Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure

Department of Defense Office of General Counsel Standards of Conduct Office Updated July 2012

Introduction..........................................................................................................................3 Disclaimer............................................................................................................................3 A use of !osition................................................................................................................." #ri ery $1% U.S.C. & 201'(ype )iolations........................................................................10 Compensation for *epresentational Ser+ices from ,on'-ederal Sources $1% U.S.C. & 203'(ype )iolations..........................................................................................................30 Conflicts of Interest $1% U.S.C. & 20%'(ype )iolations....................................................3% Credit Card A use............................................................................................................../0 -raud $)iolations ,ot Co+ered 1lse23ere........................................................................40 Gam lin5 and Ot3er Contest )iolations............................................................................%0 Gift )iolations...................................................................................................................%2 In+ol+ement in Claims A5ainst t3e Go+ernment or in 6atters Affectin5 t3e Go+ernment $1% U.S.C. & 20/'(ype )iolations.....................................................................................%0 6isuse of Go+ernment *esources.....................................................................................%7 6orale8 9elfare8 and *ecreation $69*. Issues.............................................................110 !ost'1mployment )iolations $1% U.S.C. & 204'(ype )iolations...................................12% Salary for Go+ernment 9or: from ,on'Go+ernment Source $1% U.S.C. & 207'(ype )iolations.........................................................................................................................1"2 (ime and Attendance )iolations.....................................................................................1/0 (ra+el )iolations.............................................................................................................1/4


(3e Standards of Conduct Office of t3e Department of Defense General Counsel;s Office 3as assem led t3e follo2in5 selection of cases of et3ical failure for use as a trainin5 tool. Our 5oal is to pro+ide DoD personnel 2it3 real e<amples of -ederal employees 23o 3a+e intentionally or un2ittin5ly +iolated t3e standards of conduct. Some cases are 3umorous8 some sad8 and all are real. Some 2ill an5er you as a -ederal employee and some 2ill an5er you as an American ta<payer. !lease pay particular attention to t3e multiple =ail and pro ation sentences8 fines8 employment terminations and ot3er sanctions t3at 2ere ta:en as a result of t3ese et3ical failures. )iolations of many et3ical standards in+ol+e criminal statutes. !rotect yourself and your employees y learnin5 23at you need to :no2 and accessin5 your A5ency et3ics counselor if you ecome unsure of t3e proper course of conduct. #e sure to access t3em before you ta:e action re5ardin5 t3e issue in >uestion. 6any of t3e cases displayed in t3is collection could 3a+e een a+oided completely if t3e offender 3ad ta:en t3is simple precaution. (3e cases 3a+e een arran5ed accordin5 to offense for ease of access. -eel free to reproduce and use t3em as you li:e in your et3ics trainin5 pro5ram. -or e<ample ' you may e conductin5 a trainin5 session re5ardin5 political acti+ities. -eel free to copy and paste a case or t2o into your slides3o2 or 3andout ? or use t3em as e<amples or discussion pro lems. If you 3a+e a case you 2ould li:e to ma:e a+aila le for inclusion in a future update of t3is collection8 please email it to soco@osd.mil or you may fa< it to $403. 07/'"740.

(3is Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure is intended to sensitiAe -ederal employees to t3e reac3 and impact of -ederal et3ics statutes and re5ulations. It is est used to supplement personal +erification of t3ose statutes and re5ulations. It s3ould not e interpreted as a indin5 or aut3oritati+e presentation of t3e la2.

Note of Special Thanks
9e t3an: t3e DoD OIG for t3eir case contri utions to t3e 1ncyclopedia.


Abuse of Position
Chief Authority A military ser+ice C3ief 6aster Ser5eant a used 3er aut3ority and improperly used a 5o+ernment +e3icle 23en s3e employed a 5o+ernment +e3icle and t3ree non' commissioned officers under 3er super+ision to mo+e personal property in a 5o+ernment rental +e3icle. (3e soldiers 3elped 3er for 3 3ours. (3e C3ief 6aster Ser5eant 2as 5i+en a +er al 2arnin5 and ad+ised of t3e improper use of 5o+ernment +e3icles and t3e a use of aut3ority. Abuse of Position and Bribery A military ser+ice Captain used 3is official position as a reser+ist to o tain contracts for pri+ate sector companies 2it3 23ic3 3e 3ad an affiliation. In addition8 t3e Captain accepted a Bfinder;s feeC $i.e.8 :ic: ac:s. from one company for 3is efforts in 3elpin5 t3e company o tain 5o+ernment contract 2or:. -or 3is si5nificant et3ical failure8 t3e Captain 2as Ballo2edC to retire at t3e 5rade of Commander8 t3ou53 3e 3ad een selected to e an Admiral. In addition8 t3e Captain 2as de arred for one year8 23ile t2o of t3e affiliated companies entered into administrati+e a5reements $for 3 years. 2it3 t3e military ser+ice. Coercion by Supervisor (3e director of a na+al 3ealt3 clinic recei+ed a D38000 loan from a su ordinate after re>uestin5 t3at t3e su ordinate loan 3im D08000. (3e D38000 apparently 2asn;t enou538 3o2e+er8 and t3e director later as:ed for D108000. (3is time t3e su ordinate declined. After t3e director only repaid a fraction of t3e D380008 t3e su ordinate approac3ed t3e c3ain of command. In addition to ein5 directed y 3is commandin5 officer to repay t3e rest of t3e loan8 t3e director 2as pro+ided 2it3 a 2ritten letter of counselin5 re5ardin5 3is unprofessional and unet3ical conduct. DoD GS-12 Removed for Misuse of Authority A GS'12 *ecreation !ro5ram 6ana5er 23o super+ised appro<imately 4/ ci+ilian and military su ordinates 2as remo+ed from 3is position for se+eral et3ical +iolations8


includin5 t3e failure to a+oid t3e appearance of impropriety. (3e employee mo+ed into +isitors; >uarters on a military installation 23ere 3e stayed for si< mont3s 2it3out payin5 full price for 3is room y pressurin5 3is su ordinate to ac>uiesce to 3is payment arran5ements. Ee also aut3oriAed an employee to ma:e a D"00 a5ency e<penditure to purc3ase 2or:out clot3in5 for one 69* fitness instructor. (3e employee 3ad no reason to elie+e 3e 3ad t3e aut3ority to aut3oriAe t3is e<penditure and s3ould 3a+e made in>uiry efore 5i+in5 aut3oriAation. (3e administrati+e la2 =ud5e stated t3at t3is act Bat t3e +ery least 5i+es t3e appearance of impropriety and s3ould 3a+e raised a red fla5.C Boo in! "fficia# $rave# for Persona# Business Costs %mp#oyee A former administrator for t3e Department of Eealt3 and Euman Ser+ices too: se+eral trips on t3e 5o+ernment;s dime t3at didn;t loo: 5ood. (3e ad+isor informed t3e EES Secretary t3at 3e intended to see: employment in t3e pri+ate sector. (3e Secretary as:ed 3im to stay 2it3 t3e Department until Con5ress passed t3e ne2 6edicare prescription dru5 enefits plan. (3e ad+isor a5reed8 ut 3e continued to pursue 3is =o searc3 23ile ser+in5 as a 5o+ernment employee. 93ile t3ere is not3in5 2ron5 2it3 5o+ernment employees loo:in5 for a ne2 =o 8 t3e 3an5'up for t3is employee came 23en 3e decided to ta:e se+eral trips ostensi ly related to 3is 2or: for t3e EES. 93ile 3e 2as on t3ese trips8 3e alle5edly conducted Bperfunctory meetin5sC for t3e EES8 and t3en 3e 2ent off to do 23at 3e 3ad really come to doFto 3a+e inter+ie2s 2it3 potential employers. *e5ardless of 23et3er or not t3ese trips 2ere set up for t3e purpose of conductin5 ono fide 5o+ernment usiness8 t3e ad+isor;s meetin5s 2it3 potential employers durin5 t3ose trips 5a+e t3e appearance t3at 3e 2as usin5 3is position for personal 5ain (3e employee 3as a5reed to reim urse t3e 5o+ernment;s costs for t3e trips8 23ic3 totaled appro<imately D108000 in +alue. &edera# A!ent Demoted for '(D(in! )erse#f as a &edera# A!ent to a Po#ice "fficer A Super+isory Special A5ent for t3e Department of t3e (reasury $GS'1". 2as a passen5er in a car t3at 2as pulled o+er y a local police officer. 93en t3e officer approac3ed t3e +e3icle8 t3e employee presented t3e officer 2it3 3er credentials


identifyin5 3erself as a -ederal A5ent. (3e police officer 3ad not as:ed to see t3e employee;s identification at all. #ecause la2 enforcement officials may e tempted to treat ot3er la2 enforcement officials more fa+ora ly8 t3e Department determined t3e employee presented 3er 5o+ernment credentials to t3e police officer in 3opes of recei+in5 more fa+ora le treatment. (3e federal employee did not e<plicitly as: t3e police officer for any fa+ors8 ut t3e circumstances led 3er a5ency to t3e conclusion t3at s3e 3ad attempted to use 3er official position for personal 5ain8 23ic3 is pro3i ited y federal et3ics rules. As a result8 t3e employee;s a5ency determined t3at s3e 2as untrust2ort3y as a super+isor and s3e 2as demoted. &ormer A$& Chief Cited for Abuse of )is Position A former A(- c3ief8 Carl (ruscott8 2as in+esti5ated y t3e Department of (reasury Inspector General and found to 3a+e committed numerous et3ics +iolations. Amon5 t3em8 (ruscott 2as found to 3a+e misused 3is position and to 3a+e 2asted 5o+ernment resources y 5i+in5 3is nep3e2 unlimited access to A(- employees and resources for a sc3ool pro=ect. (3e A(-;s Office of !u lic Affairs staff 2as told y (ruscott to comply 2it3 all of 3is nep3e2;s re>uests. (3e O!A staff ended up Bspoon feedin5C (ruscott;s nep3e2. O!A staff spent numerous 3ours conductin5 researc3 on pu licly a+aila le information8 mailin5 t3e nep3e2 3ard copies8 pro+idin5 t3e nep3e2 2it3 stoc: film foota5e8 and conductin5 tours and inter+ie2s for t3e nep3e2. (ruscott also as:ed employees at t3e !3iladelp3ia field office to escort 3is nep3e2 on tours8 and to perform demonstrations of canine dru5 detection for 3im. 93en (ruscott;s nep3e2 re>uested to +isit t3e A(- 3ead>uarters8 (ruscott allo2ed 3im to use A(- e>uipment8 includin5 t3e A(-;s film studio8 cameras8 and teleprompters to film inter+ie2s. Additionally8 (ruscott 5a+e 3is nep3e2 t3ree personal inter+ie2s8 includin5 once at t3e construction site of t3e ne2 A(- uildin5 23ere (ruscott8 3is assistant8 and an O!A staff mem er 3ad to tra+el to 5i+e t3e inter+ie2. (ruscott also used 3is speec32riter to draft tal:in5 points for 3im to use in t3e inter+ie2s. And8 as if t3at 2ere not enou538 after t3e nep3e2 completed t3e +ideo and recei+ed an BAC 5rade for it8 (ruscott continued to allo2 3im to ma:e re>uests to t3e A(- for su55estions on impro+in5 t3e +ideo. One employee reported spendin5 four or fi+e days complyin5 2it3 t3e nep3e2;s re>uests.


(3e IG 2as una le to tally t3e total num er of employees and 3ours t3at 2ere de+oted to (ruscott;s nep3e28 ut estimated t3at at least 20 A(- employees 2ere in+ol+ed. (3e IG determined t3at (ruscott +iolated 5o+ernment re5ulations pro3i itin5 federal employees from usin5 t3eir office for pri+ate 5ain8 2astin5 5o+ernment resources8 and influencin5 su ordinates to 2aste 5o+ernment resources. $Office of t3e Inspector General8 *eport of In+esti5ation Concernin5 Alle5ed 6ismana5ement and 6isconduct y Carl J. (ruscott8 -ormer Director of t3e #ureau of Alco3ol8 (o acco8 -irearms and 1<plosi+es. S%S "fficia#*s 'nvo#vement +ith Subordinate ,eads to Retirement (3e Inspector General found t3at an S1S official en5a5ed in an intimate relations3ip 2it3 a su ordinate8 pro+ided 3er preferential treatment 23en selectin5 3er for a ne2 position8 and misused Go+ernment resources and official time. (3e official retired efore t3e IG completed 3is report. (3e IG report indicated t3at t3e official;s relations3ip 2it3 a su ordinate ad+ersely affected t3e 2or:place8 +iolated t3e re>uirements for mem ers of t3e Senior 1<ecuti+e Ser+ice8 and constituted conduct t3at 2as pre=udicial to t3e Go+ernment. 9itnesses noted t3at t3e official failed to 3old 3is paramour accounta le for 3er professional responsi ilities8 and 23en confronted y ot3er employees8 ecame +er ally a usin58 +en5eful8 and an5ry. (3e official also ser+ed as t3e selectin5 official8 23o selected 3is su ordinate for promotion8 23ile en5a5ed in an intimate relations3ip 2it3 3er8 t3ere y +iolatin5 t3e 6erit system principles and en5a5in5 in a pro3i ited personal practice. Affair +ith Assistant ,eads to %mp#oyee Remova# A Deputy Assistant to t3e Secretary of Defense 2as terminated 23en in+esti5ators disco+ered t3at 3e 3ad en5a5ed in a romantic relations3ip 2it3 a DoD contractor 23o 3ad ser+ed as 3is e<ecuti+e assistant. (3e e<ecuti+e assistant claimed t3at t3e end of t3eir affair and t3e official;s su se>uent persistence 3ad led 3er to lea+e 3er position. 93en >uestioned y in+esti5ators re5ardin5 t3e affair8 t3e Deputy Assistant initially lied as to t3e nature of t3e relations3ip.


Alt3ou53 c3ar5es of se<ual 3arassment could not e su stantiated8 t3e Inspector General found t3e Deputy Assistant;s e3a+ior to e incompati le 2it3 t3e standards of conduct esta lis3ed for DoD employees and mem ers of t3e Senior 1<ecuti+e Ser+ice. (3e Office of t3e Secretary of Defense promptly initiated actions to terminate t3e Deputy Assistant. D%A A!ent - Misuse of Position A D1A a5ent 23ose responsi ilities included fleet mana5ement and aut3oriAation of repairs of Go+ernment +e3icles 3ad attempted to o tain free repair ser+ices for 3is personal +e3icles from t2o +endors. (3e a5ent also insinuated to t3e +endors t3at t3e cost of repairin5 3is personal +e3icles could e recouped as part of t3e c3ar5es for repairs to Go+ernment +e3icles. After t3ese alle5ations 2ere su stantiated8 t3e a5ent 2as dismissed from D1A. 'mproper -se of Position (3e Department of Justice Office of !rofessional *esponsi ility $O!*. in+esti5ated alle5ations t3at a Department of Justice $DOJ. attorney prepared anot3er personGs application for a +isa 2it3 a co+er memorandum on DOJ stationery. (3e DOJ attorney also included one of 3is DOJ usiness cards in t3e su mission. (3e forei5n indi+idual 2as see:in5 a +isa in order to enter t3e country to perform certain functions for a non'profit or5aniAation. (3e DOJ attorney told O!* t3at 3e did not intend to 5ain preferential treatment for t3e +isa applicant y identifyin5 3imself as a DOJ attorney8 ut elie+ed 3is actions 2ere consistent 2it3 23at DOJ employees are permitted to do on e3alf of non'profit or5aniAations. O!* concluded t3at t3e actions of t3e DOJ attorney 2ere improper8 ut not intentionally so. Section 203/.403 of t3e Standards of 1t3ical Conduct for 1mployees of t3e 1<ecuti+e #ranc3 pro3i its employees from usin5 t3eir position or title for purposes of endorsement. ./ou obvious#y don0t no+ +ho ' am(1


(3e son of a ureau director 2as denied a rental car ecause 3e 2as too youn5. Outra5ed8 3is fat3er 2rote a scat3in5 letter $on A5ency letter3ead. to t3e president of t3e rental car company8 and sent it off in a U.S. posta5e'paid en+elope. (3e president of t3e company 2as not amused and returned 3is scat3in5 response to t3e 3ead of t3e A5ency. As a result of 3is action8 t3e #ureau Director 2as treated to a four'3our et3ics session and a fine for personal use of official posta5e. 2But3 4ud!e3 ' didn0t !et anythin!52 An offs3ore safety inspector found muc3 of t3e Go+ernment;s e>uipment to e in need of repairs to meet safety standards. Ee t3en referred t3e usiness to 3is rot3er'in' la2Gs repair s3op. (3e ri5 operators smelled a rat and called t3e -#I. (3ey disco+ered t3at8 in return for eac3 referral8 t3e rot3er'in'la2 2as treatin5 t3e inspector to an e+enin5 2it3 a lady of du ious morals. (3e case 2as rou53t to trial. In 3is defense8 t3e inspector claimed t3at 3e 3ad not recei+ed a Ht3in5 of +alueH in return for t3e referral. (3e =ud5e didnGt uy it ' and neit3er did 3is 2ife. -se of Contractor $ime Alle5ations 2ere made a5ainst a Department of Defense $DoD. official re5ardin5 3is use of contractor employees. (3e official directed t2o US Go+ernment contractors to entertain an ac>uaintance 3e met at a conference in 1urope on 3is e3alf. (3ey 2ere directed to ta:e t3e person out to lunc3 as 2ell as out on t3e to2n t3e follo2in5 e+enin5. (3e contractors ri53tly elie+ed t3at t3e re>uest 2as improper and as a result told t3e DoD official t3at t3ey B3ad ot3er plans.C (3e DoD official told t3em to Bcancel t3em.C (3e contractors e+entually too: t3e ac>uaintance out t3at e+enin5 for se+eral 3ours. After an in+esti5ation8 it 2as determined t3at t3e DoD official 3ad acted in +iolation of / C-* 203/.40" y utiliAin5 contractors; time improperly. Eis super+isor counseled 3im and t3e proper reim ursements 2ere made.


6eterans Affairs Supervisors Push for &riends to be )ired A re+ie2 found in t2o instances t3at Department of )eterans Affairs medical center super+isors recommended t3e 3irin5 of close personal friends 2it3out di+ul5in5 t3e relations3ip to 3uman resources staff mem ers. (3e re+ie2 team recommended t3at disciplinary action e ta:en.

'nterior "fficia# A#tered Reports and ,ea ed Confidentia# 'nformation (3e Interior Department;s Inspector General found t3at a senior official 3ad repeatedly altered scientific field reports to lessen t3e protections for imperiled species and ease t3e impact on lando2ners. (3e in+esti5ation also re+ealed t3e official8 23o 2or:s in -is3 and 9ildlife Ser+ices8 misused 3er position y disclosin5 confidential information to pri+ate 5roups see:in5 to affect policy decisions. (3e Inspector General referred t3e case to t3e Department Eead for Bpotential administrati+e action.C $(3e Seattle (imes8 6arc3 308 2004.

Bribery !" #$S$C$ % &'!(Type )iolations*
&raud3 Conspiracy3 and Bribery 7 "h My5 Criminal c3ar5es put a computer contractor out of usiness and landed 5o+ernment employees in =ail. (2o ci+ilian employees at a 6ilitary Depot8 alon5 2it3 t3e contractor;s 5o+ernment sales mana5er8 2ere con+icted on +arious conspiracy and ri ery c3ar5es for defraudin5 t3e U.S. Go+ernment under multiple contracts in return for cas3 and merc3andise. (3e employees 2ere part of a sc3eme in 23ic3 t3ey used 5o+ernment funds to purc3ase laptops and recycled computer components from t3e contractor;s sales mana5er at inflated prices8 and split t3e o+erc3ar5ed amounts amon5 t3emsel+es. One employee recei+ed prison time8 t3ree years pro ation8 and 2as ordered to pay D308000 in restitution. (3e ot3er employee 2as sentenced to 22 mont3s in =ail8 t3ree years of pro ation8 and ordered to pay D1%8000. (3e sales mana5er recei+ed a similar sentence. (3e computer contractor 2as indicted on nine felony counts and su =ected to asset forfeiture of appro<imately D4.% million. (3e c3ar5es 2ere later 2it3dra2n after t3e company filed for an:ruptcy. (3e in+esti5ation also resulted 10

in fi+e ot3er indi+iduals c3ar5ed 2it3 prison time and ordered to pay a com ined D1248000 in restitution. "ne thin! #eads to another A misuse of 5o+ernment resources in+esti5ation 3it une<pected pay dirt 23en it unco+ered a contractor procurement and ri ery sc3eme. In+esti5ators respondin5 to a 3otline tip su stantiated a misuse of funds claim 23en t3ey found a ci+ilian utilities mana5er at a 6ilitary command rented a 3/0'ton crane to mo+e electrical 5enerators se+en days efore it 2as neededI costin5 t3e 5o+ernment D3/8000. (3e in+esti5ation also unco+ered a complicated contract id ri55in58 ri ery and :ic: ac: operation in+ol+in5 t3e utilities mana5er and a Ser+ice contractor. (3e mana5er manipulated and sole' sourced 2or: to t3e contractorI reportedly to dri+e usiness to t3e contractor in order to transition to a =o 2it3 t3em after 3is 5o+ernment =o . (3e mana5er used 5o+ernment funds to purc3ase e<pensi+e tools8 plasma ()s8 and laptop computers t3at turned up missin5. Ee also allo2ed t3e contractor to use 5o+ernment personnel8 tools8 and e>uipment to do t3e contractor;s 2or:. Ee su mitted false in+oices on e3alf of t3e contractor8 resultin5 in a D1.3 million loss to t3e 5o+ernment. As a result of a plea deal for cooperation in additional procurement in+esti5ations8 t3e mana5er 2as sentenced to 1/ mont3s in prison and de arred from 5o+ernment contractin5 for four years. (3is in+esti5ation touc3ed off fi+e separate criminal in+esti5ations a5ainst ot3er contractors in t3at 6ilitary Ser+ice re5ardin5 alle5ations of id ri55in5. Bribery and &raud ,ands Pro!ram Mana!er in 4ai# A !ro5ram 6ana5er $!6. t3at 2as responsi le for administerin5 computer contracts recei+ed :ic: ac:s and ran 3is o2n usiness defraudin5 t3e Go+ernment. (3e !6 ne5otiated a deal 2it3 a contractor t3at raised t3e price of computer stora5e e>uipment y D/00 a unit. (3e increase 2as for Badditional ser+icesC t3at 2ere supposedly needed to resol+e a defect in t3e e>uipment. An in+esti5ation determined t3at t3ese ser+ices 2ere unnecessary8 and t3at t3e D/00 2as paid to a s3ell company o2ned y t3e !6;s 2ife.


(3e D/00 per unit 2as =ust t3e start. Ee also used a usiness t3at 3e controlled to purc3ase 5eneric e>uipment and resell it to t3e Go+ernment as a name rand product far a o+e mar:et rate. (3ese endea+ors pro+ed to e >uite lucrati+e8 and t3e !6 profited a out D3.2 million on t3e sc3emes. (3e profit 2as s3ort'li+ed8 3o2e+er8 as t3e !6 2as indicted for ri ery and fraud. Ee 2as sentenced to fi+e years in prison8 re>uired to repay t3e D3.2 million and c3ar5ed a D28"00 fine. Contractin! "fficia# in Af!hanistan P#eads Gui#ty to Bribery A Go+ernment employee at #a5ram Airfield8 pled 5uilty to acceptin5 ri es in e<c3an5e for a2ardin5 Go+ernment contracts. (3e employee 2as responsi le for e+aluatin5 truc:in5 contractors and assi5nin5 eac3 contractor days of 2or: eac3 mont3 ased on t3eir performance. (3e employee 2as approac3ed y a contractor and ultimately accepted a 2ireless telep3one and D208000 a mont3 in e<c3an5e for assi5nin5 an e<tra day of 2or: eac3 mont3 to t3at contractor. Ee also made a similar deal 2it3 anot3er contractor for D1/8000 a mont3. In all8 t3e employee recei+ed a out D%48000. Ee 2as sentenced to forty mont3s in prison and t3ree years of super+ised release. Ma8or 9ron!doin! A retired Army 6a=or8 C3ristop3er E. 6urray8 pled 5uilty to c3ar5es of ri ery and ma:in5 a false statement arisin5 from 3is acti+ities at Camp Arif=an8 Ju2ait. In 200/ and 20008 23ile ser+in5 as a contractin5 specialist at Camp Ari=an8 6urray recei+ed appro<imately D22/8000 in ri es from DOD contractors. In return8 3e recommended t3e a2ard of contracts for +arious 5oods and ser+ices. 6urray also admitted t3at 3e recei+ed an additional D208000 in ri es from a DOD contractor in e<c3an5e for t3e a2ard of a construction contract. 6urray;s misconduct continued as 3e made false statements to federal a5ents in+esti5atin5 3is conduct. 6urray;s sentencin5 is pendin58 ut t3e ma<imum penalty for eac3 of four ri ery counts is 1/ years in prison and a D2/08000 fine. (3e ma<imum penalty for ma:in5 a false statement is fi+e years in prison and a D2/08000 fine.


In anot3er ri ery case at Camp Arif=an8 anot3er Army 6a=or8 James 6omon8 Jr.8 accepted cas3 ri es from fi+e DOD contractin5 firms t3at supplied ottled 2ater and ot3er 5oods and ser+ices to ases in Ju2ait. 6omon8 a contractin5 officer at t3e camp8 a2arded contracts and #lan:et !urc3ase A5reement calls to t3ose contractors8 recei+in5 D/.% million as payment for 3is actions. 6omon pled 5uilty to ri ery and conspiracy to commit ri ery. Eis sentencin5 is pendin58 ut8 li:e 6urray8 6omon faces up to 1/ years in prison and a D2/08000 fine for eac3 ri ery count8 as 2ell as fi+e years in prison for t3e conspiracy count. 6omon 3as also a5reed to pay D/.% million in restitution. 'nhibitin! 6ictory A 6a=or in t3e U.S. Army *eser+e pled 5uilty to conspiracy and ri ery c3ar5es related to DOD contracts at Camp )ictory8 Ira>. Accordin5 to t3e c3ar5in5 document8 (3eresa Jeanne #a:er recei+ed money and ot3er items8 includin5 a Earley Da+idson motorcycle8 from a defense contractor8 *aman Corporation8 and a former employee of anot3er defense contractor8 1lie Samir C3idiac. In return8 #a:er con+eyed sensiti+e information and fraudulently a2arded contracts to t3e contractor. #a:er also canceled contracts t3at 2ere a2arded to t3ird party contractors and fraudulently re'a2arded t3em to C3idiac. #a:er;s sentencin5 is pendin58 ut t3e ma<imum penalty for eac3 of #a:er;s t2o ri ery counts is 1/ years in prison and t3e 5reater of a D2/08000 fine and t3ree times t3e monetary e>ui+alent of t3e t3in5 of +alue recei+ed. #a:er 2as also c3ar5ed 2it3 t2o counts of conspiracy. 1ac3 count comes 2it3 a ma<imum penalty of fi+e years in prison and a D2/08000 fine. Courtin! $roub#e A former official of t3e U.S. (a< Court8 -red -ernando (im ol Jr.8 2as sentenced to 1% mont3s in prison and t3ree years of super+ised release in connection 2it3 a ri ery conspiracy. (im ol 2as a facilities ser+ices officer in t3e -acilities 6ana5ement Section of t3e U.S. (a< Court. (im ol 2as responsi le for assistin5 in t3e a2ard of contracts to contractors 23o pro+ided maintenance8 construction8 and ot3er related ser+ice to t3e Court. (im ol admitted to solicitin5 and acceptin5 o+er D128000 from a 5o+ernment contractor in e<c3an5e for ri55in5 t3e a2ard of at least si< inflated contracts. As part


of a plea a5reement and y order of t3e court8 (im ol also a5reed to pay restitution of D2"81"3. Moore Misconduct -irst Kieutenant *o ert 6oore $*et.. a5reed to pay D1208000 in restitution for acceptin5 money from contractors in e<c3an5e for t3e a2ard of DOD contracts. In addition to pleadin5 5uilty to ri ery for t3e a2ard of contracts at #a5ram Airfield8 Af53anistan8 6oore pled 5uilty to conspiracy8 admittin5 to falsifyin5 t3e num er of un:ers and arriers deli+ered at #a5ram8 23ic3 resulted in DOD payin5 for un:ers and arriers t3at 2ere ne+er recei+ed. 6oore also admitted falsifyin5 dama5e reports for leased +e3icles8 causin5 DOD to pay for repairs not performed. (2o ot3er officials8 C3ristop3er !. 9est8 an Army 6a=or8 and !atric: 9. #oyd8 an Air -orce 6aster Ser5eant8 li:e2ise pled 5uilty to ri ery and conspiracy for related conduct. (3e t2o a5reed to pay D/008000 and D13080008 respecti+ely8 in restitution to DOD. Department %mp#oyee 9or s to the Pub#ic Detriment A ci+ilian 1n5ineerin5 (ec3nician assi5ned to t3e !u lic 9or:s Department at ,a+al Air Station8 Corpus C3risti8 (L recommended Contract Construction and -ence Co. for a D1/38000 contract. #ut e3ind t3e scenes8 t3e company 3ad first a5reed to pay t3e Go+ernment employee D/8000 in e<c3an5e for t3e recommendation8 per t3e employee;s re>uest. (3e tec3nician admitted to acceptin5 t3e ri e in return for 3is official action t3at resulted in t3e contract a2ard. (3e ,a+y de arred t3e ci+ilian employee for t3ree years8 and 3e left -ederal ser+ice. 6A %mp#oyee %arns a :;-Month Stay in the S#ammer for Corruption A Department of )eterans Affairs employee 2as cau53t demandin5 and recei+in5 :ic: ac:s from a contractor doin5 usiness 2it3 3er a5ency. (3e )A employee and t3e contractor a5reed t3at t3e employee 2ould recommend t3e contractor;s ser+ices to 3er a5ency8 and in return t3e contractor 2ould 5i+e t3e employee :ic: ac:s from t3e inflated prices it c3ar5ed t3e 5o+ernment. In all8 t3e employee recei+ed D11/8000 in :ic: ac:s8 alt3ou53 t3e sc3eme ended up costin5 t3e 5o+ernment muc3 moreF et2een D"008000 1"

and D1 million. On a side note8 t3e )A employee 2as also indicted for conductin5 post' 5o+ernment employment ne5otiations 2it3 a company s3e 2as doin5 usiness 2it3 in 3er 5o+ernment capacity. Acceptin! Gifts from 6endor Resu#ts in <13=== &ine A U.S. !ostal Ser+ice $US!S. employee 23o accepted free tee time 5olf 5ames from a +endor 3ad to e<plain 3is actions in -ederal court after a tipster informed in+esti5ators. Aut3orities learned t3at t3e employee8 23o 2as t3e mana5er of Deli+ery )e3icle Operations8 3ad played 5olf 2it3 a +endor 23o 2as in+ol+ed in a D100 million procurement 2it3 US!S. On t3at occasion8 t3e employee 3ad accepted payment for 3is 5olf fees and 3is dinner. In+esti5ators disco+ered t3at o+er t3e course of t3e pre+ious year8 t3e employee 3ad also accepted appro<imately D28000 in non'cas3 items $includin5 meals and 5olf fees. from t3e +endor. (3e employee pled 5uilty to ri ery8 and 2as sentenced to one year unsuper+ised pro ation and a D18000 fine. -or t3is employee8 5olf turned into a +ery e<pensi+e sport. %>chan!in! Contract for Computer %arns Prison $ime The Facts+ (3e director of *espiratory Care at a )eterans Affairs $)A. 3ospital in S3re+eport8 Kouisiana8 a5reed to pus3 t3rou53 a )A contract for a +endor8 if t3e +endor supplied 3er 2it3 a laptop computer. (3e )A !olice and Security Ser+ice8 as t3ey are 2ont to do8 in+esti5ated and disco+ered t3is quid pro quo. (3e director 2as cau53t and pleaded 5uilty to solicitin5 and recei+in5 ille5al 5ifts. S3e 2as sentenced to / mont3s in prison8 to e follo2ed y 4 mont3s of 3ome confinement8 and ordered to pay restitution of D70". $SourceM Federal Ethics Report8 -e . 2001.. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 201$c.$1.$#. $2003. for ids any pu lic official from acceptin5 anyt3in5 of +alue in e<c3an5e for an official act to e performed8 or ecause of any official act already performed. )iolations of t3is la2 can merit fines8 imprisonment for up to 2 years8 or ot3. As in! for a Bribe ? )ave /ou ,ost /our Mind@


