should not have obtained his per diem. Since other agencies have travel

regulations, all Federal employees are encouraged to verify the propriety of having the

Government pay for their travel expenses.

Bumped Well It was the young employee's first official trip to Washington, DC. It was just a one-day,

round trip. Her meeting was scheduled for 1:00 PM. Anxious to make a good impression (and

173

to look around DC), she booked an early-morning flight out of Atlanta. When she got to the

airport, she discovered that the flight was overbooked, and the airline was offering free, round-

trip tickets to anyone who would volunteer to take the next flight. That flight was to arrive in

DC at 12:20 PM, and she figured that she would still have time to make her meeting. As her

plane reached Richmond, the pilot announced that would be a slight delay while Air Force One

took off. Her plane circled and circled. The delay lasted for over an hour, and by the time the

plane finally landed, she had missed the meeting.

FBI Undercover Parties According to an FBI report, upon the retirement of a senior FBI official, FBI personnel

from around the country journeyed to Washington to attend the official’s retirement party.

Many out-of-town G-men traveled on official orders and public expense. According to their

travel orders, the purpose of the trip was to attend an ethics conference! According to the news

report, only five people actually attended the ethics forum.

FBI False Travel Claim A former supervisory special agent of the FBI was sentenced in U.S. District Court

for falsely claiming travel expenses to which he was not entitled. The former agent pled guilty

to one count of theft of Government property. The former agent had ended a period of travel

five days earlier than his schedule (and later travel claim) stated. He was ordered to pay $1,887

in restitution.

Official Travel to Conference Turns into Florida Vacation A Department of Defense (DoD) official was to travel to and attend a conference in

Florida while on DoD travel orders. His wife accompanied him. It was alleged that after

checking in at the hotel where the conference was to be held and then renting a convertible,

the official promptly left for a short vacation with his wife for all three days of the conference.

After an investigation it was determined that the official did not attend the conference, told a

subordinate to “cover for him,” and filed a fraudulent travel claim with DoD for the three days

174

of the conference he did not attend. A proposal was made to have the official separated from

Federal service.

False Travel Claim Filed I Allegations were made against a Navy enlisted man for filing a false travel claim.

After an investigation, it was determined the individual had claimed that his two children

accompanied him during his PCS move across the country. In fact, the children were in the

custody of his ex-wife. He was reduced in rank one grade and ordered to forfeit $2140 in pay.

False Travel Claim Filed II It was determined after an investigation that a Department of Defense (DoD) official filed a false

claim for travel expenses. The official claimed he was staying at a hotel, and as a result, was paid the

appropriate per diem rate by the Navy. It was determined during the course of the investigation that the

official had actually been on board a Navy ship (a situation where a much reduced per diem is paid)

during the time he claimed he was staying at the hotel. The official reimbursed the Navy, was issued a

letter of caution, and was counseled by his supervisor.

False Travel Claim Filed III A former Department of Defense (DoD) employee was sentenced in U.S. District Court for

making false relocation claims to the Government. The former employee made over $15,000 in false

relocation claims in connection with a permanent change of station (PCS) move. The judge sentenced the

former employee to two years probation and ordered her to pay more than $15,000 in restitution.

False Travel Claim Filed IV An Army employee was sentenced in U.S. District Court for falsifying lodging expenses.

She pled guilty to one count of theft of Government property. The employee had traveled to a

nearby facility and incurred no lodging expenses. However, she had filed a claim for $105 when

she returned back to her duty station. The employee was sentenced to one year of probation and

was ordered to pay a $3,000 fine. Ironically, the employee was the director of the Honesty,

Ethics, Accountability, Respect, Trust, and Support (HEARTS) Program for her duty station at

the time she committed the violation.

175

Senior Officer, Who Abused Travel and Misused Staff, Disciplined A senior military officer and his wife accrued improper airfare expenses by flying in

premium class on official business trips. On one trip, for example, the officer justified business-

class seats by indicating he was required to perform official business immediately after his

arrival at his travel destination, when in fact he spent almost his first full day attending a VIP

welcome, making U.S. embassy calls, enjoying lunch and dinner, and touring a local vineyard.

The officer explained that he chose to fly business-class on another trip because flying coach

would have looked “strange” to his hosts. On other trips, the officer made unofficial,

unscheduled stops for family reasons, such as attending his children’s sporting events, without

taking leave.

Federal travel regulations limit official travel to coach-class unless special circumstances,

such as special security requirements, medical requirements, or unavailability of coach-class

seats, exist. The rank of the traveler does not justify premium class travel.

The officer also violated 5 C.F.R. 2635.705(b), which mandates a Government 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.” Although never issuing any direct orders, the officer

requested his subordinates to perform many personal services such as caring for his dog,

shopping for athletic gear, and repairing his bicycle. Subordinates reported they had given tours

around the local area to the officer’s friends and relatives and rescued the officer’s wife on the

roadside one Sunday. The officer’s other violations included asking his subordinates to make

thousands of dollars in payments out of their personal funds for various purchases for him.

Even though he reimbursed them later, it is improper to solicit loans from subordinates.

The officer received a Punitive Letter of Reprimand at non-judicial punishment

proceedings. He voluntarily reimbursed the Government $14,461.03 for travel benefits he and

his wife received and charged 15 days to leave to account for days of TAD travel that were for

personal business. Further audit of his travel claims resulted in collecting another $1,317.

In addition, he was reduced in grade upon retirement from active duty. (Source: Military Service Inspector General)

176

False Travel Claim Filed V A former Department of Defense employee was sentenced in U.S. District Court

for submitting false travel claims in relation to a permanent change of station (PCS) move.

The former employee was charged with claiming over $22,000 in false travel expenses. She was

also charged with altering documents to substantiate the expenses. The judge sentenced her to

five years probation and ordered her to pay $10,456 in restitution.

Government Employee Liable for Accident Incurred on Personal Business A NASA employee on official business arranged to have his return date extended so that

he could remain in the area for personal reasons. During his extended stay, he retained his

Government-leased rental vehicle. While on his way to the airport to return home, the employee

was involved in a car accident when an elk ran into his vehicle. The employee reimbursed the

rental car company for more than $2500 in repair costs, and then submitted a reimbursement

request to NASA. NASA refused payment as the employee was not on official business at the

time of the accident.

The Federal Travel Regulation mandates that an agency may pay only those expenses

essential to the transaction of official business. Specifically, employees may be reimbursed for

deductibles paid to rental car companies only if the damage occurs while the employee is

performing official business. After the NASA employee’s temporary duty ended, the rental car

became both his expense and his responsibility.