The Facts+ An employee at t3e Defense 6e5aCenter at Jelly Air -orce #ase8 (e<as8 2as 2or:in5 as a mem er of a source e+aluation committee re+ie2in5 contract proposals for a D/ million contract 23en 3e struc: on t3is in5enious ideaM As: one of t3e potential contractors for a ri e in e<c3an5e for 3is appro+al of t3e contractor;s proposalO (3e contractor apparently didn;t t3in: t3at t3is 2as suc3 a 5ood idea8 3o2e+er. It contacted t3e Defense Criminal In+esti5ati+e Ser+ice8 23ic3 in+esti5ated t3e case alon5 2it3 t3e Air -orce. (3e in+esti5ation included usin5 an underco+er a5ent8 paradin5 as t3e contractor;s representati+e8 payin5 t3e employee t3e ri e. Ea+in5 een cau53t 2it3 3is 3and in t3e coo:ie =ar8 t3e employee pleaded 5uilty to acceptin5 a ri e and 2as sentenced to one year of pro ation and ordered to participate in a mental 3ealt3 pro5ram Fper3aps an appropriate remedy for 23at pro+ed to e a lame' rained sc3eme. $SourceM Federal Ethics Report8 -e . 2001.. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 201$ .$2.$A. $2003. ars pu lic officials and any persons selected to e pu lic officials from see:in5 anyt3in5 of +alue in return for B ein5 influenced . . . in t3e performance of any official act.C (3e penalty for +iolatin5 t3is la2 can include fines8 imprisonment for up to 1/ years8 or ot38 alon5 2it3 possi le dis>ualification from 3oldin5 Bany office of 3onor8 trust8 or profitC 2it3 t3e United States Go+ernment. Don*t Be $oo Gracious a Gift-Getter 5 The Facts+ An employee of t3e 6aritime Administration $6A*AD.8 a di+ision of t3e Department of (ransportation8 o+ersa2 contracts for s3ip repairs. Ee also sa2 a contractor pro+idin5 3im 2it3 nice 5ifts to re2ard 3is 2or:Fincludin5 a lar5e'screen () and a )C*. 93at could e 2ron5 2it3 t3atP !lenty8 accordin5 to t3e U.S. Attorney8 23o deli+ered to t3is 5racious 5ift'5etter a four'mont3 prison sentence8 to e follo2ed y one year of pro ation8 and an order for restitution in t3e amount of D48"00. (3e ot3er 5ifts t3e employee could 3a+e refusedI t3ese 3e 2as compelled to ta:e. $SourceM Federal Ethics Report8 -e . 2001.. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 201$c.$1.$#. $2003. for ids any pu lic official from acceptin5 anyt3in5 of +alue in e<c3an5e for an official act8 or 5i+en for an official act


already ta:en. A +iolation of t3is la2 can result in fines8 imprisonment for up to 2 years8 or ot3. Aot So Much of a Bri!ht Bu#b 5 The Facts+ A former super+isor in t3e #ureau of Indian Affairs used a Go+ernment'issue credit card to purc3ase e<cessi+e >uantities of o+erpriced li53t ul s from a ,ort3 Da:ota company. In e<c3an5e for 3is act as a poor s3opper8 3e accepted D218000 in ri es. -or 3is sa++y purc3asin58 3e 2as sentenced to one year and nine mont3s in prison and ordered to pay D428000 in restitution. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 201$ . $2003. for ids -ederal employees from $amon5 ot3er t3in5s. see:in5 or recei+in5 anyt3in5 of +alue in return for ein5 influenced in t3e performance of an official act or to commit or to assist t3e commission of any fraud a5ainst t3e United States. It mandates fines8 imprisonment for up to 1/ years8 or ot38 alon5 2it3 dis>ualification from 3oldin5 Bany office of 3onor8 trust8 or profit under t3e United States.C &AA %mp#oyee Sentenced for Bribery A former employee of t3e -ederal A+iation Administration $-AA. 2as con+icted of ri ery. In carryin5 out 3is primary responsi ility of re+ie2in5 and processin5 applications for -AA'issued pilot certificates8 t3e employee accepted ri es of D28000 and an all'e<pense paid trip to Jorea in e<c3an5e for preferential treatment of applications for Jorean pilots from t3e fli53t sc3ool8 9in5s O+er America. (3e employee 2as sentenced to pay a D28000 fine and ser+e four mont3s in prison8 follo2ed y t3ree years pro ation for +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 201$ .$2.. #ri ery occurs 23en a pu lic official see:s or accepts anyt3in5 of +alue in return for ein5 influenced in t3e performance of an official act. Socia# Security Administration %mp#oyee0s Bribery Conspiracy %nds in Prison A Social Security Administration employee and 3er 3us and 2ere con+icted for solicitin5 ri es from indi+iduals see:in5 Social Security enefits for t3emsel+es or family mem ers. (3e couple approac3ed citiAens 23o 2ere 3a+in5 difficulty >ualifyin5


for Supplemental Social Security enefits. (3ey 2ould offer to arran5e to 3a+e enefits reinstated or to complete paper2or: for t3e indi+idual. After2ards8 t3ey demanded payment for t3eir ser+ices. At t3eir 1774 trial in Kouisiana8 a =ud5e ordered t3e employee to "0 mont3s imprisonment follo2ed y t3ree years pro ation. (3e employeeGs 3us and recei+ed 30 mont3s imprisonment follo2ed y t3ree years pro ation. (3ey eac3 paid ac: D238%07.33. (3e offense of ri ery occurs 23en a pu lic official see:s or accepts anyt3in5 of +alue in return for ein5 influenced in t3e performance of an official act. Aavy %mp#oyee Sentenced for Gratuity "ffense A ,a+y electrical foreman 2as sentenced for acceptin5 D78300 in ille5al 5ratuities from a Go+ernment contractor. (3e foreman 2as con+icted of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 201 and 2as sentenced to 30 mont3s pro ation and a D108000 fine. (3e electrical foreman assisted a Go+ernment contractor in o tainin5 a contract 2it3 t3e ,a+al Air 9arfare Center $,A9C.. (3e foreman 3ad aut3ority o+er certain ,a+y contracts relatin5 to ,A9C ase maintenance. Con!ressiona# Aide Sentenced for Corrupt Activities A former staff assistant to a U.S. Con5ressman 2as con+icted of t2o counts of acceptin5 5ratuities $1% U.S.C. 201. and one count of de+isin5 and carryin5 out a sc3eme to defraud t3e Go+ernment $1% U.S.C. 13"1.. (3e aide 2as sentenced to 1% mont3s imprisonment on eac3 count follo2ed y t2o years pro ation. (3e staff assistant accepted D38400 for assistin5 indi+iduals in o tainin5 permanent residency status y sendin5 endorsements on t3e Con5ressmanGs letter3ead to t3e Immi5ration and ,aturaliAation Ser+ice $I,S.. (3e aide 2as also in+ol+ed in a sc3eme to defraud aliens see:in5 permanent residency. (3e aide told t3e aliens t3at if t3ey 2ere mem ers in t3e Se+ent3 Day Ad+entist C3urc38 t3ey 2ould e eli5i le for permanent resident status e+en t3ou53 t3e I,S Special *eli5ious Immi5rant 9or: !ro5ram co+ers only c3urc3 2or:ers and t3eir immediate families 23o are employed y a reli5ious or5aniAation. (3e aliens


2ere informed t3at for a fee8 t3e aide 2ould assist t3em in applyin5 2it3 t3e I,S. (3e aide recei+ed appro<imately D"008000 from 18000 aliens. )-D "fficia# and Rea#tor 'mprisoned for Bribery Scheme A former official at t3e U.S. Department of Eousin5 and Ur an De+elopment $EUD. 2as sentenced for 3is role in a ri ery sc3eme in+ol+in5 EUD properties. (3e former official 2as paid ri es y a realtor 23o in e<c3an5e 2as sold EUD properties at lo2er t3an t3eir appraised +alues. (3e ri es totaled o+er D%080008 includin5 a #69 automo ile. In return t3e EUD official sold t3e realtor 20 EUD properties at one't3ird of t3eir appraised +alue. (3e realtor t3en resold t3e properties at t3eir full mar:et +alue. In addition to ot3er c3ar5es8 ot3 t3e EUD official and t3e realtor plead 5uilty to one count of 1% U.S.C. 201 eac3. (3e EUD official 2as sentenced to a 2"'mont3 prison term follo2ed y 3 years pro ation and 2as ordered to pay D1." million in restitution. (3e realtor 2as sentenced to a 24'mont3 prison term follo2ed y 3 years pro ation and 2as also ordered to pay D1." million in restitution. -nited States Customs Service Specia# A!ent $a es 'nformant Payoff &unds #e5innin5 in June 17%48 t3e a5ent 2or:ed 2it3 an informant 23o pro+ided assistance to t3e Customs Ser+ice in criminal in+esti5ations. One of t3e a5ent;s duties 2as to monitor and assess t3e 2or: of t3e informant. Durin5 a period of se+eral years8 t3e informant recei+ed a num er of payments from t3e Customs Ser+ice as compensation for 3is ser+ices as informant. On one or more occasions8 t3e informant e<pressed 5ratitude for t3e a5ent;s assistance y o ser+in5 t3at ot3 3e and t3e a5ent 3ad en5a5ed in 3ard 2or: for 23ic3 t3e informant 2ould recei+e su stantial compensation8 ut for 23ic3 t3e a5ent only 2ould recei+e 3is salary. (3e informant offered to s3are 2it3 t3e a5ent a portion of 3is earnin5s from t3e Customs Ser+ice. In April 17728 t3e a5ent nominated t3e informant for a lar5e payment8 23ic3 represented a portion of t3e +alue of certain assets forfeited as a result of information pro+ided y t3e informant. (3e a5ent t3en initiated a telep3one con+ersation 2it3 t3e informant in 23ic3 3e as:ed t3e informant for money. Durin5 Au5ust 17728 t3e informant 2ent to San -rancisco to


recei+e t3e payment. (3e a5ent personally 5a+e t3e informant a United States (reasury c3ec: in t3e amount of D1108%4/. 93ile ridin5 in a Go+ernment'o2ned +e3icle8 t3e informant attempted to 3and t3e a5ent an en+elope 2it3 D"8000 in cas3. (3e a5ent responded t3at t3e informant s3ould drop t3e en+elope in t3e car ecause 3e could not accept t3e cas3 directly. (3e informant left t3e money in t3e car and t3e a5ent reco+ered it. (3e a5ent pled 5uilty pursuant to a plea a5reement to a c3ar5e of a criminal +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 2078 ille5al supplementation of salary. Under t3e plea a5reement8 t3e a5ent a5reed to t3e imposition of a fine of D"8000 y t3e Court8 to not see: employment 2it3 any -ederal8 state8 or local la2 enforcement A5ency8 and to pay a special assessment of D2/. In e<c3an5e for t3ese a5reements8 t3e United States a5reed to mo+e to dismiss t3e Indictment c3ar5in5 t3e a5ent 2it3 a +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 201$c. $1.$#. and not to prosecute 3im for any ot3er criminal offense relatin5 to 3is receipt of D"8000 from t3e informant. Gratuity Accepted 'n %>chan!e for 'mmi!ration Services A pastor su mitted an application for permanent residence to t3e United States Department of Justice8 Immi5ration and ,aturaliAation Ser+ice $I,S.. (3e Sout3eastern Conference of Se+ent3'Day Ad+entists $Sout3eastern Conference. 2anted t3e pastor to minister to t2o of its con5re5ations in 6iami. On Au5ust 148 17708 a Con5ressman sent a letter to I,S on e3alf of t3e pastor. On 6ay 318 17718 a second letter from t3e Con5ressman8 t3is time si5ned y t3e pastor as 2ell8 2as sent to I,S. #ot3 letters 2ere 2ritten on Con5ressional stationery. On Au5ust 218 17718 t3e pastor;s application for permanent residence 2as appro+ed. On July %8 17738 t3e Con5ressional staffer 23o or5aniAed t3e sc3eme recei+ed a D/00 5ratuity from t3e Sout3eastern Conference for 3er efforts on e3alf of t3e pastor. (3e staffer used t3e same sc3eme to assist anot3er pastor in o tainin5 permanent residence so t3at 3e could ser+e as minister for t2o of t3e Sout3eastern ConferenceGs con5re5ations. (3e Con5ressman 2rote to I,S on July 208 17738 on e3alf of t3e second pastor and t3e Sout3eastern Conference. (3e staffer assisted t3e second pastor in 3is dealin5s 2it3 I,S. On Au5ust 38 17738 I,S appro+ed t3e pastor;s petition for residence and8 on -e ruary 38 177"8 t3e staffer recei+ed a D/00


5ratuity from t3e Sout3eastern Conference for 3er efforts on e3alf of t3e pastor. On April 208 177"8 anot3er forei5n national paid t3e staffer D28400 for assistin5 3er in applyin5 for permanent residence. (3e staffer su mitted a petition to I,S on t3e person;s e3alf and si5ned t3e application as t3e preparer. Alt3ou53 t3e application contained a si5nature8 23ic3 purported to e t3at of t3e staffer8 s3e claimed t3at it 2as not 3er si5nature and t3at s3e did not see t3e application prior to its su mission. (3e staffer :ne2 t3at t3e forei5n national 2as not eli5i le to ecome a permanent resident of t3e U.S. ut fraudulently misrepresented to 3er t3at s3e 2as eli5i le in order to induce 3er to utiliAe t3e staffer;s ser+ices. (3e staffer 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 t2o counts of acceptin5 5ratuities for official acts performed8 in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 201$c.$1.$#. and :no2in5ly ma:in5 a material false 2ritin5 and presentin5 it to I,S8 in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 1001. S3e 2as also c3ar5ed 2it3 acceptin5 compensation for ser+ices pro+ided in relation to matters in 23ic3 t3e United States 3as a direct and su stantial interest8 in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 203$a.$1.8 and mail fraud8 in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 13"1. (3e staffer pled 5uilty to t3e fi+e'count indictment on Septem er 308 17708 and 2as sentenced to 1% mont3s of incarceration on April 1%8 1774. Mu#tip#e Char!es Brou!ht A!ainst Air &orce "fficer and Accomp#ice for Soft+are Scheme An Air -orce officer 2as dis5runtled after recei+in5 notification t3at 3e 2ould not e promoted and 2as soon to e disc3ar5ed 2it3out a retirement annuity. Ee conspired 2it3 a ase 2are3ouse super+isor $23ile also see:in5 employment 2it3 3im. to unla2fully transfer superseded soft2are from t3e 6acDill A-# 2are3ouse 3e super+ised to a pri+ate company for su se>uent sale. Ee arran5ed 2it3 t3e super+isor to remo+e soft2are called Oracle (ools and Data ase $Oracle.. (3e Air -orce officer o tained possession of o+er 70 o<es of Oracle soft2are y ma:in5 false statements in 2ritin5 in an effort to 5ain aut3oriAation from 3is superiors to 3a+e t3e soft2are destroyed in place. Destruction of superseded soft2are 2as t3e responsi ility of t3e Go+ernment accordin5 to its a5reements 2it3 soft2are contractors. (3e Air -orce officer 2or:ed under t3e pretense t3at t3e Oracle soft2are 2as ein5 turned o+er to a company for destruction.


Instead8 t3e officer pro+ided t3e Oracle soft2are to a mo+in5 company t3at transported t3e o<es from 6acDill to a commercial stora5e facility rented y t3e 2are3ouse super+isor. Once in possession of t3e soft2are8 3e searc3ed for uyers of t3e soft2are. Ori5inally8 t3e U.S. Central Command 3ad paid t3e Go+ernment ul: rate of D478000 for t3e Oracle soft2are in 1771. On t3e 5ray mar:et8 t3is soft2are 2as +alued et2een D3/8000 and D1008000. (3e officer 2as con+icted of a +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20% $2or:in5 on a pro=ect t3at affected a company in 23ic3 3e 3ad a financial interest.8 23ile 3is co'defendant8 t3e 2are3ouse super+isor8 2as con+icted of +iolations of 1% U.S.C. 201$ .$1.8 1% U.S.C. 0"1 $t3eft of Go+ernment property. and 1% U.S.C. 341 $conspiracy.. (3e officer 2as sentenced to 1 year pro ation and 1/0 3ours community ser+ice. (3e 2are3ouse super+isor 2as imprisoned for 24 mont3s 2it3 super+ised release for 3 years. State Department Re!iona# Security "fficer BRS"C at the American %mbassy in Santo Domin!o3 Dominican Repub#ic Drives Automobi#e Scheme (3e *SO;s primary duties included o+erseein5 a small force of U.S. 6arines and a lar5er force of security 5uards. 93ile t3e *SO 3ad no aut3ority to enter into procurement transactions on t3e Go+ernmentGs e3alf8 3e did8 in t2o separate transactions8 en5ineer t3e purc3ase of ei53t +e3icles for t3e security company and some pri+ate citiAens. (3e security company;s contract 2it3 t3e Go+ernment re>uired t3at it use t3ree +e3icles for patrols. (3ese +e3icles 2ere purc3ased in t3e United States and 2ere free from su stantial import duties 23en deli+ered to t3e Dominican *epu lic y +irtue of applications y t3e United States 1m assy for He<onerationsH from t3e duties. 1<onerations are 5i+en for property to e used y forei5n missions. 9it3 respect to t3e purc3ase of t3e first four +e3icles8 t3e *SO 2as 5i+en D/08000 y t3e security company. (3e *SO carried at least D378000 in cas3 to 6iami8 23ic3 3e ille5ally failed to disclose to customs officials8 and purc3ased " +e3icles for D378000. (3e *SO :ept t3e remainin5 D118000. Kater8 23en t3e *SO purc3ased four +e3icles for indi+iduals8 3e 2as 5i+en D//8000 in cas3. Ee returned to 6iami 2it3 at least D3/8000 in cas38 23ic3 a5ain 3e failed to report to Customs8 and paid D3/8000 for four +e3icles 23ic3 2ere sent to Santo Domin5o and He<oneratedH from import duty after t3e *SO encoura5ed t3e e<oneration


process and initiated some of t3e paper2or: t3rou53 an em assy employee. (3e *SO retained t3e unspent D208000 difference et2een t3e purc3ase amount and t3e amount 3e 3ad een 5i+en to purc3ase t3e cars. (3e security company also 2as re>uired to pro+ide 2eapons for its security force. (3e *SO arran5ed to purc3ase t3e 2eapons for t3e security company y first attemptin5 to 3a+e certain firearm companies or retailers s3ip t3e 2eapons to t3e Dominican *epu lic8 not2it3standin5 t3e fact t3at t3e *SO did not 3a+e a license to e<port t3e 2eapons. (3ese companies refused to sell t3e 2eapons to t3e *SO. Su se>uently8 3e purc3ased t3e 2eapons from a #altimore 5un s3op after usin5 1m assy letter3ead and representin5 t3at 3e 2as aut3oriAed to purc3ase 2eapons for t3e State Department. (3e 5un s3op refused to s3ip t3e 2eapons to t3e *SO. (3e *SO t3en 2ent to #altimore and personally purc3ased t3e 2eapons and sent t3em in a lead'lined diplomatic o< to t3e Dominican *epu lic. (3e *SO 5a+e most of t3e 2eapons to t3e security company8 ut sold some e<tras t3at 3e purc3ased to citiAens of t3e Dominican *epu lic at considera le profit. Ee also :ept for 3imself t3e difference of D2000 et2een t3e amount t3at t3e security company 3ad 5i+en 3im to purc3ase t3e 5uns and t3e amount t3at t3e 5un purc3ase 3ad cost 3im. (3e *SO 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 ma:in5 false statements to a firearms dealer8 recei+in5 somet3in5 of +alue for performance of an official act in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 2018 participatin5 as a Go+ernment employee in a transaction in 23ic3 3e 3ad a financial interest in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20%8 stealin5 ammunition 2it3 a +alue in e<cess of D100 from t3e United States8 e<portin5 firearms 2it3out a license8 transportin5 monetary instruments into t3e United States for t3e purpose of carryin5 on a +iolation of t3e Arms Control 1<port Act8 and failin5 to ma:e a true report to t3e Customs Ser+ice 23en carryin5 D108000 or more into t3e United States. (3e =ury con+icted t3e *SO on t3e 201 count and t3e count of t3e indictment pertainin5 to e<portin5 firearms 2it3out a license. Posta# %mp#oyee Demanded Payoffs to De#iver Benefit Chec s Ea+in5 een tipped off t3at a letter carrier 2as demandin5 money from people on 3is route in e<c3an5e for deli+ery of 5eneral assistance c3ec:s8 t3e !ostal Ser+ice esta lis3ed sur+eillance and taped a con+ersation in 23ic3 t3e letter carrier su55ested t3at t3e customer ma:e a Hone'timeH payment of D1/ to ensure deli+ery of 3er c3ec:s.


(3e letter carrier accepted t3e payment8 23ic3 3ad een mar:ed in ad+ance of its transfer. (3e letter carrier 2as indicted under 1% U.S.C. 201$c.$1.$#. for acceptin5 money in e<c3an5e for performin5 an official duty. After plea ne5otiations8 3e pled 5uilty to a +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 2078 for acceptin5 compensation for official duties from a source ot3er t3an t3e Go+ernment. Ee 2as sentenced to t3ree yearsG pro ation8 2it3 00 days at a community treatment center.

%mp#oyee Convicted for Steerin! Contracts to Supp#ier A Go+ernment tec3nician and a co'2or:er 2ent to a manufacturer and offered to ensure t3at t3e manufacturer recei+ed A5ency contracts in return for a 3efty Hfinders fee.H (3e manufacturer8 unfortunately for t3ese enterprisin5 employees8 2ent to t3e -#I8 23ic3 set up a stin5 operation and arrested t3e tec3nician. At trial8 t3e tec3nician8 e+er so cle+er8 ar5ued t3at 3e could not e found 5uilty of ri ery ecause 3e 2as not a contractin5 officer8 and t3erefore did not 3a+e t3e aut3ority to a2ard contracts to t3e manufacturer. (3e court re=ected t3is ar5ument after listenin5 to testimony on t3e role of tec3nicians as far as pro+idin5 e<pert information t3at contractin5 officers rely upon8 and up3eld t3e con+iction of t3e tec3nician. (3e offense of ri ery occurs 23en a pu lic official see:s or accepts anyt3in5 of +alue in return for ein5 influenced in t3e performance of an official act. Suc3 acts include 5i+in5 ad+ice8 ma:in5 recommendations8 and conductin5 in+esti5ations as 2ell as ma:in5 decisions. P#ease Ca## Me .Doctor1 'nmate One enterprisin5 -ederal employee cut a deal 2it3 a local uni+ersity ' t3ey 5a+e 3im an 3onorary !3.D. in pu lic administration in return for 3is si5nin5 a me5a' uc: 5rant for t3e uni+ersity. $O +iously8 3e 3ad 5reat e<pertise in !u lic Administration.. (3e offense of ri ery occurs 23en a pu lic official see:s or accepts anyt3in5 of +alue $suc3 as an 3onorary de5ree. in return for ein5 influenced in t3e performance of an official act.


A!ricu#ture %mp#oyee Sou!ht for Approvin! &raudu#ent ,oans A former employee of t3e Department of A5riculture is 2anted for recruitin5 3is friends to fraudulently apply for farm loans and t3en 5i+in5 3im money in e<c3an5e for appro+in5 t3e loans. (3e former employee 3elped 3is non'farmer co'conspirators to fill out t3e re>uired forms 2it3 t3e information re>uired for appro+al. Under t3is sc3eme8 t3e former employee appro+ed loans totalin5 D1.% million. Ee collected D3"08000 for 3imself. (3e former employee 3as een c3ar5ed 2it3 7% counts includin5 /0 for ri ery. Seven A!ricu#ture 'nspectors Sentenced for Bribery Scheme Se+en U.S. Dept. of A5riculture fruit and +e5eta le inspectors 2ere con+icted of operatin5 a sc3eme in 23ic3 t3ey recei+ed cas3 payments from fruit and +e5eta le 23olesalers in return for t3e inspectors assi5nin5 lo2er 5rades to t3eir produce. (3e lo2er 5rade meant t3at t3e 23olesaler could pay t3e 5ro2er a lo2er price for t3e produce and t3en re'sell it at t3e 3i53er 5rade. All pled 5uilty to one count of ri ery eac3. #ri ery occurs 23en a pu lic official see:s or accepts anyt3in5 of +alue $suc3 as cas3. in return for ein5 influenced in t3e performance of an official act $suc3 as assi5nin5 produce 5rades.. 'AS 'nspector Accepts Bribes A former Immi5ration and ,aturaliAation Ser+ice inspector 2as sentenced for acceptin5 ri es in return for allo2in5 smu55lers to import cocaine into t3e United States across t3e order 2it3 6e<ico. Ee accepted D4/8000 in ri es in return for allo2in5 o+er 18000 pounds of cocaine to enter t3e country. (3e former I,S inspector 2as con+icted of ri ery and 2as sentenced to 30 mont3s imprisonment follo2ed y t3ree years pro ation. &ormer &edera# )i!h+ay Administration "fficia# and 9ife %n!a!e in Corrupt Scheme A former -E9A employee and 3is 2ife 2ere sentenced for en5a5in5 in a ri ery and :ic: ac: sc3eme in+ol+in5 traffic en5ineerin5 contracts. (3e former employee


improperly told a contractor t3at t3ey 2ould pro a ly 2in a contract. In return8 t3e contractor 5ranted a su 'contract to t3e -E9A employee;s 2ife;s Bconsultin5 firm.C (3e employee;s 2ife 3ad no 3i532ay en5ineerin5 education or e<perience. S3e recei+ed o+er D1008000 in Go+ernment contracts. In addition to ot3er c3ar5es8 t3e former employee pled 5uilty to one count of ri ery. 6A %mp#oyee Convicted of Acceptin! '##e!a# Gratuities A former employee of t3e U.S. Department of )eterans Affairs 2as sentenced for solicitin5 and acceptin5 5ratuities from a )A +endor. Ee recei+ed t3ree computers8 airline tic:ets8 and 3otel accommodations from se+eral )A +endors. Ee 2as also c3ar5ed 2it3 demandin5 a fourt3 computer and round trip tic:ets to Kas )e5as from anot3er +endor. (3e former employee pled 5uilty to one count of +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 201. 'RS "fficia# Convicted for Steerin! Contracts A former I*S official 2as sentenced in US District Court for acceptin5 ri es in return for directin5 I*S computin5 contracts to certain companies and for failin5 to report t3e ri es on 3is income ta< returns. Ee pled 5uilty to one count of ri ery and to one count of filin5 a false ta< return8 and recei+ed a 34 mont3 prison term and t3ree years; pro ation as a result. #ri ery occurs 23en a pu lic official see:s or accepts anyt3in5 of +alue in return for ein5 influenced in t3e performance of an official act. Specia# "perations Command Bribery Scanda# Aabs $+o Retired "fficers (2o retired military officers at SOCO6 found t3emsel+es in federal court after t3e re+elation of a sc3eme to funnel defense contracts to companies 2illin5 to pro+ide lucrati+e :ic: ac:s. (3e first official 2as a retired Army lieutenant colonel8 and 2as employed y SOCO6 as a contractor c3ar5ed 2it3 e+aluatin5 2eapons desi5ned for t3e special operations forces. (3e second official 2as a retired Army colonel8 23o 2as c3ief of special pro5rams at SOCO6. !rosecutors alle5e t3at t3e retired colonel formed a pri+ate consultin5 company in order to represent companies see:in5 to 5et part of


SOCO6;s D1.% illion procurement ud5et. (3e consultin5 company t3en made ille5al payments to t3e retired lieutenant colonel in e<c3an5e for 3is fa+ora le re+ie2s of t3eir clients; 2eapons. (3e retired lieutenant colonel pled 5uilty to federal ri ery c3ar5es. Alt3ou53 3e faced 1/ years in prison8 3is e<emplary ser+ice and cooperation 2it3 in+esti5ators earned 3im a reduced sentence of t3ree years of super+ised pro ation8 si< mont3s of 3ome detention8 and D"/00 in fines. (3e retired colonel 3as maintained 3is innocence8 and faces up to 1/ years in prison and D2/08000 in fines.

'raD Contractor Cau!ht $a in! <1 Mi##ion in Bribes A former contractin5 officer for t3e Ira>i coalition 5o+ernment pled 5uilty to acceptin5 o+er D1 million in ri es in return for steerin5 contracts to a contractor 2it3 companies in Ira> and *omania. (3e officer 2as a con+icted felon 23en 3e 2as 3ired y a U.S. company8 23ic3 su se>uently 2on a contract 2it3 t3e U.S. to pro+ide controllers to Ira>i re5ions. (3e officer 2as put in c3ar5e of o+er D%2 million in fundin5 for an area sout3 of #a53dad. Ee >uic:ly e5an acceptin5 ri es in t3e form of cas38 cars8 =e2elry8 and se<ual fa+ors from 2omen pro+ided y a contractor8 in e<c3an5e for steerin5 lucrati+e contracts in t3e contractor;s direction. In+esti5ators reco+ered incriminatin5 email traffic8 includin5 one email from t3e official to t3e contractor e<claimin58 BI lo+e to 5i+e you moneyOC Kater in+esti5ations s3o2ed t3at muc3 of t3e contracted 2or: 2as ne+er completed. Also implicated in t3e scandal 2as a retired Army lieutenant colonel8 23o also 2or:ed as a contractin5 officer in t3e re5ion. Ee 2as accused of funnelin5 contracts to t3e same contractor in e<c3an5e for lucrati+e :ic: ac:s8 includin5 a ne2 carI 3e also 2as accused of simply stealin5 lar5e amounts of money from reconstruction funds 23ic3 3e t3en smu55led into t3e U.S. (3e official pled 5uilty to ri ery8 conspiracy8 and money'launderin58 as 2ell as c3ar5es connected 2it3 3is ille5al possession of at least /0 firearms8 includin5 mac3ine 5uns and 5renade launc3ers. Ee a2aits sentencin58 and faces up to 30 years for t3e conspiracy c3ar5e alone. (3e contractor pled 5uilty to conspiracy8 ri ery8 and money' launderin5. Ee faces up to "0 years in prison8 fi+e years of super+ised release and a fine


of D4/08000. Ee also must repay t3e 5o+ernment D3.0 million and forfeit D3.0 million in assets. (3e lieutenant colonels case is still pendin5. (Source: Washington Post, February 2, 2 !" #pril $!, 2 !%

Car!o Contractor &aces E /ears for Bribery A ,a+y contractor at t3e Space and ,a+al 9arfare Systems Center C3arleston Detac3ment pled 5uilty to acceptin5 ri es from a frei53t for2ardin5 company. In e<c3an5e for a2ardin5 frei53t transportation contracts to t3e company8 t3e contractor recei+ed items +alued at more t3an D1080008 includin5 e<tra+a5ant dinners8 concert and ,ASCA* tic:ets8 2ee:ends at a ed'and' rea:fast8 =e2elry8 and Bspa daysC at a department store. In+esti5ators disco+ered t3at coincidentally8 t3e frei53t company;s usiness 2as +irtually none<istent efore t3e contractor e5an a2ardin5 t3em contracts t3at e+entually totaled o+er D4008000. (3e contractor faces up to fi+e years in prison and a D2/08000 fine. S3e is t3e se+ent3 defendant connected to an in+esti5ation of payoffs et2een frei53t for2ardin5 companies and 5o+ernment contractors. Gift-Givin! Contractor &aces E /ears for Bribery (3e o2ner of a car5o company in )ir5inia #eac3 faces fi+e years in prison after 5i+in5 t3ousands of dollars in 5ifts to federal contract officers at t3e ,orfol: ,a+al S3ipyard in e<c3an5e for lucrati+e military s3ippin5 contracts. One federal contract officer8 23o 3ad 2or:ed for t3e 5o+ernment for 2/ years8 recei+ed free lunc3es and dinners8 an open ta at a delicatessen8 airline tic:ets8 concert and ,ASCA* tic:ets8 ci5ars8 and a D08000 JacuAAi. (3e +ice president of t3e o2ner;s car5o company 2as also indicted for ri es to anot3er ,orfol: federal contract officer totalin5 o+er D4/8000. In return for t3ese 5ifts8 t3e o2ner;s company recei+ed o+er D0"08000 in s3ippin5 contracts. (3e o2ner faces up to fi+e years in prison and D2/08000 in fines. (3e t2o contract officers ot3 pled 5uiltyI t3e first 3as een sentenced to "" mont3s in prison8 and t3e ot3er a2aits sentencin5. %mp#oyees &ai# to Profit from Red $ape (Source: )ampton *e+s, $ ,2-, -% (Source: &P', (arch 2 , 2 !%


(2o 2or:ers at t3e )eterans Affair;s Consolidated 6ail Outpatient !3armacy8 23ic3 mails prescriptions to +eterans8 2ere c3ar5ed 2it3 ta:in5 :ic: ac:s for purc3asin5 a product from a supplier at more t3an t2ice t3e normal price. (3e productP *ed tape. (3e employees 2ere c3ar5ed 2it3 purc3asin5 1008000 rolls of t3e tape8 23ic3 is stamped 2it3 t3e 2ord BsecurityC and is meant to deter tamperin58 at D0.7/ a roll rat3er t3an its D2./0 retail +alue. In return8 t3ey recei+ed :ic: ac:s of more t3an D1 per roll. (3e duo 2ill 3a+e plenty of time to appreciate t3e irony of t3eir situation8 as t3ey face a sentence of 1/ years in =ail.

Rese##in! Commissary Goods ,ands $+o in Court A sc3eme to resell military commissary atteries on t3e lac: mar:et resulted in c3ar5es filed a5ainst a +eteran and a Department of Defense employee. In+esti5ators disco+ered t3at t3e +eteran 2as ri in5 t3e employee to sell 3im lar5e >uantities of atteries from a commissary8 23ic3 t3e +eteran t3en resold at a profit to a distri utor. Durin5 a one'year period8 t3e employee sold t3e +eteran D4/08000 2ort3 of atteries8 23ic3 netted a D208000 profit on t3e lac: mar:et. (3e +eteran :ept D118000 of t3e proceeds8 and :ic:ed ac: t3e remainin5 D7000 to t3e employee. (3e +eteran pled 5uilty to a misdemeanor c3ar5e of supplementin5 t3e salary of a -ederal employee8 and 2as sentenced to one year of pro ation. (3e employee 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 ri ery and ta:en to court. It is ille5al for indi+iduals to eit3er pay or recei+e salary supplements for ser+ices performed y Go+ernment employees related to t3eir Go+ernment duties. Acceptin! Fic bac s %arns Contractor 11 /ears A federal in+esti5ation into ri ery ended in t3ree fraud con+ictions for t3e C3ief of !lans8 *e>uirements8 and Ac>uisitions for t3e Defense Systems A5ency at t3e ,a+y S3ip !arts Control Center. (3e Department of Defense employee accepted D/008000 in cas3 in e<c3an5e for a2ardin5 D1%.1 million in contracts to an information tec3nolo5y company. (3e in+esti5ation also unco+ered a sc3eme y t3e employee8 3is rot3er8 and 3is nep3e2 to defraud an en+ironmental remediation usiness y su mittin5 p3ony


in+oices for more t3an D408000. (3e employee 2as also con+icted for lyin5 a out 3is 2ife;s disa ility status to t3e Social Security Administration. (3is trio of offenses earned t3e employee 11 years in federal prison8 23ere 3e 2ill 3a+e a family reunion 2it3 3is rot3er and nep3e2 as 2ell as 3is dau53ter8 23o 2as con+icted of ma:in5 false statements to t3e 5rand =ury. (Source: .or/ 0aily Record, (arch 21, 2 !%

'RS %mp#oyee Goes to 4ai# for Acceptin! Gifts In t3e course of collectin5 t3e de t from a construction company8 an I*S *e+enue A5ent ecame friends 2it3 t3e o2ner. Suc3 5ood friends8 t3at t3e a5ent accepted free 5ames of 5olf from t3e o2ner8 as 2ell as a num er of free dinners at restaurants. Indeed8 t3e o2ner and t3e a5ent 2ere suc3 pals t3at t3e o2ner presented t3e a5ent 2it3 a cas3ier;s c3ec: for D1"87008 23ic3 3e su se>uently used to purc3ase a car. Unsurprisin5ly8 t3e a5ent admitted t3at t3e 5ifts ad+ersely affected 3is collection of t3e construction company;s outstandin5 de t. (3e a5ent recei+ed t3ree years in =ail and si< mont3s of 3ome confinement for an Unla2ful Act of a *e+enue Officer. Posta# Service 9or er &aces 4ai# $ime for Bribery A U.S. !ostal Ser+ice $US!S. employee responsi le for recei+in5 and a2ardin5 ids on US!S printin5 orders 2as arrested for tradin5 Go+ernment contracts for cas3. (3e employee funneled +alua le contracts to t3e o2ner of a 9as3in5ton D.C. printin5 usiness in e<c3an5e for payments of D118/4/ to t3e employee;s di+orce la2yer. O+er t3e course of t3e in+esti5ation8 aut3orities unco+ered four ot3er printin5 companies t3at admitted payin5 ri es to t3e former US!S employee. (3e printin5 usiness o2ner pled 5uilty to ri ery8 and faces up to t2o years in prison and a D2/08000 fine. (3e US!S employee;s case is pendin5 in court.

Compensation for .epresentational Ser/ices from Non(Federal Sources !" #$S$C$ % &'0(Type )iolations*


9antedG %mp#oyee 9ho 9i## Aot S ip Meetin!s to 'ntervie+ +ith "ther Companies An Army #ri5adier General participated personally and su stantially as an ad+ocate and appro+al aut3ority in t3e effort to increase fundin5 on a tas: order 2it3 a Go+ernment contractor e+en 23ile acti+ely see:in5 employment 2it3 t3at company. Eis efforts did not rise to t3e le+el of Bne5otiatin5C employment so 3e did not +iolate t3e criminal pro3i ition of 1% U.S.C. N20%8 ut 2as still in +iolation of C.-.*. 203/.00" 23en 3e too: official action on e3alf of a company 2it3 23ic3 3e 2as see:in5 employment instead of dis>ualifyin5 3imself from t3e particular matter. Ee also e<tended official tra+el time and claimed unaut3oriAed tra+el e<penses in order to 5o to =o inter+ie2s and participate in ot3er =o see:in5 acti+ities to t3e point of actually e<cusin5 3imself from official meetin5s. -inally8 3e c3ar5ed unaut3oriAed personal p3one calls to t3e Go+ernment and ordered su ordinates to run personal errands for 3im8 includin5 pic:in5 up 3is dry cleanin58 dri+in5 3im to t3e ar er s3op8 and puttin5 t3e license plates on 3is personal car $also directin5 t3em to use an official Go+ernment +e3icle for t3ese purposes.. (3e General;s e3a+ior +iolated t3e Joint 1t3ics *e5ulation ecause 3e used -ederal personnel8 e>uipment8 and duty time to conduct personal usiness. Eis official participation in a particular matter on e3alf of a company 2it3 23ic3 3e 2as see:in5 employment +iolated conflict of interest la2. Eis ot3er acti+ities amounted to misuse of Go+ernment resources $3is su ordinates; time and t3e Go+ernment car. and improper 5ift acceptance $due to a failure to reim urse su ordinates for e<penditures suc3 as milea5e used 23en performin5 3is personal ser+ices.. As if t3at 2as not enou53 of an et3ical rap s3eet8 3e +iolated DoD Directi+e 4000.1"'* 23en 3e decided to c3ar5e at least 1/ of 3is (DQ transactions to 3is personal credit card instead of 3is Go+ernment tra+el card so t3at 3e could recei+e onus point or air miles on t3e card. (3e General 2as su =ect to Article 1/ proceedin5s under t3e Uniform Code of 6ilitary Justice8 fined D/80008 and directed to reim urse t3e Go+ernment D/8300 for t3e improper cell p3one use and o+erpayment of (DQ e<penses. Ee 2as allo2ed to retire at 3is current 5rade8 O'4. Receipt of 'ncome by &edera# %mp#oyee Resu#ts in 1H -(S(C( 2=I 6io#ation


A former employee of t3e Department of (ransportation 2as sentenced in t3e U.S. District Court for t3e 1astern District of (e<as for recei+in5 unaut3oriAed compensation from a Go+ernment contractor for performin5 Go+ernment duties. (3e employee8 in 3is capacity as a Super+isory 6arine Sur+eyor for t3e 6aritime Administration8 accepted compensation from #GI 1nterprise8 Inc. for pro+idin5 representational ser+ices in preparin5 a id pac:a5e for a D1 million U.S. Coast Guard contract to remo+e sun:en ar5es from t3e Intracoastal 9ater2ay in (e<as. (3e employee pled 5uilty to one count of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 2038 and t3e Go+ernment dropped its c3ar5e of ma:in5 false statements to t3e Go+ernment and failure to report t3e receipt of t3e unaut3oriAed compensation on 3is annual financial disclosure form. (3e employee 2as sentenced to a one'year pro ation and ordered to pay a D28/00 fine. Under t3is criminal statute8 in 5eneral8 -ederal employees may not accept compensation for representin5 someone else efore a -ederal a5ency on particular matters in 23ic3 t3e United States is a party. 'AS %mp#oyee Accepts '##e!a# Payments A clerical employee of t3e Immi5ration and ,aturaliAation Ser+ice $I,S. too: money in e<c3an5e for assistin5 in processin5 I,S employment aut3oriAation documents. S3e pled 5uilty to a misdemeanor +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 203$a.$1.8 for recei+in5 compensation for representational ser+ices rendered in a particular matter efore a department or A5ency of t3e United States. On Decem er 128 20008 s3e 2as sentenced to t2o years pro ation and a D18000 fine. 6A %mp#oyee Ma es 'mproper Business Referra#s A decedent affairs cler: at a )eterans Affairs $)A. 3ospital acted as an a5ent of anot3er employee at t3e )A 3ospital8 23o moonli53ted at a near y funeral 3ome. (3e cler: referred )A officials to t3e funeral 3ome 23ere 3is co2or:er moonli53ted for t3e 3andlin5 of odies a andoned at t3e )A 3ospital. (3e moonli53tin5 employee paid t3e cler: for referrals. !ayments totaled appro<imately D"/0.


(3e cler: pled 5uilty on Octo er 138 17778 to a misdemeanor +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 203$a.$1.8 for recei+in5 compensation for representational ser+ices rendered in a particular matter efore a department or A5ency of t3e United States. On 6arc3 108 20008 t3e moonli53tin5 employee 2as sentenced to pay D2/. Con!ressiona# Staffer Accepts Cash in Return for Assistance +ith 'AS A Con5ressional staff assistant for a mem er of Con5ress 2as assistin5 a constituent 2it3 filin5 an application to normaliAe t3e immi5ration status of t3e constituentGs dau53ter. 93ile doin5 so8 3e solicited and recei+ed money from t3e constituent in e<c3an5e for t3e preparation and filin5 of t3e application 2it3 t3e Immi5ration and ,aturaliAation Ser+ice. Ee 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 203$a.$1.$#.. On Au5ust 48 177%8 3e pled 5uilty and on -e ruary /8 17778 3e 2as sentenced to t3ree yearsG pro ation8 100 3ours of community ser+ice8 a D283"0 fine and D4%0 in restitution. Under t3is criminal statute8 in 5eneral8 -ederal employees may not accept compensation for representin5 someone else efore a -ederal a5ency on particular matters in 23ic3 t3e United States is a party. 'RS %mp#oyees $a e Bribes $o '!nore $a> De#inDuency (2o employees of t3e Internal *e+enue Ser+ice $I*S. and t3e t2o o2ners of a car rental usiness en5a5ed in a sc3eme in 23ic3 t3ey conspired to improperly 3andle t3e company;s delin>uent ta< de t. (3e company 2as e<periencin5 serious financial pro lems and 3ad su stantial -ederal employment ta< delin>uencies. (3e co'o2ners of t3e company met 2it3 an I*S employee 23o introduced t3em to anot3er I*S employee. I*S employee num er 2 told t3e co'o2ners 3o2 t3ey could 5et t3eir ta< case transferred from t3e I*S office 23ere it 2as pendin5 to t3e I*S office 23ere 3e 2as employed. At t3at point8 3e 2ould permit t3e company to remain in usiness and pay a minimal amount of its ta< deficiency. (3e co'o2ners a5reed to a payment of D18000 per mont3 for t3is ser+ice. Durin5 t3is time period8 t3e co'o2ners pro+ided ot3 I*S employees 2it3 free rental cars and paid +acations to -lorida. I*S employee num er 2 also in+ested money and ac>uired an interest in t3e company. In a separate sc3eme8 I*S employee num er 2


si5ned a one'year contract 2it3 a local le+ee oard to perform an economic study. (3e contract called for t3e I*S employee to e paid D%/ per 3ourI 3e recei+ed appro<imately D3%8000 o+er t3e follo2in5 year. At t3e same time8 t3e le+ee oard 3ad ta< disputes pendin5 under t3e employee;s super+ision at t3e I*S. Ee did not disclose t3is fact to 3is super+isors at t3e I*S. (3e rental car company o2ners eac3 pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 2038 offerin5 compensation to a Go+ernment employee for representational ser+ices rendered in a particular matter efore a department or A5ency of t3e United States. O2ner num er 1 recei+ed one year pro ation and a D2/0 fine. O2ner num er 2 2as sentenced to fi+e years pro ation and D708171 restitution. I*S employee num er 1 pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 201$ .$1.$A. $ ri ery. and 2as sentenced to fi+e years pro ation and a D38000 fine. I*S employee num er 2 pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20%$a.8 ta:in5 official action in matters affectin5 a personal financial interest8 as 2ell as 1% U.S.C. 201$ .$2. $ ri ery.I 3e 2as sentenced to t2el+e mont3s in =ail8 t3ree years super+ised release8 and a D38000 fine. Con!ressiona# Staff Member $a es Payment to )e#p .Grease the S ids1 A Con5ressional staff mem er solicited D0/0 from a citiAen 23o 2as see:in5 relief from t3e stateGs Office of 9or:manGs Compensation. Ee told t3e citiAen t3at t3e D0/0 2ould 3elp H5rease t3e s:idsH in 5ettin5 3er claim appro+ed. (3e staff mem er specifically re>uested t3at t3e money e pro+ided in cas3 and arran5ed for it to e deli+ered outside of t3e Con5ress2oman;s office 23ere 3e 2or:ed. (3e citiAen later reported t3e matter to t3e -#I 23o introduced an underco+er -#I a5ent 23o purported to 3a+e a 2or:erGs compensation claim. In tape'recorded con+ersations 2it3 t3e under'co+er a5ent8 t3e staffer solicited D0/0 from t3e a5ent. (3e pay'off 2as +ideotaped. 93en inter+ie2ed se+eral days later8 3e initially stated 3e ne+er accepted money from a constituent. 93en s3o2n a p3oto of t3e -#I a5ent8 3e stated t3at 3e 3ad een offered money y 3er ut 3ad turned 3er do2n. 93en told t3at t3e person in t3e p3oto 2as an -#I a5ent8 t3e staffer statedM HI 5uess IGm in a lot of trou le8 arenGt IPH


Ee 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 +iolations of 1% U.S.C. 201 and 203 and pled 5uilty to one count of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 203. Ee recei+ed a sentence of pro ation and community ser+ice8 and 2as ordered to pay restitution. D"$ %mp#oyee Sentenced for 1H -(S(C( 2=I 6io#ation A former US Department of (ransportation employee 2as sentenced in US District Court for recei+in5 unaut3oriAed compensation from a Go+ernment contractor for representin5 t3e contractor on a contract id to t3e Go+ernment. (3e former official admitted t3at 3e assisted a DO( contractor in t3e preparation of a id pac:a5e for a D1 million Go+ernment contract. (3e =ud5e sentenced t3e former employee to a year of pro ation and to pay a D28/00 fine. Department of ,abor Associate Deputy -nder Secretary 6io#ates 1H -(S(C( 2=I (3e Associate Deputy Under Secretary for International Ka or Affairs at t3e Department of Ka or 2as in+ol+ed in an effort to promote lo2'income 3ousin5 su sidiAed y t3e 6e<ican Go+ernment for lo2'paid 6e<ican 2or:ers li+in5 alon5 certain sections of t3e United States'6e<ican order. Ee 2as assi5ned t3e duty of pursuin5 arran5ements for a lo2'cost 3ousin5 pro=ect in 1771. (3e pro=ect 2as to e financed 2it3 pri+ate funds. Ee riefed t3e Deputy Under Secretary for International Ka or Affairs on t3e pro5ress of t3e pro=ect. Durin5 ,o+em er 17718 3e met 2it3 United States officials in 6e<ico City to discuss8 amon5 ot3er t3in5s8 pri+ate sector initiati+es to construct lo2'cost 3ousin5 alon5 t3e United States'6e<ican order. Ee met in 9as3in5ton8 D.C. and in 6e<ico City and ot3er places 2it3 se+eral real estate de+elopers interested in lo2'cost 3ousin5 alon5 t3e order. Ee and t3e real estate de+elopers met 2it3 6e<ican an:in5 and 3ousin5 officials concernin5 t3e lo2'cost 3ousin5 and t3e possi ility t3at t3e pro=ect 2ould e financed t3rou53 a 6e<ican lo2'income financin5 aut3ority. After se+eral meetin5s8 3e told t3e real estate de+elopers and t3e 6e<ican 3ousin5 officials t3at 3e 2ould not e a le to participate in t3e =oint +enture t3at t3e real estate e<ecuti+es 2ere formin5 due to 3is status as a Go+ernment employee. On July 228 17728 t3e Under Secretary accepted t3e offer to 2or: for t3e =oint +enture in dealin5s 2it3 t3e United States. Ee 2as offered 10 percent of t3e net profits 5enerated y t3e


pro=ect. (3e pro=ect in+ol+ed t3e uildin5 of 08000 condominiums and 2ould 5enerate a out D1080008000 in net profits. (3e anticipated total cost of t3e pro=ect 2as in e<cess of D12080008000. (3e Under Secretary 3ad an intermediary act on 3is e3alf in si5nin5 a memorandum of a5reement 2it3 t3e real estate de+elopers. (3e Under Secretary8 t3rou53out t3e period in >uestion8 re>uested tra+el aut3oriAations and su mitted tra+el +ouc3ers to t3e Go+ernment for tra+el to 6e<ico to 2or: on t3e 6e<ican 2or:er 3ousin5 pro=ect. (3e Go+ernment c3ar5ed t3at 3e a5reed to accept compensation for representational ser+ices efore t3e United States in relation to a particular matter8 t3e 3ousin5 pro=ect8 in 23ic3 t3e United States Department of Ka or 3ad a direct and su stantial interest in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 203$a. and 210$a.$2.. (3e Go+ernment also claimed t3at t3e Under Secretary 2as actin5 as part of a conspiracy a5ainst t3e United States in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 341. (3e Under Secretary pled 5uilty to t3e c3ar5es and 2as sentenced to pro ation for / years. 'mmi!ration Consu#tant "ffered Payment to 'AS %mp#oyee An Himmi5ration consultantH 23o assisted resident aliens 2it3 t3e process of o tainin5 I,S tra+el papers offered compensation to an I,S officer to speed up t3e application process. Ee pled 5uilty to a misdemeanor +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 203$a.$2. on January 248 17738 and 2as sentenced to one year pro ation8 0 mont3sG 3ome detention8 and a D2/ special assessment. (3e defendant 2as also pro3i ited from 2or:in5 in t3e immi5ration consultin5 usiness. Ser!eant-at-Arms of the -nited States Senate $a es &ree &#i!ht to )a+aii After Recommendin! Contractor (3e Ser5eant'at'Arms is t3e c3ief purc3asin5 a5ent for t3e Senate and in t3at capacity 3e recommended t3at t3e Senate purc3ase and install a D2178000 A(R( telep3one system for t3e U.S. Capitol !olice. (3ree 2ee:s later8 3e accepted a round'trip 9as3in5ton'Eonolulu airline tic:et8 +alued at D284008 from an A(R( employee.


Ee pled 5uilty on ,o+em er 1%8 17728 to one misdemeanor count of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 203 and 2as sentenced to one year of super+ised pro ation8 to pay full restitution of D284008 and a D/8000 ci+il fine. CitiJen Gives '##e!a# Payoffs to 'RS %mp#oyee (3e defendant 2as audited y t3e Internal *e+enue Ser+ice for e<cess deposits of income. Ee offered t3e I*S a5ent conductin5 t3e audit furniture8 e>uipment8 and cas3 if t3e a5ent 2ould 3elp 3im 2it3 3is ta< pro lems. (3e a5ent reported 3is offer to I*S internal security. Su se>uent discussions et2een t3e citiAen and t3e I*S a5ent8 accompanied y payments of D2"0 and D200 in cas3 to t3e I*S a5ent8 2ere monitored y I*S internal security. (3e citiAen pled 5uilty to a +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 2038 for compensatin5 a Go+ernment employee for representational ser+ices 2it3 respect to a particular matter in 23ic3 t3e United States 3ad a su stantial interest. (3e defendant 2as 5i+en a sentence of pro ation. Con!ressiona# Staff Member P#eads Gui#ty to 1H -(S(C( 2=I 6io#ation (3e defendant 2as a staff assistant to a U.S. Con5ressman in a district office in Geor5ia 23ose responsi ilities included 3andlin5 constituent re>uests. (3e staffer demanded and recei+ed a payment of D300 from a usinessman 23o 2as see:in5 a -ederal 5rant to 3elp 3im start up a usiness. (3e staffer also demanded a percenta5e of any 5rant money a2arded to t3e usinessman. Ee told t3e constituent t3at 3e 2ould 3a+e to 2or: ni53ts and 2ee:ends on 3is o2n time to 3elp t3e constituent and t3at t3e money 2as to compensate 3im for t3e 2or:. (3e staffer 2as indicted for personally see:in5 payment for official acts in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 201$c. and for demandin5 compensation for representational ser+ices efore t3e United States in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 203. Ee pled 5uilty to t3e N 203 +iolation and recei+ed a sentence of pro ation. And the A+ard Goes to7"ur Sponsor5


(3e Director of t3e ,ational Cancer Institute at t3e ,ational Institutes of Eealt3 accepted a cas3 a2ard from a 5rant recipient 3ospital. (3e doctor recused 3imself for a period of four 2ee:s around t3e date of t3e a2ard presentation from any dealin5s 2it3 t3e a2ardin5 3ospital and noted t3e receipt of t3e a2ard on 3is financial disclosure paper2or:. Of course8 t3is still lea+es t3e >uestion of 23et3er t3e doctor 2as permitted y statute to accept 5ifts from t3e donor or5aniAation ? 23ic3 fell under t3e pro3i ited sources classification for purposes of t3e 5ift an ecause of t3e doctor;s potential influence o+er t3e selection of 5rant recipients. Con5ress 3as re>uested documentation on all ,IE a2ard recipients so stay tuned.

Conflicts of Interest !" #$S$C$ % &'"(Type )iolations*
Documentin! Misconduct Jeffrey Da+is8 a former employee of t3e ,ational Arc3i+es and *ecords Administration $,A*A.8 faces a 3efty penalty for en5a5in5 in a felony conflict of interest. 6r. Da+is ser+ed as an Arc3i+es (ec3nician at ,A*A8 a position in 23ic3 3e assisted t3e pu lic 2it3 re>uests for court documents maintained y ,A*A. Ee also o2ned and operated a company t3at c3ar5ed its customers a fee for o tainin5 court records in addition to t3e fees c3ar5ed y ,A*A. -rom Septem er 2004 to Octo er 200%8 Da+is used 3is official position at ,A*A to retrie+e court documents for 3is company;s customers. Ee also did not pay ,A*A t3e applica le fees associated 2it3 t3e company;s customer re>uests for court records in order to conceal from ,A*A 3is affiliation 2it3 3is company and to increase 3is company;s profits. Da+is pled 5uilty to recei+in5 payments from 3is company in connection 2it3 t3e retrie+al of court records from ,A*A usin5 3is official position. Ee admitted suc3 payments 2ere an ille5al supplementation of t3e salary paid y t3e 5o+ernment as compensation for 3is ser+ices as a ,A*A employee. Da+is; sentencin5 is pendin58 ut 3e faces t3e possi ility of fi+e years in prison and a D2/08000 fine. It loo:s li:e 3is court records usiness 3as left 3im 2it3 a court record of 3is o2n. "ne )appy &ami#y Spends $ime $o!ether in 4ai# 3%

A former pro5rams director for t3e General Ser+ices Administration admitted to usin5 3is position at -ort 6onmout3 to a2ard payments from t3e 5o+ernment to 3imself and 3is family. (3e former employee did t3is y a2ardin5 pro=ects to t2o contractors 23o in turn 3ired t3e employee;s personal usiness enterprise and 3is dau53ter as su contractors. O+er t3e course of t3ree years8 t3ey recei+ed o+er D%008000 in fees from t3e 5o+ernmentI t3e only catc38 neit3er t3e employee;s personal usiness nor 3is dau53ter actually performed any ser+ices for t3e 5o+ernment at all. Aside from t3e o +ious fraud to 23ic3 t3e former employee8 3is 2ife8 and 3is dau53ter pled 5uilty8 federal la2 also pro3i its federal employees from ma:in5 decisions concernin5 matters in 23ic3 t3ey or t3eir family mem ers 3a+e a personal financial interest. 1+en if t3e former GSA employee and 3is dau53ter 3ad actually rendered t3e ser+ices t3at t3ey illed for8 t3e former employee 2ould still 3a+e een in +iolation of federal la2 y a2ardin5 t3e pro=ects to t3e contractors in t3e first place ecause 3is o2n financial interests 2ere in+ol+ed. (3e former GSA employee and 3is family 2ere ordered to pay o+er D%008000 in restitution8 and t3ey eac3 recei+ed prison sentences ran5in5 from 12 to "0 mont3s. Moon#i!htin! for Contractor Resu#ts in %mp#oyee $ermination A contract mana5er at a (ennessee )alley Aut3ority $()A. po2er plant in Jentuc:y found 3imself out t2o =o s after in+esti5ators learned t3at 3e 3ad een moonli53tin5 for t3e same contractor 3e 2as o+erseein5. As part of 3is responsi ilities 2it3 ()A8 t3e contract mana5er re+ie2ed contractor ids and o+ersa2 contract performance. (3e mana5er accepted a =o 2it3 one of ()A;s contractors as a part'time super+isor8 and 2or:ed for t3e contractor in O:la3oma and Indiana on 3is days off and +acation days. 1+en t3ou53 t3e mana5er;s actions did not result in any identified financial loss8 3e 2as terminated from ()A and prosecuted for a +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20%. Ee pled 5uilty and 2as sentenced to pro ation and a D18000 fine. (3is criminal statute pro3i its personnel from participatin5 in official actions $suc3 as re+ie2in5 contractor ids. t3at affect t3eir employer8 e+en if t3ey 2or: for t3at employer only part time.


A+ardin! Contracts to &riend %arns %mp#oyee &ive /ears Probation In+esti5ators >uic:ly s3ort'circuited t3e plans of a ,ASA employee to cas3 in on an a5ency electrical ser+ices contract. (3e employee 2or:ed as a communications specialist at Kan5ley *esearc3 Center $Ka*S.8 and 2as responsi le for re+ie2in5 and appro+in5 2or: done on a pro=ect to install ne2 Btelecommunications closetsC in Ka*S. (3e employee recommended t3at t3e main pro=ect contactor 3ire a certain su contractor8 23ic3 coincidentally 2as 23olly o2ned and operated y t3e employee;s friend. (3e prime contractor a5reed. (3e su contractor completed t3e 2or:8 and su se>uently id on anot3er su contract. Upon recei+in5 t3is second contract8 t3e su contractor co+ertly 3ired anot3er company to complete t3e 2or:I t3is company 2as 23olly o2ned and operated y t3e ,ASA employee 3imself. At t3is point8 tipsters notified in+esti5ators8 23o found t3at t3e scam 3ad netted t3e pair o+er D"08000. (3e employee pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 t3e conflict of interest statute8 and 2as sentenced to fi+e years of pro ation and a D/8000 fine. (3is conflict of interest statute pro3i its personnel from participatin5 in official actions $includin5 merely ma:in5 a recommendation. t3at affect t3eir financial interests. A+ardin! Contracts to Spouse %arns Coup#e "ne /ear in Prison A former Department of t3e (reasury employee and 3er 3us and 2ere sentenced to a year in prison for a sc3eme to funnel contracts to companies t3ey personally controlled. (3e employee8 23o ser+ed as an 1mployee De+elopment Specialist8 2as responsi le for determinin5 t3e trainin5 needs of (reasury employees and procurin5 pri+ate trainin5 ser+ices. In+esti5ators disco+ered t3at o+er t3e course of t2o years8 t3e employee 3ad a2arded 10/ trainin5 contracts +alued at more t3an D1378000 to companies o2ned y 3er 3us and. (3e employee pled 5uilty to se+eral c3ar5es8 includin5 +iolations of 1% U.S.C. 20%8 participatin5 personally and su stantially in matters in 23ic3 s3e or 3er spouse 3ad a financial interest. S3e 2as sentenced to a year of prison and t3ree years super+ised release8 and 2as ordered to pay D/"8/00 in restitution. Eer 3us and also pled 5uilty to se+eral c3ar5es8 includin5 2ire fraud and conspiracy8 and recei+ed t3e same sentence as 3is 2ife.


A+ardin! Contracts to Spouse '' A contractin5 officer for t3e General Ser+ices Administration $GSA. 2ound up in -ederal court after funnelin5 contracts to 3er 3us and;s employer. In+esti5ators disco+ered t3at t3e officer 3ad directed o+er D11./ million to t3e company t3at employed 3er 3us and o+er t3e span of 1/ mont3s8 all in t3e form of GSA purc3ases of food preparation and ser+in5 e>uipment items. As a result of t3ese purc3ases8 t3e officer;s 3us and recei+ed raises and a Ja5uar from 3is employer. (3e officer pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 conflict of interest la2s8 and 2as sentenced to 1%0 days of 3ome confinement and fi+e years of pro ation. S3e additionally 2as ordered to pay D1018000 in restitution.

A+ardin! Contracts to Spouse ''' (3e 3ead of t3e Ka2 1nforcement Coordinatin5 Committee !ro5ram at t3e U.S. Attorney;s Office for t3e 6iddle District of Kouisiana disco+ered 3e 3ad done 3is =o too 2ell 23en 3e 2as arrested and prosecuted for +iolatin5 conflict of interest la2s. Aut3orities learned t3at t3e employee8 23o 2as responsi le for arran5in5 trainin5 seminars t3at 2ould foster cooperation 2it3 state and local la2 enforcement8 3ad funneled seminar contracts to a certain companyI t3is company t3en su contracted to a company o2ned y t3e employee;s 2ife. (3is sc3eme 3ad funneled D//8000 to t3e employee;s 2ife8 and t3e company 3ad :ic:ed ac: D208000 directly to t3e employee 3imself. (3e employee pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20%8 participatin5 personally and su stantially in a matter in 23ic3 3e or 3is spouse 3ad a financial interest8 and 2as sentenced to t3ree years of pro ation8 200 3ours of community ser+ice8 and a D/8000 fine.

And the Band P#ayed "n79hi#e the Ship San Around $hem An Assistant Secretary of (elecommunications and Information 2it3in t3e Department of Commerce spo:e 2it3 et3ics officers a out a small dinner party s3e 2as 3a+in5 at 3er 3ome ut ne5lected to mentionM a. t3e party 2as for et2een 00 and %0 people and . it 2as paid for y companies s3e 2as responsi le for re5ulatin5. Alt3ou53 "1

t3e et3ics officers found 3er to e in +iolation of t3e department;s re5ulations8 t3e Justice Department elected not to press criminal c3ar5es. 9atch Promotin! /our Business on Government $ime5 The Facts+ A Senior Ad+isor to t3e State Department 3ad an interest in a usiness t3at planned to de+elop a t3eme par: in t3e 6iddle 1ast. ,o pro lem t3ere. #ut t3e Ad+isor8 in 3is official position8 recommended to ot3er State Department officials t3at t3e State Department support t3e enterprise. (3at +iolated t3e la2. After a 5uilty plea8 3e 2as sentenced to a year of pro ation and ordered to perform 2/ 3ours community ser+ice and to pay a D208000 fine. $SourceM Federal Ethics Report8 Dec. 2000.. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 20% $2003. for ids any employee of t3e e<ecuti+e ranc3 of t3e -ederal Go+ernment from recommendin5 in 3is or 3er official position any matter in 23ic3 3e or s3e 3as a financial interest. (3e penalty for +iolatin5 t3is la2 could e a fine8 a prison sentence for up to one year8 or ot3Funless t3e +iolation is found to e B2illful8C in 23ic3 case t3e ma<imum prison sentence increases to / years $see 1% U.S.C. N 210 $2003... )e#pin! to Contract +ith a Potentia# %mp#oyer ? A Bad 'dea The Facts+ A U.S. State Department official 2as ne5otiatin5 an employment contract 2it3 a pri+ate employer 23en 3e recommended in 3is official capacity t3at t3e Department of Defense $DoD. enter into a contract 2it3 t3e same company. (3e aim of t3e contractM to pro+ide e>uipment and transportation to 3elp reco+er t3e remains of U.S. ser+icemen 23o 2ere missin5 in action durin5 t3e Jorean 9ar. *elyin5 upon t3e official;s recommendation8 DoD contracted 2it3 t3at company for D4148000. Unfortunately8 t3e official;s recommendation to contract 2it3 a company 2it3 23om 3e 2as ne5otiatin5 employment +iolated t3e la2. On January 108 20028 t3e State Department official 2as sentenced to t3ree years; pro ation and ordered to pay a D/8000 fine. $SourceM Federal Ethics Report8 -e . 2002.. The ,a-+ 9it3 some e<ceptions8 1% U.S.C. N 20% $2003. for ids any officer or employee of t3e e<ecuti+e ranc3 from participatin5 Bpersonally and su stantiallyC in 3is or 3er official capacity in a contract8 contro+ersy8 Bor ot3er particular matterC in 23ic3 3e


or s3e8 or any person or or5aniAation 2it3 23om 3e is s3e is ne5otiatin5 employment8 3as a financial interest. Anyone +iolatin5 t3is la2 Bs3all e imprisoned for not more t3an one year8C fined8 or ot3 $see 1% U.S.C. N 210.. #y ma:in5 a recommendation on a contract in+ol+in5 a company 2it3 23ic3 3e 2as ne5otiatin5 employment8 t3e official in t3is case +iolated t3e la2. 4ud!e 'mposes Steep Prison Sentence in Conf#ict of 'nterest Case A former employee of t3e District of Colum ia Go+ernment 2as sentenced in t3e U.S. District Court for t3e District of Colum ia for o+erseein5 contracts in+ol+in5 an indi+idual 2it3 23om 3e 2as financially in+ol+ed. (3e former employee ser+ed as c3ief of t3e day pro5rams ranc3 of t3e D.C. 6ental *etardation and De+elopmental Disa ilities Administration. (3is Administration placed mentally retarded adults in non' residential day pro5rams. (3e former employee super+ised t3e assi5nment of mentally retarded adults to day pro5rams and administered t3e rules 5o+ernin5 t3ese pro5rams. Durin5 t3is time8 t3e former employee assisted a 2oman in startin5 up a day treatment pro5ram for mentally retarded adults. (3e former employee made loans to t3e 2oman and referred clients to 3er. (3us8 t3e former employee 3ad a financial relations3ip 2it3 t3e 2oman. (3e former employee 2as no lon5er impartial since 3e 3ad a financial interest in seein5 3er succeed so 3is loan could e paid ac:. In addition8 as part of 3is D.C. Go+ernment duties8 3e o+ersa2 t3e super+ision of 3er company. 93en s3e 2ould pay ac: a portion of t3e loan8 s3e 2ould also pay 3im additional monies. (3e =ury found t3e former employee 5uilty of conspiracy and of +iolation of t3e conflict'of'interest la2. !articularly ecause of t3e in+ol+ement of a +ulnera le +ictim $t3e mentally retarded indi+iduals in t3e day pro5ram.8 t3e =ud5e sentenced t3e former employee to "0 mont3s in prison8 follo2ed y 3 years of super+ised release to include 100 3ours of community ser+ice. (3e =ud5e also ordered t3e former employee to pay a D2/8000 fine. -ederal conflict of interest statutes pro3i it employees from ta:in5 official action in particular matters in 23ic3 t3ey 3a+e a financial interest.


&edera# %mp#oyee Convicted of Conf#ict of 'nterest 6io#ation 9hi#e Searchin! for Ae+ 4ob Jo '3untin5 efforts y a former Commerce Department Inspector General $IG. turned up a -ederal con+iction for a conflict of interest instead of a =o . As part of t3e former IGGs official duties8 3e re+ie2ed t3e performance of a certain company8 23ic3 3ad contracted 2it3 t3e Commerce Department to update automated 2eat3er forecastin5 systems. At t3e same time t3at 3e 2as performin5 t3ese o+ersi53t duties8 t3e former official e5an ne5otiatin5 employment 2it3 t3e same company. A -ederal criminal statute8 1% U.S.C. 20%8 pro3i its -ederal employees from officially 2or:in5 on particular matters t3at 3a+e a direct and predicta le effect on an or5aniAation 2it3 23ic3 t3ey are ne5otiatin5 prospecti+e employment. (3e former IGGs re+ie2 of t3e companyGs performance on t3e Commerce Department contract +iolated t3is statute. (3is is t3e same statute t3at ars -ederal employees from ta:in5 official action on matters t3at affect t3eir o2n financial interests or t3ose of t3eir spouses or c3ildren. C'A Conf#ict of 'nterest A CIA employee paid D"%8000 to settle a complaint rou53t y t3e Department of Justice t3at t3e employee 3ad participated in official matters in 23ic3 3is spouse 3ad a financial interest. (3e employee 3ad ser+ed as t3e Contractin5 Officer (ec3nical *epresentati+e $CO(*. on certain contracts et2een 3is a5ency and a pri+ate corporation8 23ere 3is 2ife 2or:ed. (3e contracts in+ol+ed millions of dollars a2arded to t3e corporation. Alt3ou53 t3e employeeGs 2ife did not 2or: on t3e same contracts as t3e employee8 s3e recei+ed stoc: options for t3e purc3ase of t3e corporation;s stoc: t3at 2ere affected y t3e corporationGs profits from t3e contracts 3er 3us and 3ad 2or:ed on. A criminal statute8 1% U.S.C. 20%8 pro3i its employees from participatin5 personally and su stantially in matters t3at 3a+e a direct and predicta le effect on t3eir o2n financial interests or t3ose of t3eir spouses8 minor c3ildren8 or or5aniAations in 23ic3 t3ey are employed. In t3is case8 t3e employeeGs in+ol+ement in t3e corporation;s contracts affected t3e profita ility of t3e corporation8 23ic3 2as passed on to t3e employeeGs 2ife t3rou53 3er stoc: options.


&ormer Postmaster Genera# Pays Sett#ement to %nd Conf#ict of 'nterest 'nvesti!ation A former !ostmaster General of t3e United States a5reed to pay a D248//0 settlement to end a complaint rou53t y t3e Department of Justice pertainin5 to a conflict of interest in+ol+in5 t3e official;s 3oldin5s in a soft drin: company. (3e complaint arose 23ile t3e !ostal Ser+ice 2as e<plorin5 a potential strate5ic alliance et2een t3e !ostal Ser+ice and t3e soft drin: company. (3e !ostal Ser+ice #oard of Go+ernors 3ad t3e aut3ority to appro+e t3e strate5ic alliance8 and t3e !ostmaster GeneralGs role 2as to ad+ise t3e #oard of Go+ernors 2it3 re5ard to t3eir consideration of strate5ic alliances. (3e !ostmaster General rendered ad+ice to t3e #oard e+en t3ou53 3e o2ned s3ares of stoc: in t3e soft drin: company and t3erefore 3ad a personal financial interest in t3e decision. (3e !ostmaster General 2as c3ar5ed specifically 2it3 +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20%8 a criminal statute t3at pro3i its an employee from participatin5 personally and su stantially8 as a Go+ernment official8 in a particular matter in 23ic3 3e or s3e 3as a financial interest.

)i!h-Ran in! Government "fficia# A!rees to Conf#ict of 'nterest Sett#ement A 3i53'ran:in5 Go+ernment official 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20%8 23ic3 5o+erns official acts affectin5 a personal financial interest. (3e -ederal employee8 an Assistant to t3e !resident for ,ational Security Affairs8 2as in+esti5ated for 3oldin5 stoc: in certain petroleum companies 23ile ser+in5 as t3e Deputy Assistant to t3e !resident for ,ational Security Affairs. (3e employee 2as ad+ised y t3e ,ational Security Council Ke5al Ad+iser to di+est 3is s3ares of 3is familyGs petroleum and ot3er ener5y'producin5 stoc:s to a+oid any conflict of interest. Durin5 t3e time t3e employee 2as told to di+est 3is stoc:s8 3e 2as in+ol+ed in 3is official capacity in matters t3at may 3a+e 3ad a direct and predicta le effect on t3e petroleum company.


(3e official a5reed to pay t3e Department of t3e (reasury D2380"38 23ic3 represented t3e increased +alue of t3e stoc:s8 to settle t3e matter. D(C( Pub#ic ,ibrary Director Sentenced for $rave# Reimbursement Scheme (3e former director of t3e District of Colum ia !u lic Ki rary 2as con+icted for fraudulent acti+ities in+ol+in5 Go+ernment cas3 ad+ances and reim ursement payments. At t3e time8 t3e director 2as ser+in5 as ot3 t3e 3ead of t3e D.C. !u lic Ki rary and t3e president of a trade or5aniAation8 t3e American Ki rary Association. (3e director too: cas3 ad+ances from D.C. !u lic Ki rary funds to pay for e<penses incurred in 3is role as president of t3e American Ki rary Association. Ee t3en as:ed t3e trade or5aniAation to reim urse 3im y sendin5 c3ec:s directly to 3is 3ome address. In t3is manner8 t3e li rary director deposited o+er D2"8000 into 3is personal an: account. Su se>uently8 t3e director failed to reim urse t3e D.C. !u lic Ki rary account for t3e cas3 ad+ances. In Septem er 177%8 a =ud5e ordered t3e former director to pay ac: t3e D2"8000 o2ed to t3e D.C. Ki rary8 plus an additional D108%00 o2ed for ac: -ederal income ta<es. Ee 2as sentenced to fi+e mont3s of 3ome detention8 to e follo2ed y t2o years pro ation for +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20%8 a conflicts of interest criminal statute. &ormer &edera# Bureau of 'nvesti!ation B&B'C A!ent 6io#ates Conf#ict of 'nterest Statute A former -#I a5ent pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20%8 23ic3 pro3i its -ederal employees from participatin5 in official acts in 23ic3 t3ey 3a+e a personal financial interest. (3e a5ent;s =o responsi ilities included researc3in5 and testin5 t3e use of pepper spray for t3e -#I8 23ic3 resulted in contact 2it3 t3e manufacturers of one particular type of pepper spray. (3e a5ent su se>uently recommended t3is pepper spray8 and in return8 recei+ed D/48/00 in payments from t3e manufacturer. -ollo2in5 t3e a5ent;s recommendation8 t3e -#I appro+ed t3e use of t3e pepper spray for its a5ents8 resultin5 in a lar5e purc3ase from t3e manufacturer. Additionally8 as a result of t3e -#I a5entGs researc3 and recommendation8 ot3er la2 enforcement a5encies nation2ide e5an to use t3e pepper spray produced y t3e manufacturer.


(3e former a5ent 2as sentenced to t2o mont3s imprisonment follo2ed y t3ree years of super+ised release for 3is +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20%. (3is statute ars -ederal employees from officially participatin5 $in t3is case8 e+en ma:in5 a recommendation. in particular matters $in t3is case8 a contract to uy pepper spray. t3at 3a+e a direct and predicta le effect on t3e employee;s financial interests or t3ose of t3e employee;s spouse or minor c3ildren. Army %mp#oyee Sentenced for Conf#icts of 'nterest A ci+ilian employee of t3e U.S. Army pleaded 5uilty to +iolation of t3e conflicts of interest statute $1% U.S.C. 20%. in -ederal Court and 2as sentenced to one year pro ation and a D18000 fine. (3e employee 3ad participated in t3e a2ardin5 and administration of contracts in+ol+in5 a company in 23ic3 t3e employee o2ned stoc:8 t3ere y participatin5 personally and su stantially as a Go+ernment employee in matters t3at affected 3is financial interests. (3e employee8 23o filed financial disclosure statements $OG1 -orm "/0.8 3ad also failed to disclose 3is financial interest in t3e company. Chief &inancia# "fficer and Chief 'nformation "fficer of the -nited States Department of %ducation 6io#ates 1H -(S(C( 2=H 93ile t3e official 3eld t3e a o+e titles at t3e Department of 1ducation8 3is 2ife o2ned 000 s3ares of Compa> computer stoc: t3at s3e 3ad in3erited from 3er mot3er. Durin5 t3is period8 t3e official 2as in+ol+ed in 3is official capacity in issues concernin5 Compa> computers. (3e Go+ernment contended t3at t3e official +iolated 1% U.S.C. 20%8 for participatin5 personally and su stantially as a Go+ernment officer in a particular matter in 23ic38 to 3is :no2led5e8 3e andSor 3is spouse 3as a financial interest. !ursuant to a ci+il settlement8 t3e official paid t3e Go+ernment D2080008 and t3e Go+ernment released 3im from its claims. Chief of Staff at the Department of 6eterans Affairs Medica# Center in Fansas City3 %n!a!es in Conf#ict of 'nterest Durin5 t3e same time t3e C3ief of Staff 2as employed y t3e Department of )eterans Affairs 6edical Center8 3e 2as also employed as a p3ysician y t3e Uni+ersity


of Jansas 6edical Center in Jansas City8 Jansas. Su se>uently8 t3e C3ief of Staff in 3is official capacity appro+ed a contract for cardiocat3 ser+ices to t3e Department of )eterans Affairs 6edical Center y t3e Uni+ersity of Jansas 6edical Center. On 6arc3 %8 20008 t3e C3ief of Staff pled 5uilty to a misdemeanor +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20%8 23ic3 ars employees from ta:in5 official action in matters affectin5 t3eir personal financial interests. On Au5ust 48 20008 3e 2as sentenced to pay a D2/0 fine and a special assessment of D2/. 'nterna# Revenue Service B'RSC RevenueKSett#ement "fficer Prosecuted -P 1H -(S(C( 2=H An I*S employee 2as assi5ned to a certain I*S collection matter8 23ic3 5a+e 3im inside information concernin5 a proposed stoc: e<c3an5e. After 3is role in t3e case 2as su stantially o+er8 t3e employee purc3ased appro<imately D28000 in t3e stoc: su =ect to t3e proposed e<c3an5e ased in part on information 3e 3ad learned durin5 t3e course of 3is duties as a *e+enue Officer. After t3e stoc: purc3ase8 t3e I*S employee 3ad on se+eral occasions8 minor contact 2it3 t3e parties efore t3e I*S. Ee e+entually 2ent to 3is super+isor8 disclosed 3is interest in t3e stoc:8 and 2as remo+ed from furt3er participation in t3e case. (3e I*S employee lost money on t3e stoc: transaction. (3e I*S employee 2as prosecuted pursuant to 1% U.S.C. 20% for participatin5 personally and su stantially as a Go+ernment officer or employee in a particular matter in 23ic38 to 3is :no2led5e8 3e 3ad a financial interest8 and 1% U.S.C. 210$a.$1.. (3e employee 2as placed on pretrial di+ersion for si< mont3s on t3e condition t3at 3e resi5n from t3e I*S and perform 120 3ours of community ser+ice. District Conservationist at the -(S( Department of A!ricu#ture*s Aationa# Resources Conservation Service Sentenced for Conf#ict of 'nterest (3e ,*CS employee 2as t3e Go+ernmentGs tec3nical representati+e on a USDA soil and 2ater conser+ation pro5ram t3at 2as implemented t3rou53 a State of ,ort3 Carolina pro5ram called ,CACS! $,ort3 Carolina A5ricultural Cost S3are !ro5ram.. Under t3e ,CACS! pro5ram8 local lando2ners can recei+e fundin5 to reduce a5ricultural pollution. (3e ,*CS employee8 in 3is position as a district conser+ationist8 appro+ed a contract 23ere y a usiness +enture o2ned y 3is spouse sold filter fa ric to lando2ners t3rou53 t3e ,CACS! pro5ram.


(3e ,*CS employee 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 a felony count of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 28 aidin5 and a ettin58 and 1% U.S.C. 20%8 for participatin5 personally and su stantially as a Go+ernment employee in a particular matter8 in 23ic38 to 3is :no2led5e8 3is spouse 3as a financial interest. -urt3er8 in 3is position as a district conser+ationist8 3e appro+ed a contract et2een t3e ,CACS! and a cattle operation in 23ic3 3e and 3is spouse 2ere partners. Additionally8 3e appro+ed a contract for fence construction et2een t3e ,CACS! and a t3ird party. (3is contract resulted in payments t3at 2ere transferred to a partners3ip consistin5 of t3e ,*CS employee8 3is spouse8 and t3e t3ird party. (3e ,*CS employee 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 t2o additional felony counts of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20%8 for participatin5 personally and su stantially as a Go+ernment employee in a particular matter8 in 23ic38 to 3is :no2led5e8 3e8 3is spouse8 and 5eneral partner 3a+e a financial interest. A =ury con+icted t3e ,*CS employee on all counts. Ee 2as sentenced y t3e court to one year of pro ation. A Contractin! "fficer for the Department of the Army at &ort 4ac son3 South Caro#ina Sett#es Conf#ict of 'nterest A##e!ation Sometime prior to ,o+em er 177/8 t3e contractin5 officer e5an a relations3ip 2it3 a foreman for a Go+ernment contractor. (3e foreman su se>uently started 3is o2n company and e5an iddin5 on Go+ernment contracts at -ort Jac:son. In ,o+em er 177/8 t3e former Go+ernment contractin5 officer assumed t3e title of pro=ect mana5er at t3e ne2 company and performed +arious duties for t3e former foreman 2it3out monetary compensation. On April 78 17708 t3e contractin5 officer appro+ed and certified for payment an in+oice su mitted y t3e company. S3e continued 3er employment relations3ip 2it3 t3e company until June 1770. Eo2e+er8 s3e su mitted a 2ritten statement to t3e Director of Contractin5 at -ort Jac:son attestin5 t3at 3er association 2it3 t3e company ended in 6arc3 1770. (3e former contractin5 officer 2as indicted on Decem er 38 1774 for +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20%8 ta:in5 official action in matters affectin5 an employee;s personal financial interest. S3e si5ned a !retrial Di+ersion A5reement 23ic3 re>uires t3at s3e complete /0 3ours of community ser+ice.


Assistant -nited States Attorney BA-SAC Convicted on Conf#ict of 'nterest and &raud (3e AUSA for t3e Central District of California 2as indicted after it 2as disco+ered t3at on numerous occasions 3e 3ad made fa+ora le recommendations to t3e court8 t3e pro ation office8 and ot3er prosecutin5 offices on e3alf of cooperatin5 2itnesses and defendants in e<c3an5e for 3undreds of t3ousands of dollars. (3e AUSA 3ad8 for e<ample8 accepted D7%8000 from one cooperatin5 2itness 23o 3ad pre+iously een con+icted in t3e ,ort3ern District of (e<as and on 23ose e3alf t3e AUSA 3ad ar5ued for leniency at t3e sentencin5 3earin5. In addition8 3e 3ad used 3is official position to secure entry into t3e United States of se+eral forei5n nationals 23om 3e elie+ed 2ould ma:e su stantial in+estments in a company in 23ic3 3e and 3is 2ife 3ad a controllin5 financial interest. Once t3e forei5n nationals entered t3e United States8 t2o Iranian companies 2it3 23ic3 t3ey 2ere affiliated loaned a total of D%008000 to t3e AUSA;s company. (3e AUSA pled 5uilty to one felony conflict of interest count8 1% U.S.C. 20%8 and t2o counts of 2ire fraud8 in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 13"3 and 13"0. Ee 2as fined D48/00 and sentenced to t2o years in prison plus t3ree years of super+ised release. Patric Air &orce Base %n!ineer 6io#ates Conf#ict of 'nterest Statute An en5ineer in t3e Contracts Department at !atric: Air -orce #ase started a usiness8 alon5 2it3 former military personnel and former Go+ernment employees8 23ic3 su mitted a id to t3e ase. (3e en5ineer8 in 3is official capacity8 pro+ided t3e tec3nical e+aluations on t3e id. (3rou53 t3e iddin5 process8 t3e company 2as a2arded t3e contract. (3e en5ineer 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 participatin5 personally and su stantially in a particular matter in 23ic3 3e 3ad a financial interest8 in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20%. !ursuant to 1% U.S.C. 210$a.$1.8 3e pled 5uilty to a misdemeanor +iolation of section 20% and 2as sentenced to nine mont3s pro ation and fined D28/00. &edera# Aviation Administration B&AAC %mp#oyee Gui#ty of 6io#atin! 1H -(S(C( 2=H


(3e -AA employee re+ie2ed t3e applications of aircraft component manufacturers. Ee 2as t3e -AA representati+e on a fli53t test of a Ground !ro<imity 9arnin5 System $G!9S. manufactured y a certain corporation. In t3e course of 3is duties for t3e -AA8 t3e employee o tained access to proprietary information su mitted to t3e -AA y t3e G!9S manufacturer. At t3e same time8 t3e -AA employee 2as de+elopin5 and mar:etin5 3is o2n G!9S for sale to t3e pu lic. (3e -AA employee 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 a +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20% due to t3e fact t3at 3e participated personally and su stantially in t3e -AAGs test fli53t of a G!9S 23ile de+elopin5 3is o2n G!9SI 3e pled 5uilty and 2as sentenced to t3ree years pro ation. C'A %mp#oyee 6io#ates Conf#ict of 'nterest Statute A Central Intelli5ence A5ency Contractin5 Officer;s (ec3nical *epresentati+e $CO(*. pled 5uilty to a +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20% after in+esti5ators disco+ered t3at 3e 3ad used 3is Go+ernment position to secure employment for a friend 23o o2ed 3im money. (3e employee;s duties as a CO(* included t3e tec3nical super+ision of t2o Go+ernment contracts 2it3 a particular company t3rou53 23ic3 t3e Go+ernment funded a classified pro5ram. (3e employee used 3is position as a CO(* to cause t3e company to 3ire one of 3is friends as a consultant to t3e pro5ram. (3e friend o2ed a su stantial sum of money to t3e employee and 3is 2ife and did not 3a+e t3e financial means to repay t3em. At no time did t3e employee disclose to t3e Go+ernment or t3e company t3at t3e friend o2ed 3im or 3is 2ife money. (3e Go+ernment c3ar5ed t3at8 under t3ese circumstances8 t3e CO(* 3ad a financial interest in t3e companyGs decision to enter into a consultin5 a5reement 2it3 t3e friend and t3at 3e +iolated 1% U.S.C. 20% y participatin5 in t3at decision. (3e CO(* pled 5uilty to a felony +iolation of section 20%. Ee also pled 5uilty to a c3ar5e of possession of c3ild porno5rap3y o tained t3rou53 unaut3oriAed personal use of a Go+ernment'furnis3ed computer. Ee recei+ed t3ree years super+ised release and 2as ordered to pay a D"8000 fine. Computer-Aided Aavi!ation ,eaves Retired Captain ,ost at Sea


A Coast Guard Captain 2or:in5 on t3e inte5ration of le5acy na+i5ation systems 2it3 G!S spo:e 2it3 a 5o+ernment contractor assi5ned to t3e pro=ect a out post' retirement 2or:. Once retired8 t3e captain made recommendations concernin5 purc3ases to 3is former collea5ues still 2earin5 Coast Guard uniforms ? purc3ases t3at directly enefited t3e captain in 3is ne2 role as consultant. (3e 5o+ernment maintained t3at t3e captain +iolated 1% U.S.C. N 20%$a.8 y ne5otiatin5 for future employment 2it3 a contractor 3e dealt 2it3 in 3is acti+e duty capacity8 and 1% U.S.C. N 204 $a.$1.8 y attemptin5 to influence 5o+ernment personnel on a pro=ect o+er 23ic3 3e 3ad e<ercised considera le responsi ility. (3e Go+ernment settled 2it3 t3e captain for D2/8000. Conf#ict of 'nterest Resu#ts in <1=3=== &ine A ,a+y Construction *epresentati+e o+erseein5 a company;s t2o construction contracts 2it3 t3e ,a+y secured employment to su contract t3e same pro=ects 3e 2as supposedly inspectin58 splittin5 t3e proceeds 2it3 an e>ually unscrupulous employee of t3e company. Ee pled 5uilty to one count of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. N 20% $ arrin5 an employee from ta:in5 official action in matters affectin5 certain personal or or5aniAational financial interests. and one count of +iolatin5 "1 U.S.C. N /38 t3e Anti' Jic: ac: Act of 17%0. Eis 5et'ric3'>uic: sc3eme cost 3im si< years pro ation8 si< mont3s 3ome detention8 100 3ours of community ser+ice8 and a D108000 fine. A!ricu#tura# %conomist and 9ife 6io#ate 1H -(S(C( 2=H in 6isa Scam A Department of A5riculture a5ricultural economist found 3imself facin5 =ail time for 3is decision to attempt to e<ploit 3is Go+ernment position. (3e economist 2as put in c3ar5e of a Department pro5ram to rin5 to5et3er U.S. and C3inese a5riculture e<perts. Instead8 t3e economist for5ed documents8 2it3 t3e assistance of 3is 2ife8 to e<tort D%28000 from nearly 100 C3inese nationals see:in5 entry to t3e United States. 93ile t3e economist;s case is still pendin58 3is 2ife pled 5uilty to one count of aidin5 and a ettin5 an unla2ful conflict of interest in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. NN 20% and 2. S3e recei+ed t2o years pro ation and 100 3ours of community ser+ice. Consu#tant*s Attempted Bribery Garners <1=== &ine


A consultant in t3e office of t3e District of Colum ia C3ief (ec3nolo5y Officer ended up in court after solicitin5 :ic: ac:s from a pri+ate company. (3e consultant 2as tas:ed 2it3 a2ardin5 contracts to information tec3nolo5y companies8 and decided to 5o ac: to a company 3e 3ad recently appro+ed and demand a cut of t3eir profits. Un3appily for 3im8 t3e company 2ent to t3e aut3orities instead. (3e consultant pled 5uilty to one count of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. N 20% $a.8 ta:in5 official action in matters affectin5
an employee;s personal financial interest8 and 2as sentenced to a year of pro ation and a

D1000 fine. Attempted Bribery of 'mmi!ration "fficia# Aets a /ear of Probation An applicant for U.S. citiAens3ip slid D200 in an unmar:ed en+elope across to an Ad=udication Officer durin5 3is inter+ie28 3opin5 for a fa+ora le outcome. Ee 5ot a year;s pro ation instead. Contractors and Army "fficer &ace &ive /ears for Conf#ict of 'nterest A raid of an Army Colonel;s residence re+ealed e+idence t3at led to c3ar5es for t3e officer as 2ell as t2o employees of a 6aryland military contractor. (3e officer super+ised solicitation8 a2ard8 and o+ersi53t of more t3an 148000 military contracts in Jorea. Upon learnin5 t3at t3e officer 2as considerin5 retirement8 t2o military contractors contacted 3im re5ardin5 3is potential employment at t3e contractors; company. O+er t3e course of t3e ne<t si< mont3s8 t3e officer and t3e contractors 3ad len5t3y discussions re5ardin5 t3e possi le =o offer. (3e ne5otiations in+ol+ed a trip to company 3ead>uarters as 2ell as at least se+en dinners at e<pensi+e restaurants8 all paid for y t3e company. Durin5 t3is time period8 t3e officer did not recuse 3imself from matters in+ol+in5 t3e company. In fact8 t3e officer on one occasion o+erruled t3e decision of tec3nical e<perts 23o recommended a2ardin5 a contract to a different company8 and instead recommended t3e contractors; company. On anot3er occasion8 t3e officer told anot3er contractor t3at if 3e 2is3ed to participate in t3e pro5ram in t3e future8 3e s3ould id as a su contractor to t3e first contractors; company. (3e contractors; internal emails


ad+ocatin5 t3e officer;s 3irin5 noted t3at BT3Uis e<pectations are 3i53 ut 3is +alue 3as een pro+ed.C (ips from a mem er of t3e officer;s command led to an intera5ency in+esti5ation t3at unco+ered e5re5ious ri e'ta:in5 to t3e tune of more t3an D4008000 $muc3 of 23ic3 2as 3idden in undles of cas3 under t3e officer;s mattress. in addition to t3e ille5al ne5otiations 2it3 t3e contractors. (3ese ri es 3ad resulted in nearly D2/ million in contracts ein5 ille5ally re2arded to companies for uildin5 facilities and pro+idin5 security 5uards at military installations in Jorea. (3e officer pled 5uilty to c3ar5es of conspiracy and ri ery8 and 2as sentenced to /" mont3s in prison follo2ed y t3ree years of super+ised release. Ee 2as also assessed a D108000 fine8 2as stripped of ran:8 and 2ill recei+e no retirement pay. (3e t2o contractors face fi+e years in prison and a D2/08000 fine. %mp#oyee &ined <1I3=== for Conf#ict of 'nterest A Super+isory Ac>uisition 6ana5ement Specialist at 9ri53t'!atterson Air -orce #ase 2as indicted for participatin5 in employment ne5otiations 2it3 a company 23ile 3e simultaneously 2or:ed on contracts in+ol+in5 t3at company. As part of t3e employee;s =o responsi ilities8 3e pro+ided a idder on a Go+ernment contract 2it3 ad+ice and recommendations related to t3e iddin5 process. Eo2e+er8 at t3e same time8 t3e employee 2as in employment ne5otiations 2it3 one of t3e idder;s su contractors8 and 2as 2ell a2are of t3e su contractor;s interest in t3e idder;s success. (3e employee pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 t3e conflict of interest statute t3at pro3i its an indi+idual from en5a5in5 in employment ne5otiations 2it3 a company 23ile simultaneously participatin5 in an official capacity on a Go+ernment contract 2it3 t3e company. (3e employee 2as sentenced to one year of pro ation and ordered to pay D128000 in restitution and a D18000 fine.

Conf#ict of 'nterest Aets %mp#oyee <L== &ine 93en determinin5 23ic3 company s3ould recei+e a contract to produce a +ideo on Q2J issues for t3e Department of Commerce8 a producerSdirector in t3e Office of !u lic Affairs settled on a small production company t3at specialiAed in +oiceo+er 2or:.


(3ere 2as only one small pro lemFt3e company 2as o2ned y t3e employee and 3is 2ife. (3e Department of Commerce e+entually paid t3e company o+er D108000 for t3eir 2or:8 earnin5 t3e employee and 3is 2ife a profit of o+er D1000. Unfortunately for t3e employee8 3is fifteen minutes of fame 2ere cut s3ort y a District Court Jud5e8 23o sentenced 3im to one year of pro ation8 100 3ours of community ser+ice8 and a D700 fine. (3e employee 2as found 5uilty of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20%$a.8 23ic3 ars employees from participatin5 personally and su stantially in a matter in 23ic3 t3ey 3a+e a financial interest. %mp#oyee &ined <1=== for Conf#ict of 'nterest -unnelin5 contracts to friends certainly did not pay off for t3e Senior De+elopment Officer of t3e International #roadcastin5 #ureau $I##.. (3e officer 2as responsi le for de+elopin5 and securin5 fundin5 for re+enue'producin5 pro=ects for t3e I##8 an independent a5ency affiliated 2it3 t3e State Department. 93en determinin5 23ic3 company s3ould recei+e an D%/8000 5rant to train affiliate radio stations in U5anda8 t3e officer selected a usiness o2ned y 3is friend. In return for t3is 5enerosity8 3is friend o li5in5ly selected a su contractor near and dear to t3e officer;s 3eart ? a company o2ned and mana5ed y t3e officer and 3is 2ife. In order to fulfill t3e D1/8000 contract8 t3e officer mana5ed to con+ince I## to fly 3im to U5anda 2it3 5o+ernment funds as part of 3is Bofficial duties.C Eo2e+er8 I## soon disco+ered t3e officer;s relations3ip 2it3 t3e su contractin5 company. -or 3is +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20%8 23ic3 for ids employees from participatin5 personally and su stantially in a matter in 23ic3 t3ey 3a+e a financial interest8 t3e officer earned t3ree years pro ation8 /0 3ours community ser+ice8 a D1000 fine8 and 2as re>uired to pay o+er D1/8000 in restitution. Conf#ict of 'nterest Resu#ts in 4ai# $ime for AcDuisitions %>ecutive A former senior Air -orce official found 3erself in -ederal prison after 3er +iolation of conflicts'of'interest statutes. (3e official en5a5ed in =o ne5otiations 2it3 a pri+ate company 23ile still employed y t3e Air -orce as t3e c3ief ne5otiator for a D23 illion leasin5 plan 2it3 t3at company. 93ile t3e official did e+entually recuse 3erself


from participation in decisions in+ol+in5 t3e company8 3er recusal came t3ree mont3s after t3e e5innin5 of 3er ne5otiations. (3e official e5an ne5otiations 2it3 t3e company t3rou53 encrypted e'mails sent y 3er dau53ter8 23o 2as an employee of t3e companyI 3er dau53ter set up a secret meetin5 et2een t3e official and company e<ecuti+es. At t3e start of t3e meetin58 t3e official informed t3e e<ecuti+es t3at s3e 2as still participatin5 personally and su stantially on matters in+ol+in5 t3e companyI 3o2e+er8 ot3 parties elected to continue t3e meetin5 and to simply :eep it a secret. (3e ne5otiations continued for se+eral more mont3s8 all 23ile t3e official 2as still participatin5 personally and su stantially in decisions8 appro+als8 and ad+ice in matters in 23ic3 t3e company 3ad a financial interest. After t3e official finally su mitted 3er letter dis>ualifyin5 3erself from 2or:in5 on matters in+ol+in5 t3e company8 in+esti5ators e5an scrutiniAin5 t3e timeline of 3er story. (3e official lied repeatedly to in+esti5ators as to t3e start date of 3er employment ne5otiations8 colla oratin5 2it3 t3e company e<ecuti+es to matc3 stories. (3e former official pled 5uilty in -ederal court8 and 2as sentenced to nine mont3s in prison and se+en mont3s eit3er in a 3alf2ay 3ouse or under 3ome detention. (3e company e<ecuti+e faces a =ail term of no more t3an si< mont3s under -ederal sentencin5 5uidelines. -ederal !rocurement la2 specifically for ids a company or its e<ecuti+es from ma:in5 any offer or promise of future employment to a -ederal procurement officer. Ki:e2ise8 procurement officers are pro3i ited from discussin5 employment so lon5 as t3ey o+ersee matters in+ol+in5 t3at company.

Credit Card Abuse
Sportin! Goods Scam Stea#s from -nc#e Sam It seemed li:e t3e perfect scamM O2ners of a sportin5 5oods store near a military installation allo2ed ser+ice'mem ers to c3ar5e personal items on 5o+ernment purc3ase cards $G!C.. Ser+ice'mem ers 2ould o+erc3ar5e t3e cards and t3en split t3e e<tra cas3 et2een t3emsel+es and t3e store o2ners. One unluc:y 1'0 2as cau53t 23en 3e c3ar5ed D17/0 on a G!C and poc:eted D%/08 23ic3 3e used to uy a num er of sportin5 5oods.


(3e perfect scam didn;t 2or: out so 2ell for t3e 1'0. Ee 2as con+icted in a court martial8 reduced to 1'18 5i+en 1% mont3s confinement8 and 5i+en a ad conduct disc3ar5e. Pin-)eads '!nore Government Purchase Card Procedures (3e 6ana5er of an Army #o2lin5 !ro S3op recei+ed factory re ates for t3e o2lin5 products 3e purc3ased for t3e s3op usin5 a Go+ernment credit card. Go+ernment !urc3ase Card procedures stipulate t3at card3olders s3ould ta:e ad+anta5e of any re ates offered8 23et3er cas3 or merc3andise8 and t3at manufacturer and retailer re ates s3ould e made paya le to t3e appropriate Go+ernment a5ency. (3e 6ana5er purc3ased property for t3e s3op8 a 69* entity8 on a Go+ernment contractI t3erefore8 t3e re ates 2ere t3e property of DoD and s3ould 3a+e een turned in to t3e a5ency;s financial officer. Instead8 t3e 6ana5er :ept t3e re ates8 23ic3 2ere in t3e form of #est #uy 5ift cards8 for 3is personal use. Ee 2as e+en 3eard ra55in5 a out all of t3e free stuff 3e 2ould e a le to uy. -urt3ermore8 3e improperly lent 3is Go+ernment impact card to anot3er ci+ilian o2lin5 facility employee in +iolation of Go+ernment !urc3ase Card standard operatin5 procedure 23ic3 re>uires t3at only t3e named indi+idual on t3e card may use it for official purposes in compliance 2it3 a5ency accounts. (3is employee :ept t3e cas3 and 5ift card re ates 3e recei+ed from usin5 t3e 6ana5er;s cardI failin5 to pro+ide t3em to t3e 69* finance officer and resultin5 in a D230 cost loss for t3e Go+ernment. (3ese actions constitute larceny and improper use of a Go+ernment purc3ase card. (3e 6ana5er resi5ned in lieu of furt3er disciplinary action. (3e employee also resi5ned. %#ectronics Scam ,ands Sai#or in )ot 9ater An acti+e duty ,a+y sailor and aut3oriAed Go+ernment purc3ase card user noticed one day t3at some of t3e items s3e 3ad purc3ased for 3er Command 2ere missin5 from t3e 2are3ouse. S3e decided to 5o a3ead and repurc3ase t3e items to Bpre+ent any of 3er s3ipmates from 5ettin5 in trou le for stealin5 Go+ernment property.C (3is incident seemed to 5i+e t3e sailor an idea ecause a out t2o years later s3e decided to try to use 3er Go+ernment purc3ase card to conduct 2idespread t3eft. 1+er cautious8 s3e first conducted a fe2 Btest runsC y purc3asin5 items for 3er personal use on 3er


Go+ernment card. (3e misuse 2ent undetected so t3e sailor =oined 2it3 a co'conspirator to discuss e+en i55er plans. (3ey decided to uy laptop computers and plasma tele+isions on t3e sailor;s Go+ernment card and to re'sell t3em for personal profit. ,a+y auditors disco+ered t3e sc3eme and determined t3at t3e sailor and 3er co'conspirator 3ad defrauded t3e Go+ernment out of D30382"3. (3e sailor 3ad used 3er Go+ernment card to purc3ase 102 note oo: computers8 0/ i5 screen tele+isions8 22 di5ital cameras8 G!S de+ices8 camcorders8 computer monitors8 and 3ome t3eater systems. Eer efforts to pre+ent 3er s3ipmates from 5ettin5 into trou le and 3er su se>uent emulation of t3e local cut'rate electronic retailer led t3e sailor to plead 5uilty to one count of t3eft of Go+ernment property in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. N0"1. S3e is sc3eduled for sentencin5 in Au5ust 200%. Stea#in! 'sn*t the "n#y 9ay to Misuse a Government 'ssued Credit Card A U.S. !ostal Ser+ice employee recei+ed a Go+ernment Issued Credit Card $GICC. t3rou53 Citi an: to co+er relocation costs. In recei+in5 t3e GICC8 t3e employee si5ned a contract 2it3 Citi an: statin5 3e 2ould pay t3e entire alance of t3e credit card 2it3in 2/ days of t3e billing statement closing date.
The employee accrued a balance of over $6, He also agreed with the U.S.P.S. to pay the balance on time regardless of whether or not he had received reimbursement. on the account, but did not ma!e an initial payment on the balance until four months after the due date, and did not pay off the entire balance until " months after the due date. The employee procrastinated in re#uesting reimbursement and then he waited si$ wee!s before depositing the reimbursement chec! and ma!ing 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 si$ more months. %itiban! canceled the card and the employee was fired for failing to pay off the &'%% on time and misusing government funds.

-se of &e##o+ So#diers* Government Credit Cards %arns Reprimand 93ile conductin5 operations in Ju2ait8 an Army 6a=or in t3e Corps Support Group Ad+ance !arty needed a num er of mission'essential items. Ee ordered t3ese items 2it3 se+eral Go+ernment !urc3ase Cards $G!Cs.. (3e only pro lem8 t3e cards 2ere not 3is. #efore deployment8 t3e 6a=or 3ad mana5ed to collect a list of t3e num ers and security codes of G!Cs 3eld y mem ers of 3is unit 23o 2ere not deployin5. (3ese /%

card3olders t3en noticed a ras3 of une<plained payments from Ju2ait. As card3olders are personally responsi le for t3e c3ar5es on t3eir cards8 se+eral card3olders disputed t3e c3ar5es in accordance 2it3 re5ulations. (3is led to a lon5 series of unnecessary and frustratin5 e<c3an5es 2it3 t3e credit card company. As a result of 3is actions8 t3e 6a=or recei+ed counselin5. 93ile t3ere 2as no e+idence t3at 3e 3ad used t3e cards for personal purc3ases8 3is use 2as unaut3oriAed. G!Cs can only e used y t3eir aut3oriAed card3older 2it3 t3e consent of an Appro+in5 Official. Unaut3oriAed use ypasses t3e safe5uards created to minimiAe a use. Credit Card Abuse and Misuse of Resources Resu#ts in Suspension An I( Specialist 2it3 t3e Defense Information Systems A5ency $DISA. 2as reprimanded for a trio of offenses committed o+er t3e span of a year. In+esti5ators found t3at t3e specialist used 3is DISA Go+ernment tra+el card to pay for D2843/."/ 2ort3 of food8 5as8 and rental cars 23ile on personal trips to Indiana to +isit 3is 5irlfriend. (3e specialist additionally claimed per diem allo2ances for t2o days on 23ic3 3e 2as tec3nically A sent 9it3out Kea+e $A9OK.. -inally8 t3e specialist used 3is Go+ernment cell p3one to ma:e personal p3one calls suc3 t3at unofficial use comprised any23ere from 30'/0V of 3is total usa5e. (3e specialist 2as suspended for t3ree days8 reim ursed t3e Go+ernment D183%".3% for 3is cell p3one a use8 paid off 3is Go+ernment credit card8 and too: t2o days of lea+e to account for 3is period A9OK. Runnin! -p the Government .'MPAC1 Card The Facts+ A $former. ci+ilian director of t3e !enta5on;s Grap3ics and !resentation Di+ision used 3er Go+ernment'issued8 6erc3ant !urc3ase Aut3oriAation Card $BI6!ACC. to ma:e /22 fa:e purc3ases from a Seattle company created y a fello2 sc3emer solely to carry out t3e fraud. !ayments y t3e Go+ernment for t3e Bpurc3asesC 2ere made to t3e Seattle firm8 ut t3e co'sc3emer 2ould simply cas3 t3e c3ec:s and split t3e Bta:eC 2it3 t3e director. (3e director 2as cau53t and sentenced to t3ree years and one mont3 in prison and 2as ordered to pay D1.4 million in restitution. The ,a-+ Don;t steal. (3eft +iolates +arious state and -ederal la2s.


Senior AC" Abuses Government Credit Card An in+esti5ation concluded t3at a senior U.S. 6arine improperly used 3is Go+ernment credit card y purc3asin5 5as for 3is personal +e3icle8 dinners8 and concert tic:ets as 2ell as o tainin5 cas3 ad+ancesFall unrelated to official tra+el. (3e 6arine 2as counseled y 3is super+isor and re>uired to reim urse t3e Go+ernment for all unaut3oriAed purc3ases. Ee retired soon after t3e in+esti5ation. DoD %mp#oyee Char!es Caribbean 6acation to Government Credit Card A GS'13 Department of Defense employee used 3er Go+ernment credit card to pay for 3er personal +acation to t3e Cari ean. (3e case 2as referred to t3e U.S. Attorney8 23o declined prosecution. (3e employee 2as counseled y 3er super+isor and 2arned t3at if any ot3er inappropriate c3ar5es 2ere made on 3er account s3e 2ould e disciplined. $Qes8 s3e reim ursed t3e Go+ernment.. Department of Defense %mp#oyee Ma es <;3=== in Persona# Char!es An in+esti5ation re+ealed t3at a Department of Defense ci+ilian employee 3ad made inappropriate8 personal c3ar5es in t3e amount of o+er D08000 usin5 3is 5o+ernment tra+el card. (3e employee 2as suspended 2it3out pay for failin5 to follo2 t3e terms of t3e credit card use policy.

Pub#ic "fficia# Misuses Credit Card A Department of 1ner5y employee recently pled 5uilty to a t3eft of Go+ernment property c3ar5e. (3e employee made o+er D48000 in personal c3ar5es on 3er Go+ernment credit card y 3idin5 t3e c3ar5es amon5 le5itimate Go+ernment purc3ases. (3e employee also falsified in+oices and credit card records to furt3er conceal t3e purc3ases. (3e employee 2as sentenced to t2o years pro ation and ordered to pay restitution for t3e amount of t3e c3ar5es. Department of 6eterans Affairs %mp#oyee Misuses Credit Card


A former Department of )eterans Affairs employee recently pled 5uilty to one count of t3eft of Go+ernment property. (3e former employee used 3er Go+ernment credit card to purc3ase e<pensi+e items $()s 2ere a fa+orite.8 23ic3 s3e t3en re'sold or :ept for 3erself. (3e =ud5e sentenced 3er to fi+e years pro ation and ordered 3er to pay D1408000 in restitution. Department of Defense Civi#ian %mp#oyee Misuses Credit Card A Department of Defense ci+ilian employee recently pled 5uilty to one count of t3eft of Go+ernment property. (3e employee entered into an arran5ement 2it3 t2o +endors in 23ic3 t3ey 2ould c3ar5e t3e Go+ernment credit card for non'e<istent 5oods and ser+ices. (3e +endors 2ould t3en 5i+e cas3 to t3e DoD employee. (3e +endors c3ar5ed o+er D128000 and :ic:ed ac: D38000 to t3e employee. (3e employee 2as sentenced to t2o years pro ation 2it3 four mont3s 3ome confinement8 and ordered to pay D128"43 in restitution and a D18000 fine. -(S( Government 'MPAC Credit Card Abuse by Air &orce %mp#oyees (3ree former ci+ilian employees from #ar:sdale Air -orce #ase8 Kouisiana8 2ere con+icted of conspiracy to defraud t3e Go+ernment $1% U.S.C. 341. and con+ersion of U.S. property for personal use $1% U.S.C. 0"1.. (3e employees used t3e U.S. Go+ernment I6!AC credit cards to purc3ase personal items8 23ic3 included e<tensi+e 3ome impro+ement products and car'related materials. One of t3e employees certified on official documents t3at purc3ases on t3e I6!AC credit card 2ere properly used y mem ers of t3e reser+e unit. One of t3e employees 2as sentenced to a one year and one day prison term8 and t3e ot3er employees 2ere sentenced to si< mont3s in a -ederal 3alf2ay 3ouse and 2ere re>uired to ma:e full restitution. Cardho#der Supervisor Convicted for Credit Card Abuse (3e super+isor of four I6!AC card3olders 2as con+icted for misusin5 Go+ernment credit cards. (3e super+isor used t3e credit card num ers of 3is four su ordinates8 none of 23om 2ere suspected of any 2ron5doin58 to ma:e multiple


purc3ases from a local auto parts store and a military surplus store. (3e super+isor t3en proceeded to re'sell most of t3e products at 3is ar. Some of t3e items purc3ased included 5as 5rills8 truc: parts8 and automo ile tires. (3e super+isor con+inced t3e mana5ers of t3e auto parts store and t3e military surplus store to alter t3e credit card in+oices to list 23at 2ould appear to e official military supplies8 instead of listin5 t3e actual 5oods purc3ased. (3e e+idence indicates t3at t3e DoD super+isor defrauded t3e Go+ernment to t3e tune of D2008000. (3e employee pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 2%48 for su mittin5 false and fraudulent claims8 and 1% U.S.C. 20%8 for appro+in5 t3e fraudulent purc3ases. Ee 2as sentenced to ten mont3s in prison. Accountant Goes to 4ai# for Misuse of $rave# Card A super+isory accountant at t3e ,ational Science -oundation $,S-. found 3erself at t3e recei+in5 end of criminal c3ar5es for 5o+ernment tra+el card a useFa situation t3at s3ould 3a+e come as no surprise8 5i+en t3at 3er responsi ilities included mana5in5 t3e ,S-;s tra+el card pro5ram. In+esti5ators found t3at on forty'se+en separate occasions8 t3e accountant used 3er tra+el card to ma:e personal purc3ases and unaut3oriAed cas3 2it3dra2als. 93en t3e In+esti5ator General e5an an audit of t3e tra+el card pro5ram8 t3e accountant pur5ed 3er o2n transactions from t3e records in an $unsuccessful. attempt to 3ide 3er misuse. (3e formerly footloose accountant 2as saddled 2it3 a D18000 fine and sentenced to 20 2ee:ends in =ail as a condition of a t2o'year pro ation. Eer misuse of t3e tra+el card not only ended 3er career at ,S-8 ut arred 3er from all future federal employment. Go+ernment tra+el cards s3ould only e used for e<penses related to official tra+el. %mp#oyee &aces 1= /ears for $heft of Credit Cards -ollo2in5 up on t2o stolen Go+ernment credit cards8 in+esti5ators cut s3ort t3e entrepreneurial career of a utility 2or:er for t3e ,orfol: ,a+al Station !u lic 9or:s Center. After stealin5 t3e t2o cards8 23ic3 2ere used to 5as fleet +e3icles8 t3e 2or:er e5an to offer to fill t3e tan:s of ot3er 5as station patrons in e<c3an5e for cas3 +aluin5 3alf t3e pump price. (3e 2or:er;s popularity 2as s3ort'li+ed8 3o2e+er8 as in+esti5ators


>uic:ly noticed t3e sudden oom at t3e pumps. An internal audit conducted y t3e ,a+y re+ealed t3at t3e loss to t3e Go+ernment from t3e t2o purloined cards totaled D""8%00. (3e employee faces a ma<imum sentence of ten years imprisonment and a fine of D2/08000. &riend*s Credit Card -se Costs %mp#oyee <1I3=== An Army recruiter in C3ristians ur58 )ir5inia paid t3e price for 5iftin5 a Go+ernment credit card to a friend ? literally. 93en t3e recruiter;s office issued t3e recruiter a Go+ernment -leet credit card8 3e ma5nanimously decided to 5i+e t3e card to 3is friend. Eis friend su se>uently used t3e no2'stolen card for personal e<penditures totalin5 o+er D1380008 includin5 5asoline8 automoti+e parts8 and food. (3e recruiter;s B5enerosityC 2as amply re2arded y t3e District Court =ud5e8 23o sentenced 3im to t2o years of pro ation and 3eld 3im lia le for t3e total D138000 spent y 3is friend. (3e Go+ernment -leet credit card pro5ram pro+ides for t3e maintenance of Go+ernment o2ned and leased +e3icles and is only to e used y aut3oriAed employees for official purposes. &edera# %mp#oyee Sto#e Credit Card Aumbers to )ire Prostitutes A former (ransportation Department employee pled 5uilty to one count of 2ire fraud for usin5 counterfeit c3ec:s and stolen credit card information to 3ire prostitutes 23ile conductin5 official Go+ernment usiness. (3e -ederal employee8 23o 3as e5un treatment for se<ual addiction8 accumulated at least D378000 from o+er 100 escort ser+ices. (3e employee stole 3is collea5ues; credit card num ers and t3e receipts of random stran5ers t3at 3e found left on restaurant ta les. (3e employee admitted 3e often pretended to e t3e senior +ice president of a pu licly traded company durin5 3is Bs3oppin5C trips. A court sentenced t3e official to ser+e si< mont3s 3ouse arrest and t3ree years pro ation. 2 4% (Source: 'nternational )erald 2ribune, (arch $3,


SES #ses Title to Promote Non(Federal Entity A Senior 1<ecuti+e Ser+ice employee ser+ed on t3e oard of directors of a non' -ederal entity $,-1.. 93ile on t3e oard8 3e listed 3is official position and DoD contact information on t3e ,-1;s 9e site. !rior to t3is et3ical +iolation8 3e 3ad failed to re>uest a le5al opinion re5ardin5 3is ties to t3e ,-1. Ee 2as counseled and told to remo+e 3is title from ,-1 materials. Service "fficer Sanctions 9ebsite by 9earin! -niform A Ser+ice officer allo2ed 3er p3oto5rap38 23ile 2earin5 3er uniform8 to appear on t3e 2e site of a non'federal or5aniAation. (3e 2e site identified 3er as a #oard 6em er of t3e or5aniAation. (3e postin5 created t3e impression t3e officer 2as participatin5 in t3e mana5ement of t3e ,-1 in 3er official capacity8 or alternati+ely8 t3at t3e -ederal Go+ernment endorsed t3e or5aniAation $in +iolation of / C.-.*. 203/.402$ .. (3e officer 2as +er ally counseled and t3e picture on t3e 2e site 2as cropped to co+er t3e uniform. Be Carefu# from )ere "n+ard Se+en senior military officers8 includin5 four Generals8 2ere found to 3a+e misused t3eir positions8 improperly implyin5 DoD endorsement or support of a ,on' -ederal 1ntity 23ile appearin5 in a promotional +ideo for t3e C3ristian 1m assy. A !enta5on C3aplain arran5ed for C3ristian 1m assy employees to o tain !enta5on uildin5 passes for filmin5. (3e +ideo s3o2ed inter+ie2s conducted at reco5niAa le !enta5on locations8 featurin5 t3e senior officers in uniform and displayin5 t3eir ran:s as t3ey discussed t3eir C3ristian fait3. (2o S1S Go+ernment employees 23o appeared in t3e +ideo 2it3out title and 23ose comments did not create t3e appearance of DoD sanction 2ere found to 3a+e properly participated in t3eir personal capacity. (3e military officers8 3o2e+er8 +iolated !ara5rap3 3'207 of DoD //00.4'*8 Joint 1t3ics *e5ulation 23ic3 pro3i its actions y employees su55estin5 DoD endorsement of ,on'-ederal 1ntities8 and C.-.*. 203/.402 23ic3 pro3i its usin5 one;s pu lic office for pri+ate endorsement.


Financial Disclosure )iolations
6a##ey &raud A former official of t3e (ennessee )alley Aut3ority $()A. recei+ed t2o years pro ation and 2as ordered to pay a D/8000 fine and perform 1/0 3ours of community ser+ice for failin5 to disclose information on 3is financial disclosure form. Jo3n Symonds pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. N 1001 for ma:in5 a false material statement y failin5 to disclose information re5ardin5 t3e receipt of money from a source ot3er t3an 3is U.S. Go+ernment salary on 3is financial disclosure form. 93ile 2or:in5 as a mana5er for ()A from ,o+em er 2000 t3rou53 Decem er 20028 Symonds 2as re>uired to complete an 1<ecuti+e #ranc3 Confidential -inancial Disclosure *eport8 Office of Go+ernment 1t3ics $OG1. -orm "/08 as 2ell as update 3is financial disclosure report annually y su mittin5 Optional OG1 -orm "/0'A. Despite o2nin5 a company t3at recei+ed o+er D/08000 in 2002 from anot3er company8 Symonds filed an OG1 -orm "/0'A certifyin5 t3at 3e 3ad no ne2 reporta le assets or sources of income. Symonds and 3is former spouse used t3e payments for personal e<penses. &ai#ure to Report Gifts &rom Abramoff Gets D"' "fficia# $+o-/ears of Probation A former Department of t3e Interior Officer 23o accepted 9as3in5ton *eds:ins tic:ets8 23ic3 cost o+er D280008 as 2ell as ot3er 5ifts from lo yist Jac: A ramoff8 2as sentenced to t2o years of pro ation8 and to pay a D18000 fine. A ramoff 2as see:in5 official action from t3e officer 23en 3e 5a+e t3e officer t3e 5ifts. (3e officer failed to disclose t3ese 5ifts on t3e re>uired financial disclosure report $-orm "/0.8 and after ein5 in+esti5ated in connection 2it3 t3e A ramoff scandal8 3e pled 5uilty to ma:in5 a false certificate or 2ritin5. !u lic officials 23o are re>uired to file a -orm "/0 must disclose 5ifts t3at e<ceed a minimum +alue. #ottom lineM if pu lic officials :eep secrets a out t3e 5ifts t3ey recei+e from sources li:e lo yists8 t3ey 2ill recei+e a 5ift from t3e federal 5o+ernment t3at t3ey cannot :eep secret F pro ation.


,a+yer Says &inancia# Disc#osures Are a Auisance3 C#ient Gets Probation A 2orld'reno2ned AlA3eimer;s researc3 scientist for t3e ,ational Institutes of Eealt3 $,IE. 2as sentenced to ser+e t2o years of pro ation and four'3undred 3ours of community ser+ice after failin5 to disclose se+eral 3undred't3ousand dollars in consultin5 fees 3e recei+ed for ser+ices rendered to a pro3i ited source F a p3armaceutical company doin5 usiness 2it3 3is a5ency. (3e scientist +iolated a federal conflicts of interest statute and federal re5ulations re>uirin5 3im to disclose payments from outside sources on 3is financial disclosure report $-orm "/0.. (3e purpose of t3e re>uired financial disclosure is to 3elp employees reco5niAe conflictin5 financial interests and a+oid +iolatin5 t3e la2. (3e scientist;s la2yer said t3at it is common for ,IE researc3ers not to file financial disclosures ecause t3ey consider t3e disclosures a B ureaucratic nuisance.C 6ay e so8 ut t3is scientist s3ould 3a+e :no2n8 as most 2orld' reno2ned medical researc3ers pro a ly do8 t3at untreated nuisances often ecome de ilitatin5 illnesses. In addition to pro ation and four'3undred 3ours of community ser+ice8 t3e scientist 2as also forced to forfeit t3e consultin5 fees 3e 3ad recei+ed from t3e p3armaceutical company8 and 2as depri+ed of 3is retirement from t3e 5o+ernment.

Consu#tant &ai#s to &i#e &inancia# Disc#osure Report3 Pays &ine 'nstead A DoD Consultant failed to file t3e final pu lic financial disclosure report 23en t3e Consultant;s appointment e<pired. (3e Consultant recei+ed se+eral reminders8 ut c3ose to i5nore t3em and ne+er filed t3e report. Unfortunately8 t3e Consultant 2as una le to i5nore t3e Department of Justice. After su stantial ne5otiations8 t3e filer a5reed to pay a D28000 fine8 to pay t3e D200 late filin5 fee8 and to file t3e financial disclosure report t3at s3ould 3a+e een filed in t3e first place. $And don;t for5et t3e attorney fees. #ottom lineM -ailure to file a financial disclosure report 2as +ery costly. $DoD Standards of Conduct Office. )-D %mp#oyee &ai#s to Disc#ose '##-Gotten Rea# %state on &inancia# Disc#osure3 ,oses 4ob A EUD employee;s spouse'li:e partner su mitted t3e 2innin5 id for a EUD' o2ned property. Amon5 ot3er +iolations8 t3e EUD employee failed to notify t3e a5ency


t3at someone 2it3 23om s3e 2as li+in5 2as su mittin5 a id for t3e property. After t3e property 2as purc3ased8 t3e employee;s partner transferred t3e property to t3e employee for D1. (o pre+ent EUD from learnin5 t3at t3e property came to t3e employee t3rou53 a stra2'man transaction8 t3e employee failed to list t3e property on 3er financial disclosure report as 2as re>uired. (3e employee 2as found to 3a+e falsified 3er financial disclosure report and 2as fired. &ai#in! to Report Gift ,eads to &B' A!ent Resi!nation A Super+isory Special A5ent $SSA. in t3e C3arlotte8 ,ort3 Carolina -#I field office 2as forced to resi5n in t3e 2a:e of re+elations t3at 3e 3ad failed to disclose 5ifts from a suspect in an or5aniAed 5am lin5 and money launderin5 in+esti5ation. (3e SSA 3ad een actin5 3ead of t3e 93ite Collar Crime S>uad8 23ic3 2as 3andlin5 t3e in+esti5ationI 3e 3ad also ser+ed as t3e suspect;s official 3andler after t3e suspect a5reed to cooperate 2it3 in+esti5ators. Due to 3is duties8 t3e SSA 2as re>uired to file an OG1 -orm "/08 t3e Confidential -inancial Disclosure *eport. (3e SSA certified t3at 3e 3ad recei+ed no 5ifts or tra+el reim ursements from any one source totalin5 more t3an D200.00. Eo2e+er8 in+esti5ators soon learned t3at on t2o separate occasions8 t3e SSA 3ad accompanied t3e suspect to Kas )e5as8 23ere t3e suspect paid for t3e SSA;s 3otel and 5am lin5 e<penses. (3e +alue of t3e trips 2as estimated to e in e<cess of D08000. (3e SSA pled 5uilty to 1% U.S.C. 101%8 ma:in5 a false 2ritin5. Ee 2as forced to resi5n from t3e -#I and 2as sentenced to t2o years; pro ation and "00 3ours of community ser+ice. <113=== &ine for &ai#ure to &i#e The Facts+ A former Census #ureau official 2as assessed t3e ma<imum fine 23en 3e failed to file 3is financial disclosure report as re>uired y la2 upon endin5 3is Go+ernment employment. #efore 3is retirement8 t3e official 3ad recei+ed multiple memos remindin5 3im of 3is o li5ationI after 3e missed t3e filin5 deadline8 t3e official recei+ed a num er of additional certified letters informin5 3im of t3e a+aila ility of e<tensions and t3e conse>uences of failin5 to file.


(3e Department of Commerce e+entually referred t3e matter to t3e Department of Justice8 23ic3 filed a complaint alle5in5 t3at t3e official :no2in5ly and 2illin5ly failed to file a financial disclosure report. -indin5 t3e official a totally unresponsi+e party 2it3 fla5rant +iolations8 a -ederal court entered t3e default =ud5ment and ordered an D118000 fine8 t3e top ci+il penalty permitted under t3e statute. (3e court emp3asiAed t3e fla5rancy of t3e +iolation8 citin5 t3e employee;s c3oice to i5nore t3e multiple notices and 2arnin5s pro+ided to 3im. (Source: &nited States 56 7ant, *o6 2823$2, 2 $4, 2 3%6% The ,a-+ (3e 1t3ics in Go+ernment Act $1IGA.8 / U.S.C. app. N 101 et se>. $2003.8 re>uires senior officials8 23o file S- 24%s8 to file a final financial disclosure report Bon or efore t3e t3irtiet3 dayC after termination of t3eir senior positions $in addition to annual filin5 re>uirements.. Anyone 23o :no2in5ly and 2illfully fails to pro+ide suc3 a disclosure faces prosecution and fines of up to D108000 $see / U.S.C. app. N 101$e.'$f.8 app. N 10".. D(C( Mayor &inancia# Disc#osure (3e failure to report D"08000 3e 3ad earned in consultin5 contracts cost t3e 6ayor of 9as3in5ton8 D.C.8 D1000 se+eral years a5o. (3e 6ayor +iolated t3e cityGs campai5n finance code y ne5lectin5 to report t3ese earnin5s on 3is financial disclosure report. Under / C.-.*. 203".4018 2illful failure to file a pu lic financial disclosure report $S- 24%. or 2illful falsification of any information re>uired to e reported may result in administrati+e actions or D108000 in ci+il penalties. In addition8 criminal actions may e rou53t a5ainst -ederal officials 23o pro+ide false information on t3eir financial disclosure reports. &ormer Government "fficia# Convicted for &i#in! &a#se &inancia# Disc#osure Report Under t3e 1t3ics in Go+ernment Act8 a former C3ief of Staff $CoS. for t3e Secretary of A5riculture 2as re>uired to file t3e !u lic -inancial Disclosure *eport $S24%.. 93ile in office8 t3e CoS and 3is 2ife recei+ed payments totalin5 appro<imately 3 &6S6 0ist6 9E:'S $ !2 (0606;6 <une


D22802/ from t2o usinessmen 23o 2ere lon5time friends and usiness associates of t3e CoS8 and 23o coincidentally recei+ed su sidies from t3e Department of A5riculture $USDA. totalin5 D038000 and D2%"80008 respecti+ely. (3e CoS 2as re>uired to8 ut did not8 report t3ese payments on 3is S- 24%. 93ile t3e USDA Inspector General 2as conductin5 an in+esti5ation of t3e CoS 2it3 respect to conflict of interest alle5ations8 t3e CoS made a s2orn declaration t3at 3e 3ad not recei+ed suc3 payments. Ee also stated t3at 3is only income from t3e time 3e ecame C3ief of Staff8 aside from t3e sale of a former residence8 2as 3is USDA salary. (3e former CoS 2as con+icted of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 10018 for failin5 to disclose t3e payments recei+ed from t3e t2o usinessmen durin5 on 3is S- 24% and for ma:in5 a false s2orn statement to t3e USDA Inspector General. Ee 2as sentenced to 24 mont3s in =ail. &ormer %%"C Chairman &ai#ed to &i#e &inancia# Disc#osure Report (3e former c3airman of t3e 1>ual 1mployment Opportunity Commission settled a la2suit rou53t y t3e Department of Justice for D"8000. (3e la2suit alle5ed t3at t3e c3airman did not file a re>uired financial disclosure report for t2o years t3at 3e 2as in Go+ernment ser+ice. In t3e pre+ious year8 t3e c3airman filed t3e yearly financial disclosure report re>uired of all senior e<ecuti+e ranc3 employees $S- 24%.. -or t3e su se>uent t2o years8 3o2e+er8 3e su mitted a p3otocopy of t3e first year;s report. (3e C3airman ac:no2led5ed t3at t3e p3otocopied report did not reflect c3an5es in 3is income. Ee furt3er maintained t3at t3e inaccuracy 2as inad+ertent and t3e result of a mista:e made in 5ood fait3. (3e Director of t3e Office of Go+ernment 1t3ics noted t3at t3e c3airman did not respond to four re>uests to file t3e re>uired report o+er t3e course of t2o years. &ormer &DA Commissioner Convicted for &a#se &inancia# Disc#osures and Conf#ict of 'nterest (3e U.S. District Court for t3e District of Colum ia sentenced a former Commissioner of t3e -ood and Dru5 Administration $-DA. to ser+e t3ree years of pro ation8 alon5 2it3 /0 3ours of community ser+ice8 and to pay fines totalin5


D%78344.30. (3e former Commissioner pled 5uilty to t2o misdemeanor c3ar5es in+ol+in5 false financial disclosures and a +iolation of t3e conflict of interest statute8 1% U.S.C. 20%8 23ic3 pro3i its a Go+ernment employee from participatin5 in any acti+ities in 23ic3 3e8 3is spouse8 or minor c3ild 3as a financial interest. #et2een 2002 and 20008 t3e former Commissioner 3eld se+eral senior positions 23ic3 re>uired 3im to certify and file on si< occasions a financial disclosure report t3at included all of 3is in+estments +alued at more t3an D18000. Alt3ou53 t3e Commissioner declared 3e and 3is 2ife 3ad sold t3e stoc: t3ey o2ned in numerous Bsi5nificantly re5ulated or5aniAations8C t3e couple failed to disclose t3at t3ey actually retained stoc: in se+eral of t3e companies. (3e conflict of interest +iolation occurred 23en t3e Commissioner 2as actin5 as t3e C3airman of t3e -DA;s O esity 9or:in5 Group. In+esti5ators disco+ered t2o of t3e companies in 23ic3 t3e Commissioner and 3is 2ife 3eld stoc: 3ad a direct financial interest in t3e 5roup;s conclusions. Alt3ou53 t3ere 2as no e+idence t3at t3e Commissioner;s financial interests altered t3e 5roup;s conclusions8 t3e Court concluded t3at 3is participation in t3e deli erations affected t3e inte5rity of 5roup;s findin5s. (Source: Federal Ethics Report, (arch 2 4%

Fraud )iolations Not Co/ered Else-here*
Service-member Poc ets BA) Money -or t2o years after 3is di+orce8 an acti+e duty ser+ice'mem er continued to list 3is e<'2ife on 3is #asic Allo2ance for Eousin5 paper2or:8 allo2in5 3im to poc:et e<tra funds8 includin5 a family separation allo2ance. 93ile t3e o+erpayment continued for t2o years8 t3e ser+ice'mem er continued to :eep t3e money. Once t3e command cau53t on8 3e 2as court martialed8 sentenced to si< mont3s confinement8 fined8 and reduced in ran:. 6eterinarian $echnicians Poc et $housands An 1'0 and 1'"8 ot3 +eterinarian tec3nicians for a ser+ice8 recei+ed #asic Allo2ance for Eousin5 to 23ic3 t3ey 2ere not entitled. (3ey li+ed in ase 3ousin5


23ile recei+in5 o+erpayments. (3ey too: no action to report t3e mista:e. O+erall8 t3e Go+ernment lost more t3an D208000. #ot3 ser+ice'mem ers 2ere reduced in ran: and ordered to repay all funds. .' thou!ht they +ere mine(1 A 5o+ernment contractor stole ei53t "0'foot Container 1<press $CO,1L. s3ippin5Sstora5e units +alued at D/08000 from a Ser+ice ase in t3e United States. In+esti5ators found t2o stolen 5o+ernment license plates on t3e contractor;s personal +e3icles8 used to access t3e ase. (3e contractor claimed 3e t3ou53t t3e CO,1L units 2ere a andoned. Ee 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 5rand larceny and de arred from doin5 usiness 2it3 t3e 5o+ernment. .' do1 7 $hou!h ' Don*t %ven Fno+ /ou Si< Ser+ice mem ers stationed in t3e United States 2ere arrested and c3ar5ed 2it3 defraudin5 t3e 5o+ernment for t3eir part in a sc3eme to marry *ussian 2omen in e<c3an5e for dra2in5 military enefits. (3e rot3er of one of t3e ser+ice'mem ers setup t3e introduction to t3e *ussian 2omen 23ile li+in5 in ,e2 Qor:. (3e ser+ice'mem ers t3en filed false asic allo2ance for 3ousin5 $#AE. and family separation allo2ance $-SA. claims for t3eir a sent 2i+es t3at defrauded t3e 5o+ernment of o+er D23"8000. (3e in+esti5ation re+ealed most of t3e men ne+er actually li+ed 2it3 t3eir so'called 2i+es. (3e ser+ice'mem ers 2ere court'martialed8 reduced in ran:8 and ordered to pay restitution e>ualin5 t3e amount of money eac3 recei+ed fraudulently. (3e 2omen8 23o o tained +isas ena lin5 t3em to stay in t3e States as a result of t3e false marria5es8 2ere deported. Side Business %nds Service Supp#y Chief*s Career A Ser+ice C3ief store:eeper for a su marine in t3e United States 2as found 5uilty of usin5 s3ip;s funds to uy merc3andise to later sell for 3is personal 5ain. (3e C3ief made off 2it3 o+er D708000 of unaut3oriAed items includin5 2atc3es8 computers8 !DAs8 ()s8 c3airs8 and cameras8 23ic3 3e stored in 3is personal room until sellin5. Ee 2as court'martialed and sentenced to t2o years in prison8 reduced do2n to an 1'18 separated under a ad conduct disc3ar5e8 and ordered to pay D2/8000 in fines. Eis immediate


super+isor8 a =unior Ser+ice officer8 2as administrati+ely separated from t3e Ser+ice. D4/8000 2ort3 of merc3andise 2as ne+er reco+ered. Ae+ /or State of Mind A Ser+ice ser5eant 2as court'martialed for fraud and larceny of 5o+ernment funds8 for :no2in5ly su mittin5 false asic allo2ance for 3ousin5 $#AE. claims for t3ree years 23ile stationed o+erseas. (3e ser5eant claimed 3is 2ife and :ids 2ere li+in5 in ,e2 Qor: City8 t3e 3i53est #AE city in t3e system8 23ile t3ey 2ere actually li+in5 in !uerto *ico. (3e ser5eant recei+ed o+er D/08000 3e 2as not entitled to under t3e false claims. Ee 2as sentenced to t2el+e years in prison8 reduced to 1'18 and dis3onora ly disc3ar5ed. Married or Aot@ A soldier 5ot married and pro+ided 3is marria5e certificate to t3e Ser+ice8 ut s3ortly after t3e marria5e 3is 2ife returned to 3er 3ome in anot3er state. ,ine mont3s later t3e marria5e 2as annulled. (3e soldier did not report t3at 3e 2as no lon5er married8 and continued to collect a 3ousin5 allo2ance for 3imself and 3is no2 former 2ife. Ee also listed 3er on tra+el reim ursements and recei+ed additional per diem for trips 23ere s3e did not accompany 3im. In total8 t3e soldier 2as paid appro<imately D"/8000 in funds t3at 3e 2as not eli5i le to recei+e. At some point8 t3e soldier appeared to sense t3at 3e 2as 5oin5 to e cau53t ecause 3e tried to t3ro2 off t3e in+esti5ation y filin5 for di+orce e+en t3ou53 t3e marria5e 3ad een annulled muc3 earlier. Ee t3en informed in+esti5ators t3at 3e 2as not a2are t3at t3e marria5e 3ad een annulled prior to 3is di+orce filin5. (3e ruse 2as not particularly effecti+e ecause court records s3o2ed t3e soldier 2as p3ysically present at t3e annulment 3earin5. Eis case 2as referred for court martial. 'ma!inary Ba## and Chain Dra!s Staff Ser!eants Do+n An Army Staff Ser5eant stationed at -t. #ra558 ,ort3 Carolina continued to recei+e #asic Allo2ance for Eousin5 $#AE. at t3e married rate e+en after 3e 2as di+orced from 3is 2ife. Ee :no2in5ly and 2illfully failed to su mit documentation to reflect t3is c3an5e8


t3us recei+in5 more money t3an 3e 2as entitled to and t3erefore committin5 fraud and larceny. (3e Staff Ser5eant 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 larceny under t3e Uniform Code of 6ilitary Justice and found 5uilty y General Court 6artial. Ee 2as sentenced to fi+e mont3s in confinement8 forfeiture of D/8000 and a reduction in 5rade from Staff Ser5eant $1'0. to !ri+ate -irst Class $1'3.. In a similar case8 a Staff Ser5eant at U.S. Army C1,(CO6 2as cau53t ille5ally recei+in5 #AE at t3e 3i53er married rate 23en 3e 2as actually sin5le. (3e soldier su mitted a false marria5e license8 ultimately recei+in5 D1/8100 in #asic Allo2ance for Eousin5 and -amily Separation Allo2ance to 23ic3 3e 2as not entitled. Eis B2ifeC also fraudulently recei+ed D138200 in (ricare 3ealt3care enefits. (3e relations3ip must 3a+e 5one sour t3ou538 ecause s3e ended up turnin5 3im in to military in+esti5ators. After suc3 a etrayal8 one can only assume 3e 2ill no2 e filin5 for a fa:e di+orce. A##-%>penses Paid Bache#or Pad +ith Maid Service 'nc#uded@ A Kieutenant Commander 2or:in5 as t3e ,a+al Station Great Ka:es #ac3elor Eousin5 Officer misused Go+ernment resources 23en 3e li+ed in t3e >uarters 2it3out cost and recei+ed free 3ouse:eepin5 and amenities. Ee 2as c3ar5ed on t3ree counts under t3e Uniform Code of 6ilitary Justice $Articles %18 728 and 13". and issued a Ketter of *eprimand as a form of ,on'Judicial !unis3ment. A ci+ilian Go+ernment official 23o 2as a2are of t3e Kieutenant Commander;s ille5al conduct8 ut failed to report it 2as also issued a Ketter of *eprimand for +iolatin5 t3e #asic O li5ation of !u lic Ser+ice re>uirin5 t3at 3e disclose any :no2n fraud8 2aste8 a use8 and corruption $C.-.*. 203/.101$ .$11... )and#in! of Service Members* 'n8ury C#aims 9ounds Government &inancia##y A ,a+y ci+ilian 6edicare claims e<aminer 2as employed to represent Go+ernment interests in t3e settlement of 6edical Care *eco+ery Act $6C*A. claims. Eer =o entailed re5ularly ne5otiatin5 2it3 insurance companies and in=ured military personnel in order to reco+er Go+ernment e<penditures on medical care for ser+ice mem ers and t3eir dependents 23o 2ere in=ured due to t3e acts of uninsured t3ird parties. Alt3ou53 t3e ,a+y 3as aut3ority to 2ai+e its claims on e3alf of in=ured ser+ice


mem ers a5ainst insurance companies8 t3e e<aminer orc3estrated a sc3eme in 23ic3 s3e used 3er position and aut3ority to 2ai+e claims and to fraudulently o tain money for 3erself t3at 2as o2ed to t3e Go+ernment. In one case8 t3e e<aminer 3andled t3e claim for a !etty Officer 23o 3ad een in=ured in a motorcycle accident. S3e told t3e ser+ice mem er t3at s3e could increase t3e amount of 3is settlement if 3e a5reed to split t3e amount 2it3 3er. 93en 3e a5reed8 t3e e<aminer notified t3e insurance company t3at t3e ,a+y 2as 2ai+in5 its 6*CA claim. 93en t3e company sent t3e !etty Officer a D08000 c3ec:8 3e sent 3er D38000 cas3 =ust as s3e 3ad directed. It turned out t3at t3e !etty Officer 3ad een 2or:in5 2it3 la2 enforcement aut3orities all alon5. (3e U.S. Attorney prosecuted t3e e<aminer and o tained a con+iction for one count of 6ail -raud. S3e 2as sentenced to t2o mont3s in prison8 t2o years of pro ation8 a D100 special assessment8 and 2as de arred y t3e ,a+y for t3ree years. 'nvoices Submitted on Beha#f of Ma eBe#ieveCompany3 'nc( A ci+ilian employee and Go+ernment purc3ase card 3older 2or:in5 at t3e ,a+al Surface 9arfare Center $,S9C. in 6aryland conspired 2it3 an outside +endor to create fraudulent in+oices in t3e name of fictitious companies suc3 as Green2ay Supply8 Go+ernment Supply8 and Aerospace (ec3nolo5ies. (3e in+oices fraudulently s3o2ed t3at t3ese ima5inary companies 3ad pro+ided 5oods and ser+ices to ,S9C 23en in fact no products or ser+ices 2ere e+er pro+ided. (3e Go+ernment employee used 3is purc3ase card to pay for 3undreds of suc3 in+oices8 all in amounts of less t3an D28/00 so as to a+oid attractin5 too muc3 scrutiny. 93en ,S9C too: a2ay t3e employee;s purc3ase card8 t3e +endor continued to su mit t3e false in+oices in cooperation 2it3 a second employee. Ultimately8 t3e +endor made et2een D2008000 and D"008000 in profit from t3e conspiracy. All t3ree people in+ol+ed 2ere 5uilty of ma:in5 false and fraudulent statements to t3e Go+ernment and em eAAlin5 money elon5in5 to ,S9C. (3e +endor pled 5uilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud t3e Go+ernment8 1% U.S.C. N341. (3e ,a+y de arred t3e +endor and ot3 employees for t3ree years. Marine Corps Say Goodbye to "fficers +ho Schemed +ith $hai 6endors


(3ree U.S. 6arine Corps -orces !acific8 Joint U.S. 6ilitary Group8 (3ailand $JUS6AG(EAI. officers 2ere cau53t recei+in5 ri es and :ic: ac:s from a (3ai +endor. A ,a+al Criminal In+esti5ati+e Ser+ice in+esti5ation re+ealed t3at a 6arine Corps 6a=or8 eit3er directly or t3rou53 3is 2ife8 accepted appro<imately D1008000 in 5ifts from a (3ai +endor8 to include a truc: and a loan for a 3ouse. (3e 6a=or continued to en5a5e in usiness 2it3 t3e +endor and a2arded 3im contracts8 ut did not disclose 3is personal financial conflict of interest to 3is a5ency desi5nee as mandated y 1% U.S.C. N20%. Ee also passed inside information to t3e +endor8 allo2in5 3er to increase 3er id 23ile still ensurin5 s3e 2as t3e lo2est idder and t3erefore increasin5 3er profit mar5in. Ee 2as also c3ar5ed 2it3 maintainin5 a se<ual relations3ip 2it3 a 2oman 23o 2as not 3is 2ife8 23ic3 is ille5al under t3e Uniform Code of 6ilitary Justice. Anot3er 6arine Corps 6a=or recei+ed 5ifts8 includin5 free 3otel rooms8 from a pro3i ited source in +iolation of 10 U.S.C. section %72 and section 733. Additionally8 a t3ird 6arine Corps 6a=or also 2or:ed 2it3 t3e +endor to defraud t3e Go+ernment. (3e 6a=or8 ta:in5 ad+anta5e of 3is position as t3e first person in t3e lo5istics c3ain to come into contact 2it3 5oods and ser+ices pro+ided y contractors8 si5ned receipts for deli+ery of purc3ase orders e+en t3ou53 t3e +endor 3ad only deli+ered incomplete s3ipments. (3e Go+ernment 2as nonet3eless illed t3e cost of full s3ipment8 23ile t3e conspirin5 parties split t3e profits from t3ese B53ost s3ipments.C (3e 6a=or si5ned orders for at least fi+e 53ost s3ipments and recei+ed D2832" in ri es for 3is participation. All t3ree 6a=ors 2ere de arred from Go+ernment contractin5 y t3e ,a+y Ac>uisition Inte5rity Office. -urt3ermore8 t3ey 2ere all c3ar5ed under t3e Uniform Code of 6ilitary Justice. (3e first 6a=or 2as dismissed from acti+e duty8 sentenced to four years in confinement and a D2/8000 fine. (3e second 6a=or recei+ed a !uniti+e Ketter of *eprimand and 2as su =ected to a D38000 forfeiture of pay. (3e t3ird 6a=or 2as disc3ar5ed and sent to spend si< mont3s in t3e ri5. "verpricin! by Contractor Resu#ts in <::3=== Refund An Army tec3nician orderin5 a Seal *eplacement !arts Jit from a defense contractor noted t3at t3e price of t3e :it seemed unusually 3i53 ased on t3e price of eac3 indi+idual component8 and contacted in+esti5ators. In+esti5ators e<amined t3e price of


t3e components and t3e cost t3e company incurred to assem le eac3 :it8 and disco+ered t3at t3e contractor 2as mar:in5 up eac3 :it y appro<imately D/00. In+esti5ators furt3er disco+ered t3at t3e Go+ernment 3ad purc3ased a lar5e num er of t3e :its at t3e inflated price. As a result of t3e o ser+ant tec3nician;s num er'crunc3in58 t3e defense contractor a5reed to a +oluntary refund of D""8000. &avoritism Resu#ts in Senior "fficia#*s Resi!nation A senior official at t3e ,ational Defense Uni+ersity left 3is post after 3is relations3ip 2it3 a su ordinate came to li53t. 1mployees told in+esti5ators t3at t3ey 3ad 2itnessed inappropriate p3ysical contact et2een t3e official and a component pro5ram director. (3e official alle5edly fa+ored t3e pro5ram director y appro+in5 lea+e re>uests durin5 critical periods8 affordin5 3er more aut3ority t3an 3er position entitled 3er8 5i+in5 3er leniency re5ardin5 3er 2or: sc3edule8 and consistently relyin5 on 3er opinion a o+e ot3ers. (3e official 2as also accused of creatin5 a 3ostile 2or: en+ironment y repeatedly demeanin5 employees. (3e pro5ram director 2as separately c3ar5ed 2it3 misusin5 Go+ernment property y ta:in5 e<cessi+e lea+e and misreportin5 time and attendance. (3e official resi5ned 3is post8 and t3e pro5ram director 2as detailed to a different component and recei+ed counselin5. Contractor &raud Resu#ts in 'nvesti!ation Contractors 23o 2ere a2arded a D/0" million contract to construct t3e Olmsted Dam on t3e O3io *i+er found t3emsel+es 3i53 and dry after t3e disco+ery of fraudulent reim ursement c3ar5es illed to t3e Go+ernment. (3e contractors 3ad purc3ased a num er of +e3icles to e used on t3e =o 8 and properly illed t3e purc3ase cost to t3e Go+ernment. Eo2e+er8 in+esti5ators disco+ered t3at t3e contractors allo2ed ei53t senior'le+el employees to dri+e t3eir +e3icles 3ome at ni53t as part of an Bincenti+esC pro5ram. (3ese contractors 2ere furt3er in+ol+ed in t3ree accidents 2it3 t3e +e3icles8 t3e cost of 23ic3 2as su mitted for reim ursement to t3e Go+ernment.


$o Defraud or Aot $o Defraud@ $hat*s an %asy Muestion5 The Facts+ An Internal *e+enue Ser+ice $I*S. officer conspired 2it3 t2o pri+ate ta< preparers to de+elop a sc3eme to defraud t3e United States Go+ernment. (3e ta< preparers told persons o2in5 money to t3e Go+ernment t3at t3ey could ne5otiate a lesser de t if t3ey 2ould 5o a3ead and pay off 23at 2as o2ed. (3e I*S officer 2ould t3en enter false information into t3e rele+ant files s3o2in5 t3at t3e indi+iduals in >uestion 3ad insufficient assets to co+er t3eir de ts. (3is con+inced t3e I*S to 3alt collection efforts. Stran5ely $or not.8 t3e money paid to t3e ta< preparers ne+er made it to t3e I*S. (3e ta< preparers 2ere sentenced alon5 2it3 t3e I*S officer8 23o8 for tin:erin5 2it3 t3e de ts of ot3ers8 ended up 2it3 >uite a Bde tC of 3er o2nM S3e 2as sentenced to 3 years and one mont3 in prison8 to e follo2ed y 3 years of pro ation8 and ordered to pay in restitution D322813/. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 341 $2003. aut3oriAes fines and imprisonment for up to / years for anyone conspirin5 2it3 one or more ot3er persons to defraud t3e United States8 if any one of t3e conspirators ta:es any action to carry out t3e fraud. In t3is case8 all t3ree persons appear to 3a+e ta:en suc3 an act. (3e I*S officer in t3is case 2as also c3ar5ed under 20 U.S.C. N 421" $2003. of t3e Internal *e+enue Code8 23ic3 re>uires t3at any I*S officer 23o conspires to defraud t3e Go+ernment e disc3ar5ed from t3eir office and8 if con+icted8 pay up to D108000 in fines8 ser+e up to / years in prison8 or ot3. Conf#icts of 'nterest and ,ies Garner A#der+oman and Dau!hters &edera# Convictions A 6il2au:ee alder2oman and 3er t2o dau53ters found t3emsel+es as defendants in federal court for funnelin5 city funds to a non'profit or5aniAation t3ey 3ad created. (3e alder2oman8 efore 3er election8 founded a non'profit or5aniAation eli5i le to carry out nei53 or3ood social 5rantsI it 2as lar5ely funded y Eousin5 and Ur an De+elopment $EUD. 5rants a2arded to t3e City of 6il2au:ee. (3ese 5rants 2ere 5i+en to t3e city upon t3e condition t3at eac3 5rant recipient comply 2it3 EUD re5ulations. Amon5 t3ese re5ulations 2as a conflict'of'interest pro+ision pre+entin5 any elected official t3at participated in t3e apportionment of t3e EUD 5rants from o tainin5 a


financial enefit Beit3er for t3emsel+es or t3ose 2it3 23om t3ey 3a+e usiness or immediate family ties.C Upon t3e alder2oman;s election8 s3e turned t3e e<ecuti+e directors3ip of t3e non' profit or5aniAation o+er to 3er t2o dau53ters8 23o ot3 dre2 a salary from t3e or5aniAation. #ot3 dau53ters 3ad different last names from eac3 ot3er as 2ell as t3e alder2oman8 and t3e relations3ip et2een t3e t3ree 2as un:no2n y t3e City and EUD. After ta:in5 office8 t3e alder2oman secured mem ers3ip on t3e Community De+elopment !olicy Committee8 t3e committee t3at apportioned EUD 5rants. S3e 2as informed y t3e City Attorney of t3e EUD conflict'of'interest rules8 and 2rote a memo assurin5 t3e City t3at 3er 3us and and $sin5ular. dau53ter only 2or:ed for t3e non'profit on a +olunteer asis. (3is deception persisted t3e follo2in5 year8 23en t3e City e5an to suspect a scamI t3e alder2oman 2rote anot3er letter to t3e city attorney admittin5 t3at 3er $sin5ular. dau53ter 3ad een an employee of t3e non'profit8 ut assurin5 t3at s3e 3ad since left 3er position $23ic3 2as untrue.. Eo2e+er8 y t3is point8 t3e City 2as a2are of t3e alder2oman;s deception8 and s3e 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 +arious +iolations of federal la2. Durin5 t3e time period t3e alder2oman 2as in office8 t3e non'profit accepted a num er of lucrati+e EUD 5rants from t3e city. 1ac3 contract included a recitation of t3e EUD conflict'of'interest pro+isions8 and 2as si5ned y ot3 dau53ters in t3eir capacity as e<ecuti+e officers. 93en >ueried y t3e City re5ardin5 t3e familial relation of t3e t2o dau53ters to t3e alder2oman8 t3e dau53ters c3ose not to respond. (3is duplicity earned ot3 dau53ters c3ar5es in federal court alon5side t3eir mot3er. (3e alder2oman and one of 3er dau53ters pled 5uilty to +arious +iolations of federal la2. (3e second dau53ter c3ose to 5o to trial8 and 2as con+icted and sentenced to t2o years; pro ation and a D1000 fine for +iolatin5 3er contractual duty to disclose 3er familial relations3ip 2it3 t3e alder2oman. (Source: 2 ! &6S6 #pp6 9E:'S $ =4=% %mp#oyee Gets $en /ears for AuthoriJin! &raudu#ent Retirement Benefits A retirement enefits specialist at t3e U.S. Office of !ersonnel 6ana5ement $O!6. de+eloped an em eAAlement sc3eme t3at e+entually in+ol+ed 1/ co3orts and resulted in t3e t3eft of D3.4 million from t3e Ci+il Ser+ices *etirement (rust -und. (3e specialist;s duties included aut3oriAin5 mont3ly enefits payments as 2ell as one'time payments intended to retroacti+ely ad=ust -ederal enefits. Instead of aut3oriAin5


payments for t3e proper recipients8 t3e employee e5an to aut3oriAe payments to fello2 employees. (3e sc3eme allo2ed at least 2/ people to o tain ille5al one'time payments from t3e *etirement (rust -und8 after 23ic3 t3ey paid :ic: ac:s to t3e O!6 employees. (3e specialist 2as sentenced to 10 years in prison for 3er role as t3e rin5leader of t3e operation. Eer coconspirators recei+ed lesser terms. Boyfriends Can Be 6ery %>pensive &or %mp#oyees 9ho Stea# &unds A U.S. -orest Ser+ice employee faced a ma<imum of 13 years in prison for stealin5 o+er D0"28000 and committin5 ta< fraud. (3e employee paid restitution of t3e entire D0"28000 prior to sentencin5. (3e employee admitted t3at durin5 3er =o of o+erseein5 payments 2it3 -ederal c3ar5e cards and Go+ernment c3ec:s8 s3e 2rote Go+ernment c3ec:s to 3er oyfriend8 23o occasionally contracted 2it3 t3e -orest Ser+ice. Dis5uised as firefi53tin5 payments8 t3e c3ec:s 2ere deposited in t3e couple;s =oint an: account and used to pay for e<penses and 5am lin5. It appears t3is relations3ip came at a +ery 3i53 price. (Source: >regon9i5e6com% Contractors and &edera# Personne#3 9or in! $o!ether3 Defraud the Government and Go to 4ai# An in+esti5ation y se+eral Go+ernment a5encies in support of t3e Justice Department;s ,ational !rocurement -raud (as: -orce re+ealed a comple< sc3eme to defraud t3e Coalition !ro+isional Aut3ority ? Sout3 Central *e5ion $C!A'SC. in al' Eilla38 Ira>. (3e perpetrators8 a former Department of Defense $DoD. employee8 se+eral former soldiers and numerous pu lic officials8 includin5 t2o 3i53'ran:in5 U.S. Army officers8 conspired in a fraud and money'launderin5 plan in+ol+in5 contracts in t3e reconstruction of Ira>. (3e (as: -orce disco+ered t3e co'conspirators conni+ed to ri5 ids on contracts so t3at C!A'SC a2arded t3em all to t3e same contractor. In addition8 t3e conspirators stole o+er D2 million in currency t3at C!A'SC 3ad slated for reconstruction. As a re2ard for t3eir efforts8 t3e contractor pro+ided t3e officials 2it3 a +ariety of 5ifts8 includin5


o+er D1 million in cas38 sports cars8 =e2elry8 computers8 li>uor8 and offers of future employment. (3e (as: -orce c3ar5ed a former Kieutenant Colonel8 t2o acti+e Kieutenant Colonels8 a Colonel and t2o ci+ilians in a 2/'count indictment. (3e court sentenced t3e ci+ilian DoD employee to ser+e 12 mont3s in prison8 23ile t3e former Kieutenant Colonel earned 21 mont3s in prison for 3is role. Anot3er former soldier recei+ed nine years in prison and a forfeiture of D3.0 million for c3ar5es of conspiracy8 ri ery8 and money launderin58 as 2ell as 2eapons possession c3ar5es. (3e contractor at t3e center of t3e conspiracy pled 5uilty to related c3ar5es8 and recei+ed a "0 mont3 prison sentence. In addition8 t3e court ordered 3im to forfeit D3.0 million. $Department of Justice 04'""78 June 2/8 20048 222.usdo=.5o+. "fficia# Stea#s )imse#f 4ai# $ime A former Intelli5ence Contin5ency -unds $IC-. officer for t3e Department of Defense $DoD. stole o+er D1008000 from 3is former employer. (3e IC- official pled 5uilty to one count of t3eft and em eAAlement of Go+ernment property8 admittin5 t3at o+er a period of t3ree years 3e 3ad used 3is official position to 2it3dra2 cas3 from a Go+ernment an: account. #y falsifyin5 DoD accountin5 +ouc3ers and forms8 t3e official increased 3is o2n an: account 2it3 DoD funds 23ile 3e performed 3is official ud5etin58 dis ursin58 and accountin5 duties for IC-. (3e U.S. District Jud5e sentenced t3e official to ser+e 12 mont3s in prison8 pay D1008/00 in restitution8 and ser+e t3ree years of super+ised release. (Source: 0epartment of <ustice 48?$!, <une =, 2 4%

1amblin2 and 3ther Contest )iolations


&edera# %mp#oyee Rides into $roub#e A local motorcycle dealer sponsored a Hmotorcycle po:erH e+ent across pu lic lands. (3e off'road i:es follo2ed a pre'set route8 stoppin5 alon5 t3e 2ay to pic: up playin5 cards. (3e one 2it3 t3e est po:er 3and at t3e end 2on a ne2 motorcycle. (3e 2innerP (3e on'duty Go+ernment employee 23o 2as to follo2 t3e contestants8 ma:in5 sure t3at no ody 3ad fallen off 3is i:e or 5otten lost. Ee didn;t 5et to :eep t3e i:e ecause 3e 2on t3e priAe 23ile carryin5 out 3is official duty. 93ile section 203/.203$ . $/. of t3e Standards of 1t3ical Conduct for 1<ecuti+e #ranc3 1mployees allo2s -ederal employees to :eep priAes in contests t3at are open to t3e pu lic and not related to t3e employee;s official duties8 in t3is case8 t3e employee 2on 23ile performin5 official duties. &antasy &ootba## IS Gamb#in! Gam lin5 alle5ations 2ere made a5ainst a Department of Defense employee 23o 2as operatin5 a Bfantasy foot all lea5ueC in 3is 2or:place. (3e participants eac3 paid D20 to participate. (3e funds 2ere used for a lunc3eon at t3e end of t3e season and trop3ies 2ere purc3ased for t3e 2inners. Alt3ou53 upon t3e surface t3e Bfantasy foot all lea5ueC does not appear to e 5am lin5 per se8 t3e General Counsel ruled t3at t3e acti+ities constituted 5am lin5 in t3e 2or:place in +iolation of para5rap3 2'302 of DoD //00.4'*8 Joint 1t3ics *e5ulation. &antasy &ootba## IS Gamb#in! '' Alle5ations 2ere made re5ardin5 Air ,ational Guard mem ers runnin5 a Bfantasy foot allC lea5ue on Go+ernment computers. 1ac3 mem er of t3e lea5ue contri uted D10 to play8 2it3 t3e 2inner uyin5 all of t3e ot3er participants; piAAa at t3e end of t3e season. It 2as determined t3at t3e 2inner actually e<pended more on t3e piAAa t3an t3e amount of t3e 2innin5s. It 2as also determined t3at acti+ities associated 2it3 t3e 5ame 2ere conducted on rea: and lunc3 times. Section 2'302 of DoD //00.4'*8 Joint 1t3ics *e5ulation8 pro3i its 5am lin5 y DoD personnel 23ile on duty or 23ile on -ederal property. In addition8 it 2as a misuse


of Go+ernment resources to carry out suc3 an acti+ity on Go+ernment computers. (3e 5uardsmen in+ol+ed 2ere counseled y t3eir commandin5 officer. Gamb#in! Rin! Garners &edera# Char!es (ipped off y a co2or:er8 in+esti5ators disco+ered t3at a painter at t3e Department of t3e Interior 2as runnin5 a full'fled5ed 5am lin5 operation on Go+ernment premises. 93ile on official duty8 t3e painter recei+ed ettin5 slips from ot3er employees and made payoffs. (3e painter;s su se>uent t3reatenin5 p3one call to t3e tipster earned 3im a furt3er c3ar5e of conduct un ecomin5 a -ederal employee. "1 C.-.*. N 102'4".37/ for ids all persons enterin5 in or on -ederal property from participatin5 in 5ames for money or ot3er personal property8 operatin5 5am lin5 de+ices8 conductin5 a lottery or pool8 or sellin5 or purc3asin5 num ers tic:ets.

1ift )iolations
Samp#in! of Gift Aot Sufficient A Kieutenant Colonel committed dereliction of duty 23en8 in +iolation of t3e J1*8 3e recei+ed a ottle of #allantines 30 year'old Scotc3 +alued at D"00 and failed to report it and properly dispose of it. In lieu of a court martial8 t3e colonel resi5ned from t3e military ser+ice for t3e 5ood of t3e ser+ice under ot3er t3an 3onora le conditions. ,i e a Private )e#icopter Ride to 9or @ )o+ About a Mode# Ship@ The Facts+ Accordin5 to s2orn testimony and documentation ac>uired y t3e office of a military ser+ice Inspector General8 a senior military officer accepted 5ifts from t3e o2ner of a corporation t3at ser+iced and pro+ided landin5 facilities for military aircraft. (3e 5ifts to t3e officer included a 3elicopter ride to 2or:8 a s3irt 2it3 t3e corporation;s lo5o8 a miniature model airplane8 meals at a C3ristmas party8 and a leat3er =ac:et. (3e officer alle5edly returned t3e =ac:et ut did not3in5 to compensate for receipt of t3e ot3er 5ifts8 t3e +alue of 23ic3 e<ceeded $and pro a ly 2ell e<ceeded. D100. (3is conduct occurred as one of a series of alle5ed offenses t3at resulted in t3e officer ein5 relie+ed of command8 issued a puniti+e letter of reprimand8 and ordered to forfeit D1000. %2

The ,a-+ / C.-.*. N 203/.101$ .$1". $2003. re>uires all -ederal employees to a+oid any actions t3at a reasona le person8 23o :ne2 t3e rele+ant facts8 could ta:e to e a +iolation of t3e la2Fincludin5 t3e pro3i ition on pro+idin5 Bpreferential treatment to any pri+ate or5aniAation or indi+idual8C mentioned at N 203/.101$ .$%.. In t3is case8 t3e +alue of t3e 5ifts t3e officer accepted could ma:e it appear t3at 3e mi53t influence Go+ernment contractin5 in fa+or of t3e corporation. (o e sure8 3e en=oyed some neat 5iftsFfor a time. Eo2e+erM B!u lic ser+ice is a pu lic trust8C and it re>uires t3at -ederal employees place loyalty to Bt3e la2s and et3ical principles a o+e pri+ate 5ainC $N 203/.101$ .$1... 1+en more directly on point8 / C.-.*. NN 203/.202$a. and 203/.203$d. apply t3e 5eneral principles mentioned a o+e y pro3i itin5 -ederal employees from $amon5 ot3er t3in5s. solicitin5 5ifts or acceptin5 5iftsF23et3er solicited or notFfrom any person 23o BTdUoes usiness or see:s to do usiness 2it3 t3e employee;s a5ency.C (3ere are some e<ceptions to t3ese rules. / C.-.*. N 203/.20"8 for e<ample8 allo2s t3e acceptance of Bunsolicited 5ifts 3a+in5 an a55re5ate mar:et +alue of D20 or less per source per occasion8C pro+ided t3at t3e +alue of 5ifts accepted under t3e BD20 ruleC from a sin5le source do not amount to more t3an D/0 in a 5i+en calendar year. In t3e case a o+e8 t3e officer;s 5ifts e<ceeded $and pro a ly 2ell e<ceeded. t3is limit. If you 3a+e recei+ed a 5ift or 5ifts and anticipate t3at it 3as put you in =eopardy of +iolatin5 t3ese8 or any ot3er8 re5ulations8 / C.-.*. N 203/.20/ tells you 23at you must do F and t3at does not include co+erin5 it o+er $23ic3 mi53t ma:e t3in5s 2orse.. -irst8 if t3e 5ift is an item and not an acti+ity li:e a 3elicopter ride8 you may return it to t3e 5i+er or pay t3e 5i+er t3e fair mar:et +alue $see su section $a.$1... If t3at is not practical8 you may F Bat t3e discretion of t3e employee;s super+isor or an a5ency et3ics officialC F donate t3e item to an appropriate c3arity8 s3are t3e item 2it3 your office8 or destroy t3e item $see su 'section $a.$2... -or an acti+ity or e+ent8 you o +iously can;t return t3e 5ift8 ut you can and must pay ac: t3e 5i+er t3e mar:et +alue of t3e 5iftI simply 5i+in5 ac: somet3in5 similar 2ill not suffice $see su 'section $a.$3... If an employee Bon 3is o2n initiati+e8 promptly complies 2it3 t3e re>uirements of t3is sectionC $t3at is8 N 203/.20/.8 and t3e 5ift 2as not solicited y t3e employee8 t3en 3e or s3e 2ill not e considered to 3a+e improperly recei+ed t3at 5ift.


2Great dinner3 than s for the tip(2 Just prior to a ma=or contract a2ard8 a #ureau Director 2ent out to dinner 2it3 one of t3e potential competitors at a s2an:y 9as3in5ton restaurant. (3e 2ine alone cost o+er D100 per ottle. (oo ad t3e Director didnGt realiAe t3at a Washington Post reporter 2as at t3e ne<t ta le. (3e story recei+ed front'pa5e co+era5e in t3e ne<t day;s Post. #y t3at afternoon8 t3e Director announced t3at 3e 3ad accepted a =o in pri+ate industry F a =o 3e couldnGt refuse $2it3 3is fat3er'in'la2.. (3e Standards of 1t3ical Conduct for 1mployees of t3e 1<ecuti+e #ranc3 $/ C.-.*. !art 203/. 5enerally pro3i it -ederal personnel from acceptin5 5ifts $includin5 meals. from persons 23o do usiness or see: to do usiness 2it3 t3e employee;s a5ency. "ne Party $oo Many (3e #i5 #oss 2as retirin5 and 3is second'in'command called t3e secretary to as: 3er to set up a retirement party. Ee directed 3er to send a memo to t3e staff ad+isin5 t3em of 23at t3ey 2ere e<pected to contri ute. S3e 2as assi5ned paper plates8 nap:ins8 plastic utensils8 and a paper ta leclot3. 1+eryone8 includin5 t3e secretary8 2as e<pected to contri ute D2/ for food and 5ifts. (o t3e surprise of no one8 t3e second'in'command 2as selected as t3e ne2 #i5 #oss. )is ne2 ranc3 c3ief called t3e secretary to 3a+e 3er set up a HpromotionH party. (3e ranc3 c3ief;s memo to t3e staff ad+ised t3em of 23at t3ey 2ere e<pected to contri ute. -or t3e secretary8 it 2as once a5ain paper plates8 nap:ins8 plastic utensils and paper ta leclot3. 1+eryone8 includin5 t3e secretary8 2as a5ain e<pected to contri ute D2/ for food and 5ifts. (o no one;s surprise8 t3e ranc3 c3ief 2as selected as t3e ne2 second'in'command. )er senior analyst called t3e secretary and as:ed 3er to set up a HpromotionH party. . . (3e secretary contacted t3e 1t3ics Office instead8 23ere disciplinary action 2as initiated. Su part C of t3e Standards of 1t3ical Conduct for 1mployees of t3e 1<ecuti+e #ranc3 $/ C.-.*. 203/. esta lis3es t3e rules for 5ifts et2een employees. In 5eneral an employee may not 5i+e a 5ift or ma:e a donation to a 5ift to a superior. -urt3ermore8 employees may not 5enerally accept 5ifts from ot3er employees 23o recei+e less pay. (3ere are certain e<ceptions8 of course.


Gift from a Prohibited Source As a 5esture of t3an:s8 a retailer 5a+e an Army soldier a riefcase after t3e soldier8 usin5 3is Go+ernment credit card8 3ad purc3ased office supplies from t3e retailer. (3e soldier accepted t3e riefcase in +iolation of t3e Standards of 1t3ical Conduct for 1mployees of t3e 1<ecuti+e #ranc3 $/ C.-.*. !art 203/.8 23ic3 5enerally an acceptance of 5ifts y -ederal personnel from persons 23o do usiness or see: to do usiness 2it3 t3e employee;s a5ency. After an in+esti5ation8 t3e soldier returned t3e riefcase and 2as counseled. Gift from Subordinate Resu#ts in Remova# A Super+isory Contract Specialist at Andre2s Air -orce #ase 2as terminated after it 2as disco+ered t3at s3e 3ad accepted a total of D2%20 from a su ordinate $a su ordinate t3at t3e specialist 3ad8 in fact8 personally 3ired. on t2o occasions. Despite t3e specialist;s claims t3at s3e did not :no2 t3at acceptin5 t3e 5ifts 2as 2ron58 an Administrati+e Jud5e affirmed t3e termination of a 20'year federal career. / C.-.*. !art 203/8 t3e BStandards of 1t3ical Conduct for 1mployees of t3e 1<ecuti+e #ranc38C for ids employees from acceptin5 5ifts from lesser'paid employees unless $1. t3e employees are not in a su ordinate'superior relations3ip8 and $2. t3ere is a personal relations3ip et2een t3e t2o employees t3at 2ould =ustify t3e 5ift. %mp#oyee Cited for 'mproper#y Acceptin! Pharmaceutica# Samp#es (3e Department of )eterans Affairs $)A. conducted an in+esti5ation after it found t3at an employee at t3e )A 6edical Center at C3illicot3e8 O3io8 3ad misused 3is position and improperly solicited and accepted p3armaceutical dru5 samples. Upon >uestionin58 t3e employee ac:no2led5ed acceptin5 fi+e different medications from representati+es of four p3armaceutical companies8 5ifts totalin5 appro<imately D000. (3e p3armaceutical representati+e re>uired a p3ysician to si5n for t3e samples. 93ile a p3ysician did indeed si5n off8 3e testified t3at 3e only did so due to pressure from t3e employee. (3e in+esti5ation unco+ered a5ency'2ide confusion re5ardin5 t3e acceptance of dru5 samples.


-ederal 5ift rules pro3i it an employee from acceptin5 or solicitin5 a 5ift from a person doin5 usiness 2it3 t3e employee;s a5ency. An employee may accept unsolicited 5ifts 3a+in5 a mar:et +alue of D20 or less per occasion8 pro+ided t3at t3e a55re5ate mar:et +alue of indi+idual 5ifts from any one person does not e<ceed D/0 in a calendar year. (3ere is no e<ception8 3o2e+er8 t3at allo2s for t3e acceptance of solicited 5ifts. In response to t3e a5ency'2ide pro lem identified in t3e in+esti5ation8 )A officials issued a statement e<plainin5 t3e application of t3e -ederal 5ift rules to t3e acceptance of p3armaceutical samples8 and de+eloped a fact s3eet for a5ency employees 2it3 specific 5uidance.

In/ol/ement in Claims A2ainst the 1o/ernment or in 4atters Affectin2 the 1o/ernment !" #$S$C$ % &'5(Type )iolations*
Don*t P#ay Attorney A!ainst /our &edera# %mp#oyer5 The Facts+ In t3e Boff'timeC from 3er 2or: 2it3 t3e Social Security Administration8 a senior attorney opened 3er o2n le5al practice and represented clients 2it3 claims a5ainst t3at +ery same Administration. -or 3er dou le'duty8 s3e 2as sued y a U.S. Attorney and ended up a5reein5 to a settlement t3at re>uired 3er to pay t3e United States D1138000 for t3is and ot3er +iolationsFnot a typical attorney;s feeO $SourceM Office of Go+ernment 1t3ics memorandum8 Oct. 2002.. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 20/ $2003. for ids any current -ederal employee from actin5 as an attorney in prosecutin5 a claim a5ainst t3e United StatesF23ere t3is is not performed as part of 3is or 3er official duties for t3e -ederal Go+ernment. -or any suc3 +iolation8 t3e la2 aut3oriAes fines and possi le imprisonmentFof not more t3an one year8 unless t3e conduct is B2illful8C in 23ic3 case it can e for up to / years $see 1% U.S.C. N 210$a...

Department of 4ustice Attorney Sentenced for $+o &e#ony Counts


A 3i53'ran:in5 attorney for t3e Department of Justice 2as con+icted of representin5 a pri+ate party efore a -ederal A5ency in a matter in 23ic3 t3e U.S. 2as a party in interest8 in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20/. Ee 2as also con+icted of t3eft of Go+ernment property8 in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 0"l. (3e attorney represented ,ati+e Americans efore t3e Department of t3e Interior in pri+ate liti5ation8 and su mitted false tra+el +ouc3ers for Go+ernment reim ursement 23ile 3e ser+ed as an employee of t3e Department of Justice. (3e attorney pleaded 5uilty and 2as sentenced to four mont3s of 3ome detention and one year of pro ation. (3e plea a5reement also stipulated t3at t3e attorney pay restitution to Department of Justice in t3e amount of D/80008 pay a D/8000 fine8 and pay appro<imately D28/00 in pro ation costs. Section 20/ pro3i its -ederal personnel from representin5 anyone efore a -ederal A5ency or court in connection 2it3 a particular matter in 23ic3 t3e United States 3as a direct and su stantial interest. Air &orce Civi#ian %mp#oyee 'mproper#y Represents &e##o+ %mp#oyees Before -(S( Government A ci+ilian employee of t3e O:la3oma City8 Air Ko5istics Center $OC'AKC.8 23o 2as also t3e former OC'AKC s3op ste2ard8 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20/. (3e employee8 23o 2as not an attorney8 o2ned a pri+ate company called Associated Ka or Consultants. (3is company pro+ided le5al ser+ices to ot3er OC'AKC ci+ilian employees y filin5 le5al riefs on e3alf of t3e ci+ilian employees and y representin5 t3em efore +arious oard 3earin5s a5ainst t3e United States. (3e employee collected appro<imately D180/0 in fees from OC'AKC ci+ilian employees for 3is ser+ices8 and 3ad illed out ut 3ad not collected an additional D18%/3. (3e Air -orce employee 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 a ci+il +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20/. (3e case 2as dismissed 2it3out pre=udice. On -e ruary 28 177%8 t3e parties entered into a stipulated a5reement in 23ic3 t3e accused a5reed to pay t3e United States D38000 and to refrain from ad+isin58 counselin58 or representin5 persons 2it3 claims a5ainst t3e United States.

&AA %mp#oyee 'mproper#y Represents Co-+or er Before Department of 4ustice %4

An en5ineer employed y t3e -ederal A+iation Administration $-AA. at t3e 6i:e 6oroney Aeronautical Center in O:la3oma City 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20/ $amon5 ot3er c3ar5es.. 93ile employed y t3e -AA8 t3e en5ineer attended and 5raduated from ni53t la2 sc3ool. (3e ne2 attorney continued 3is employment as an en5ineer ut prepared 2ills8 po2ers of attorney8 and ot3er le5al documents on 3is o2n time. 9it3out permission from t3e -AA8 3e a5reed to represent a fello2 -AA employee 23o 2as t3e tar5et of a criminal in+esti5ation y t3e U.S. AttorneyGs Office8 and su se>uently contacted t3e U.S. AttorneyGs Office on e3alf of 3is client. (3e United States rou53t a ci+il action a5ainst t3e -AA employee pursuant to 1% U.S.C. 20/$a.$2. and 1% U.S.C. 210. (3e parties entered into a consent =ud5ment in 23ic3 t3e -AA employee a5reed to pay a D18200 penalty. Deputy Secretary of Commerce 'mproper#y Contacts "fficia# at Department of 6eterans Affairs (3e Deputy Secretary of Commerce recei+ed from 3is fat3er'in'la28 t3e o2ner of a company doin5 usiness 2it3 t3e Department of )eterans Affairs $)A.8 a letter complainin5 of delays e<perienced y t3e company in modifyin5 its contract 2it3 t3e )A. (3e Deputy Secretary of Commerce referred t3e letter to 3is counterpart at t3e )A on e3alf of 3is fat3er'in'la28 and also contacted t3e )A y telep3one. As a result of t3e inter+ention8 t3e company recei+ed t3e modification it sou53t more >uic:ly t3an it 2ould 3a+e8 a sent t3e action y t3e Deputy Secretary. A complaint for ci+il penalties 2as filed pursuant to 1% U.S.C. 210$ . for a +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20/. (3e Deputy Secretary a5reed to a ci+il settlement8 includin5 a D/8000 fine8 23ic3 2ould 3a+e een t3e ma<imum fine a+aila le under t3e sentencin5 5uidelines 3ad t3e case een prosecuted criminally. Section 20/ pro3i its -ederal personnel8 ot3er t3an in t3e proper disc3ar5e of t3eir official duties8 from actin5 as an a5ent or attorney for anot3er efore any -ederal a5ency or court8 in connection 2it3 a particular matter in 23ic3 t3e United States is a party or 3as a direct and su stantial interest.

6A %mp#oyee Represents Company Before -(S(A('(D( %%

An arc3itect employed y t3e Department of )eterans Affairs $)A. 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20/. 93ile employed y )A8 t3e arc3itect represented a #elts+ille8 6aryland8 company in connection 2it3 an application for a contract 2it3 t3e United States A5ency for International De+elopment in Dacca8 #an5lades3. (3e arc3itect made t2o trips to #an5lades3 to represent t3e company 23ile employed y t3e )A8 includin5 a trip for 23ic3 t3e company paid 3im D28070. !rior to t3e effecti+e date of 3is resi5nation from t3e )A8 t3e arc3itect 2as paid an additional D/8003 y t3e company. Durin5 t3is same period of dual employment8 3e earned D/8/"0 from t3e )A. (3e arc3itect 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 20/$a.$2.. Ee 2as sentenced to t2o years pro ation8 100 3ours of community ser+ice8 and 2as re>uired to pay a fine of D18000. Section 20/ pro3i its -ederal personnel8 ot3er t3an in t3e proper disc3ar5e of t3eir official duties8 from actin5 as an a5ent or attorney for anot3er efore any -ederal a5ency or court8 in connection 2it3 a particular matter in 23ic3 t3e United States is a party or 3as a direct and su stantial interest.

4isuse of 1o/ernment .esources and Personnel
Pointin! and Shootin! for Persona# Gain An O'/ in communications decided t3at 3is day =o 2asn;t enou538 so 3e started a side usiness p3oto5rap3in5 local sports e+ents. 93ile on duty8 3e as:ed a su ordinate to create p3oto products for 3is personal usiness durin5 official time. (3e officer also re>uested a press pass on e3alf of t3e Defense 6edia Acti+ity8 23ic3 3e t3en used to 5ain e<clusi+e entry into sportin5 e+ents to ta:e pictures in 3is off'duty time. 93en 3e 2as finally cau53t for misusin5 t3e press pass8 3e recei+ed a letter of concern from command. )ors D*oeuvres and 9ine7"n the $a>payers* Dime A mem er of t3e Senior 1<ecuti+e Ser+ice aut3oriAed t3e use of appropriated funds for t2o optional8 off'site Bteam uildin5C e+entsM a 2ine tastin5 e+ent and a 3ors dGoeu+res tastin5 e+ent. (3e S1S mem er ar5ued t3at t3ese e+ents 2ere =ustified as


Bnecessary team uildin5C e+ents. It turns out t3at t3e e+ents 2ere not so BnecessaryC after allM no employees 2ere actually re>uired to attend t3e e+ents8 23ic3 too: place off' site. (3e Inspector General found t3at t3e S1S 3ad improperly aut3oriAed t3e use of appropriated funds for t3ese e+ents8 23ic3 2ere not necessary. S3e 2as counseled y 3er superiors as a result. A Persona# Posta# Service One audacious officer stationed in Af53anistan de+eloped a lo+e for fancy ru5s and s3ot5uns produced in (ur:ey. Ee li:ed t3em so muc38 in fact8 t3at 3e created 3is o2n courier ser+ice to 5et e<tra cas3 from t3e U.S. to increase 3is collection. (3e officer8 an O'/8 su mitted a fraudulent courier order8 23ic3 re>uested t3at an enlisted ser+ice' mem er personally transport an Bimportant pac:a5eC from t3e U.S. to Af53anistan. (3e enlisted ser+ice'mem er e+en recei+ed preferred seatin5 on a 5o+ernment fli53t to underta:e 3is BspecialC tas:. 93en t3e enlisted ser+ice'mem er arri+ed in Af53anistan8 t3e O'/ told 3im t3at t3e Bimportant pac:a5eC actually contained D"8000 in cas3 for t3e purc3ase of more ru5s and s3ot5uns. (3e O'/ needed t3e money to reim urse people from 23om 3e 3ad orro2ed funds to purc3ase ru5s and 5uns8 and to uy more of t3ese items for 3is family and friends. (3e enlisted ser+ice'mem er t3en sat around on t3e ase for 10 days on 3is courier orders. 93en inter+ie2ed8 3e stated t3at 3e 3ad recei+ed no assi5nments on ase8 and spent t3ose 10 days 2atc3in5 mo+ies8 eatin5 meals8 and doin5 no 2or:. 93en t3e command 5ot 2ind of t3is misuse of funds and personnel8 t3e O'/ 2as relie+ed of 3is duties and forced to fully reim urse t3e 5o+ernment for t3ousands of dollars. 'f the G#oves &it3 Ao Aeed to AcDuit A Ser+ice ,CO admitted to stealin5 5o+ernment property 23ile performin5 duties as a security police officer at a ase in t3e United States. (3e ,CO 2as o ser+ed remo+in5 uniform items8 fli53t 5lo+es8 and flas3li53ts from an unsecured supply uildin5 23ile ma:in5 3is security rounds. On anot3er occasion t3e ,CO too: self'inflatin5 air mattresses and mess :its from t3e same uildin5. (3e 5uard used 3is police +e3icle to


stas3 t3e stolen 5oods8 efore ta:in5 t3em 3ome. (3e ,CO admitted to stealin5 t3e items8 and 2as forced to ta:e an early retirement. 't*s &ive "*c#oc Some+here A 5o+ernment employee attac3ed to a Ser+ice ase in t3e United States ended up ta:in5 a permanent +acation after a pattern of 2or:in5 an a re+iated 2or: 2ee:. (3e in+esti5ation s3o2ed t3e employee 2or:ed an a+era5e of t3ree 3ours a day8 efore lea+in5 around nine or ten eac3 mornin5 to spend t3e rest of t3e day drin:in5 at a local ar. (3e employee put in for retirement in lieu of disciplinary action -n-Captain-#i e Behavior A Ser+ice Captain lost 3is command for a usin5 3is position8 committin5 larceny8 and acceptin5 5ifts. (3e Captain coerced t3e s3ip;s 69* committee to purc3ase 3is personal items8 for cas38 to use as priAes in a command 5olf tournament. Durin5 port +isits8 3e used 3is position to mandate compulsory 2ardroom attendance to sales e+ents 3e orc3estrated 2it3 specific +endors8 in e<c3an5e for discounts and free merc3andise for 3imself. At a an>uet 2it3 an ally military command8 t3e Captain +entured into t3e ot3er military;s Admiral;s 6ess and remo+ed a pair of ceremonial salt and pepper s3a:ers. #ac: in port8 3e accepted a 3elicopter ta<i ser+ice and a free round of 5olf from a non' federal entity in e<c3an5e for ein5 a 5uest spea:er8 a +iolation of / C.-.*. 203/.202S203S20" $Gifts from Outside Sources.. (3e Captain 2as relie+ed of 3is command. .' +as doJin! off N not s#eepin!51 A Go+ernment employee 2as reported y 3is co'2or:ers for sleepin5 on t3e =o . 93en confronted8 3e admitted t3at 3e may 3a+e doAed off a time or t2o8 ut ne+er actually slept at 2or:. Eis t3ree day suspension 2as reduced to one day after 3e re+ealed t3at dro2siness 2as a potential side'effect of 3is prescri ed medication.


Go Speedracer A ci+ilian reported seein5 t3ree Go+ernment +e3icles tra+elin5 at 3i53 speeds8 tail5atin5 and 2ea+in5 t3rou53 traffic in a dan5erous manner. 93en >uestioned8 se+eral ser+ice mem ers admitted to dri+in5 in e<cess of t3e speed limit8 passin5 on t3e ri53t and dri+in5 a55ressi+ely. (2o of t3em 2ere 5i+en formal counselin5 on t3e proper use of Go+ernment property and t3e t3ird 2as 5i+en a non'puniti+e Ketter of Instruction. Government Par in! (3e Inspector General recei+ed a report t3at an officer 3ad een usin5 a Go+ernment +e3icle par:in5 pass to par: 3is personal +e3icle 23ile 3e 2as at 2or:. (3e report indicated t3at on se+eral occasions ot3er employees 2ere forced to pay for par:in5 a Go+ernment +e3icle ecause t3e officer;s personal +e3icle 2as usin5 t3e par:in5 pass. (3e su se>uent in+esti5ation re+ealed t3at t3e officer 3ad een usin5 t3e pass for par:in5 3is personal +e3icle8 and t3at 3is superior officers 3ad not een informed or 5i+en 3im permission to do so. Alt3ou53 t3e officer ad+ised t3at 3e only used t3e pass 23en 5oin5 to 2or:8 and did not use it 23en 3e elie+ed a Go+ernment +e3icle 2ould need it8 3e recei+ed a letter of counselin5. Government Property for Sa#e (3e Go+ernment recei+ed reports t3at a military reser+ist 2as attemptin5 to sell Go+ernment property8 includin5 military ac:pac:s and oots8 to ci+ilian employees at a steep discount. (3e reports seemed to indicate t3at t3e reser+ist 3ad access to a 5reat selection of military e>uipment ecause 3e ad+ertised t3at 3e could supply oots in any siAe t3at 3is fello2 employees mi53t need. In+esti5ation disco+ered more t3an D38000 2ort3 of Go+ernment property in t3e reser+ist;s 3ome. Ee recei+ed +er al counselin5 for 3is misuse of Go+ernment resources. Persona# Phone Ca##s A ci+ilian employee recei+ed a letter of reprimand for 3er e<cessi+e use of 3er Go+ernment telep3ones for personal calls. (3e employee 3ad een 2arned a out t3e issue efore8 and an in+esti5ation re+ealed t3at s3e 3ad spent appro<imately t2enty'one


3ours of duty time on personal telep3one calls to 3er friends and family o+er a fi+e mont3 span. %mp#oyee Receives Reprimand for )is Side Business A ci+ilian employee 2as reported for runnin5 a side usiness t3rou53 3is office. It turns out t3at t3e employee 3ad de+eloped a computer pro5ram durin5 duty 3ours and on Go+ernment e>uipment. Ee t3en mar:eted t3e pro5ram8 and 3is consultin5 ser+ices8 +ia t3e internet. Ee also used 3is Go+ernment A!O address as 3is usiness address so t3at 3e 2ould e a le to 3andle all of 3is personal usiness at 3is Go+ernment office. (3e employee recei+ed a letter of reprimand and 2as forced to stop sellin5 t3e soft2are. Since it 2as de+eloped on Go+ernment time and usin5 Go+ernment resources t3e pro5ram 2as deemed Go+ernment property. $a in! the B#ac ha+ "ut for ,unch A concerned citiAen contacted t3e Inspector General after seein5 a #lac:3a2: 3elicopter par:ed in a field e3ind a restaurant. Inside8 3e found fi+e ser+ice mem ers t3at 3ad stopped for lunc3 and 2ere en=oyin5 t3eir meal 2it3 se+eral ci+ilians. An in+esti5ation re+ealed t3at t3e soldiers 2ere on a trainin5 mission8 ut t3ey 3ad properly listed t3e restaurant stop in t3eir mission plan. Since t3e stop 2as properly listed8 t3e soldiers 3ad not +iolated any re5ulations8 ut t3ey still recei+ed +er al counselin5 ecause t3eir actions created an appearance of impropriety. -n+e#comed 9hist#eb#o+ers A military ser+ice Captain denied reenlistment to a Staff Ser5eant on t3e asis of a protected communication. (3e denial 2as ased in part on con5ressional in>uiries t3e Staff Ser5eant 3ad filed concernin5 actions of military officials. (3e denial +iolated 1% U.S.C. 103"8 23ic3 pro3i its reprisal a5ainst a military mem er for ma:in5 a protected communication. (3e Captain 2as issued a letter of counselin5. In a similar case8 a Captain issued an ad+erse fitness report after an 1nsi5n 3ad alle5ed t3at s3e 3ad een se<ually assaulted y anot3er military ser+ice mem er.


(3e 1nsi5n 3ad 3er record corrected after 23istle lo2er reprisal 2as found under 10 U.S.C. 103". Better Ca## --)au# 'nstead A military ser+ice officer used t2o 5o+ernment o2ned +e3icles to mo+e 3er elon5in5s from one residence to anot3er. (3e use of t3e +e3icles8 totalin5 o+er 2/0 miles8 earned 3er a memorandum of reprimand from 3er commander for misuse of 5o+ernment +e3icles. Anot3er officer 2as issued a memorandum of counselin5 for improperly aut3oriAin5 t3e use of t3e +e3icles. In a similar case8 a military ser+ice Colonel aut3oriAed a su ordinate to use a military +e3icle to pic: 3im up at 3is residence and ta:e 3im to 2or:. Ee 2as counseled for improperly usin5 -ederal Go+ernment resources8 includin5 personnel and e>uipment8 for a non'official purpose8 in +iolation of J1* 2'3018 Use of -ederal Go+ernment *esources. D130 2as collected from t3e Colonel to reim urse t3e 5o+ernment for t3e milea5e cost incurred. Chief#y 9astefu# A c3ief of maintenance and lo5istics at a military facility purc3ased8 at a cost of D308000 eac38 0 for:lifts desi5ned for inside use despite t3e fact t3at t3e command needed lifts for outside use8 e+en for use in inclement 2eat3er. (3e for:lifts rusted for % mont3s in an outdoor stora5e area. In an e+en more impressi+e display of 2aste8 t3e c3ief purc3ased a D"008000 patrol oat 2it3 a ad 5enerator t3at left t3e oat inoperati+e ' and t3at 2ent unrepaired. (3e c3ief;s actions +iolated -ederal Ac>uisition *e5ulation 3.101'18 23ic3 sets fort3 t3e standard t3at transactions related to t3e e<penditure of pu lic funds re>uire t3e 3i53est de5ree of pu lic trust and an impecca le standard of conduct. (3e c3ief 2as remo+ed from 3is position.


"n-Duty C#asses (2o 6ilitary Ser5eants -irst Class 2ere 3anded memorandums of admonition for lac: of 5ood =ud5ment for improperly usin5 (uition Assistance. (3ey attended sc3ool durin5 on'duty time 23en t3ey s3ould normally 3a+e performed t3eir military duties. (3eir ci+ilian super+isor 2as also 5i+en a memorandum of admonition for improperly allo2in5 t3e soldiers to ta:e suc3 time. Si!nificant Pena#ties for Si!nificant 9ron!doin! A former employee at t3e ,ASA Ames *esearc3 Center8 C3ristop3er #urt 9iltsee8 2as sentenced to fi+e years in prison and ordered to pay a D2/8000 fine after pleadin5 5uilty to possessin5 c3ild porno5rap3y on 3is 5o+ernment computer. 9iltsee admitted to possessin5 more t3an 000 ima5es. Ee is at least t3e t3ird person connected 2it3 ,ASA Ames to e con+icted of possessin5 c3ild porno5rap3y. Anot3er former ,ASA employee8 6ar: C3arles Welins:y8 li:e2ise pled 5uilty to possessin5 more t3an 000 ima5es on 3is 5o+ernment computer. Welins:y recei+ed t3ree years in prison. Save /our 4obO Pay +ith B/our "+nC Cash A former mana5er at t3e U.S. !ostal Ser+ice 2as remo+ed from 3is position for8 amon5 ot3er t3in5s8 improperly usin5 3is 5o+ernment credit card and ma:in5 false statements durin5 t3e in+esti5ation re5ardin5 t3at use. 9illiam Eic:mon 2as found to 3a+e made personal purc3ases on 3is !ostal Ser+ice tra+el credit card t3at totaled o+er D"/0. (3e c3ar5es included fi+e 5as station c3ar5es and an 11'day car rental c3ar5e. (3ou53 3e e+entually paid t3e c3ar5es8 t3e improper use 2as a factor in 3is e+entual remo+al. Co#one# &inds 't*s $oo ,ate to $urn Bac $ime on -nethica# ReDuest An Army Colonel 2as sc3eduled to 5o (DQ and as:ed one of 3er contract employees to ma:e a reser+ation for 3er mot3er on t3e same fli53t. 93en s3e 2as told t3at suc3 action 2ould e ille5al8 s3e responded t3at it 2as Balri53tC and t3at s3e 3ad as:ed 3im as a Bpersonal fa+or.C After e+en more people counseled 3er on t3e ille5ality


of 3er actions8 t3e Colonel attempted to stop t3e employee from ma:in5 t3e fli53t reser+ation8 ut it 2as too late. S3e 2as found to 3a+e +iolated !ara5rap3s 2'301 and 3' 30/ of DoD //00.4'*8 Joint 1t3ics *e5ulation8 23ic3 pro3i it use of -ederal Go+ernment resources8 includin5 personnel and e>uipment8 for ot3er t3an official purposes. Cyber-Savvy $eacher ,earns a ,esson A ci+ilian teac3er employed 2it3 DoD in Japan 2as cau53t usin5 3is Go+ernment computer to send fre>uent messa5es on 6ySpace8 Qa3oo C3at8 and 6S, c3at durin5 duty 3ours. Ee also used t3e computer to ot3 +ie2 and send porno5rap3ic material. Students reported t3at instead of teac3in5 classes 3e spent most of 3is time c3attin5 2it3 3is 5irlfriend and family in t3e United States. Ad+erse !ersonnel Action 2as ta:en a5ainst t3e teac3er and 3e resi5ned. Ma8or#y "ut $o ,unch An Army 6a=or 2as sc3eduled to 2or: 0430 to 1000 3ours. Instead8 3e 2ould s3o2 up as late as 1030 and lea+e as early as 1200. Some3o28 durin5 3is s3ort stay at t3e office 3e also mana5ed to ta:e Be<cessi+e lunc3 time.C Ee 2as su =ected to counselin5 for 3is time and attendance +iolations. Pro!nosis for Army Doctor Does Aot ,oo Good A ci+ilian doctor 2or:in5 at an Army clinic 2as cau53t orderin5 medication and tests for 3erself at t3e clinic e+en t3ou53 s3e 2as not entitled to medical care y t3e military. S3e 3ad also een seen y occupational 3ealt3 pro+iders at t3e clinic a out 20 times. (3is doctor recei+in5 unaut3oriAed medical care 2as suspended for t2o 2ee:s 2it3out pay and retrained on 3er eli5i ility to recei+e medical ser+ices. At $oday*s Gas Prices3 Better Refi## the Government*s $an 5 A 5roup of interns used a Go+ernment rental +e3icle to attend a /'day Defense Ac>uisition Uni+ersity $DAU. class in Ala ama. Eo2e+er8 after t3e class 2as o+er t3ey decided to dri+e to ,as3+ille for a little 2ee:end +acation8 ultimately droppin5 t3e car off


2it3 an empty tan: of 5as. (3ey c3ar5ed t3e Go+ernment an e<tra t2o days for t3e 2ee:end car rental and t3e D/S5allon 5as refill. (3ey 2ere also improperly paid for an e<tra day of per diem durin5 t3eir oondo55le to 6usic City. (3e ori5inal +ouc3ers claimed days t3at 2ere not part of t3e interns; official (DQ8 ut 2ere su se>uently corrected. (3e intern 5roup 2as counseled8 recei+ed trainin5 on filin5 tra+el +ouc3ers8 and 2as made to contact D-AS re5ardin5 reim ursement to t3e Go+ernment for t3e improper e<penditures. A S+in! and a Miss for Senior "fficers -sin! Government &unds on Go#f "utin! -our senior officials8 includin5 t2o Air -orce Generals8 a 6arine General8 and a ,a+y Admiral8 2it3 staff personnel e<tended t3eir official (DQ y an e<tra day in order to attend a 5olf outin5 follo2in5 a formal conference in (o:yo. (3ey utiliAed Go+ernment transportation and recei+ed per diem for t3e tournament. (3ere 2ere no usiness e+ents t3at day8 and t3e all'day 5olf e+ent 2as attended y less t3an 3alf of t3e conference participants. Attendance at t3e 5olf e+ent8 costin5 t3e Go+ernment appro<imately an additional D380008 could not reasona ly e considered to e official Go+ernment usiness. Golf foursomes do not pro+ide t3e opportunity to dialo5ue 2it3 a lar5e or di+erse 5roup of people and t3us do not 5reatly foster communication et2een conference participants. (3e -ederal Joint (ra+el *e5ulations re>uire t3at official tra+el only e aut3oriAed as necessary Bto accomplis3 t3e mission of t3e Go+ernment effecti+ely and economically.C (3e 5olf did not furt3er any le5itimate Go+ernment purpose8 nor 2as it an economical c3oice. (3e senior officials +iolated t3e Standards of 1t3ical Conduct for 1mployees of t3e 1<ecuti+e #ranc3 $/ C.-.*. !art 203/.40" and 203/.40/. y misusin5 Go+ernment property and time. (3ey 2ere directed to reim urse t3e Go+ernment for ot3 t3e lod5in5 and per diem costs incurred due to t3e 5olf outin5. Aot a ,iar3 But the Army Sti## Can*t $rain /our &iancPe*s Son to &i!ht &ire (3e -ire C3ief at an army installation did not 3a+e enou53 students to fill a pre' paid8 DoD'funded Airfield *escue -ire -i53ter Class so 3e sent 3is fiancXe;s son to t3e trainin5 to fill one of t3e unused seats. Alt3ou53 3e 2as not a DoD employee and did not


possess any pre+ious firefi53ter trainin5 or e<perience8 3e 2as issued Depot firefi53tin5 e>uipment and sent to t3e trainin5. (3is action posed a considera le safety ris: to all in+ol+ed and +iolated t3e class;s safety re>uirements. (3e -ire C3ief 2as not suspected of fraud8 only poor =ud5ment. 1+en t3ou53 sendin5 t3e oy did not in+ol+e t3e e<penditure of additional funds8 3e still +iolated !ara5rap3 2'301 of DoD //00.4'*8 t3e Joint 1t3ics *e5ulation8 para5rap3 2'3018 in 3is misuse of Go+ernment resources y issuin5 t3e oy t3e Go+ernment e>uipment. (3e -ire C3ief 2as issued a 2ritten reprimand to e made a matter of record in 3is official personnel folder for a period not to e<ceed t2o years from t3e date of receipt. Staff Ser!eant $ric s "ut )is Ride on the Government*s Dime An Army 1'0 assi5ned to a ,ational Guard maintenance s3op improperly 2or:ed on ci+ilian +e3icles at t3e s3op and remo+ed car parts for 3is personal use. Ee installed truc: tires8 t2o solar5iAers and ot3er accessories on 3is personal +e3icle and used 3is Go+ernment credit card to uy a diamond plate fuel tan: and install it in 3is o2n truc: 23ile puttin5 a re5ular 23ite fuel tan: in t3e military truc: 3e 2as 2or:in5 on. (3e Staff Ser5eant not only too: a Go+ernment +e3icle for 3is personal use8 ut 3e e+en too: a s3ed from t3e s3op and mo+ed it to 3is 3ome. Ee 2as also suspected of usin5 3is Go+ernment credit card to pay for 5as for 3is personal +e3icles. (3e Staff Ser5eant 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 larceny and 2ron5ful appropriation under t3e Code of 6ilitary Justice and t3e Go+ernment 2as a le to reco+er D%8%00 in property. Misuse of Position A 6a=or General and commander in a military ser+ice a used 3is aut3ority y arran5in5 to 3a+e an enlisted mem er ser+e as 3is unaut3oriAed enlisted aide. Qears earlier8 a re+ie2 of enlisted aide positions eliminated t3e illet at 3is center. Despite t3is8 t3e 6a=or General desired t3e ser+ices of an enlisted aide to assist in official entertainin5 and improperly assi5ned enlisted aide duties to a non'commissioned officer. (3e 6a=or General 2as issued a letter of counselin5.


,a+ %nforcement "fficia# &ired for ,andin! Government )e#icopter at )is Dau!hter*s Schoo# A Department of Eomeland Security order officer 2as fired for misuse of 5o+ernment property after 3e fle2 a multi'million dollar DES 3elicopter to 3is dau53ter;s elementary sc3ool and landed it on sc3ool property. (3e incident pro+o:ed complaints from parents and attracted media attention. Alt3ou53 t3e employee;s immediate super+isor told 3im 3e could use t3e 3elicopter8 t3e employee;s actions 2ere not e<cused ecause employees are e<pected to use t3eir o2n =ud5ment and s3ould not rely solely on t3e =ud5ment of t3eir superiors 23en it comes to et3ical conduct. 2L-/ear 6eteran of the 6A ,oses 4ob "ver Dirty %mai#s A Department of )eterans Affairs ud5et analyst $GS'11. 2as terminated for t3e inappropriate use of a 5o+ernment computer system. (3e employee sent and recei+ed at least 117 e'mail messa5es containin5 se<ually e<plicit material. (3e employee 3ad een instructed in t3e proper use of 5o+ernment computers and si5ned a statement t3at 3e 2as a2are of t3e a5ency;s policies8 23ic3 2ere clearly +iolated y t3e contents of 3is e'mail messa5es. (3e employee;s claims t3at someone else 5ot onto 3is computer and sent and recei+ed t3e e'mails 2ere una+ailin5. Don*t ,ose /our Day 4ob A (reasury Department computer specialist used 5o+ernment Internet and telep3one ser+ice to operate a pri+ate usiness durin5 2or: 3ours for se+eral years. (3e a5ency estimated t3at 3e stole o+er D038000 in salary y runnin5 3is pri+ate usiness on 5o+ernment time. After 3e 2as issued a cease and desist order8 3e discontinued most of 3is pri+ate usiness acti+ity8 ut 3e admitted to continuin5 to use 3is 2or: computer to transfer files relatin5 to 3is pri+ate usiness. Ee ar5ued t3at t3is 2as allo2ed y t3e Department ecause employees are permitted de minimis $+ery limited. personal use of 5o+ernment property. (3e Department disa5reed. Alt3ou53 Department employees may use 5o+ernment property for personal purposes at a de minimis le+el8 t3ey may not use 5o+ernment property at all to pursue pri+ate commercial usiness acti+ities or profit' ma:in5 +entures. (3is employee 3ad een 2arned once and continued to use t3e


5o+ernment;s office e>uipment for 3is pri+ate usiness. (3us8 t3is employee 2as left 2it3 only 3is ni53t =o $23ic3 3e could no2 le5itimately do durin5 t3e day.. )-D %mp#oyee Disc#oses Aon-Pub#ic 'nformation to ,over for Persona# &inancia# Gain A EUD employee 5a+e 3er spouse'li:e partner information a out t3e minimum accepta le id re>uired to purc3ase a EUD'o2ned property. (3is information 2as non' pu lic and 5a+e t3e employee;s partner a si5nificant ad+anta5e o+er ot3er idders in 5ettin5 t3e 2innin5 id. After t3e 3er partner 2on t3e id and purc3ased t3e property8 t3e property 2as transferred to t3e employee for D1Fan o +ious stra2'man transaction used to 5et around a EUD re5ulation pro3i itin5 EUD employees from iddin5 on EUD' o2ned properties. -ederal re5ulations pro3i it employees from usin5 non'pu lic information for furt3erin5 t3eir o2n pri+ate financial interests8 or t3e pri+ate financial interests of ot3ers. (3e EUD employee 2as fired. B#oc Party for Ae+ Staff Members Aot a .)ai# and &are+e##1 A Colonel in 9urA ur58 Germany dre2 t3e attention of in+esti5ators after t3ey disco+ered t3at 3e 3ad used Go+ernment resources to 3ost an unofficial ar e>ue at 3is >uarters. (3e Colonel 3ad planned a loc: party to 2elcome ne2 staff mem ers to 3is di+ision8 and accepted an offer y a superior officer to use Go+ernment property and soldiers for t3e party. Ee su se>uently tas:ed soldiers from 3is command durin5 duty 3ours to purc3ase food and e+era5es $2it3 3is o2n pri+ate funds. as 2ell as transport and set up a Go+ernment tent and Go+ernment'purc3ased ta les and enc3es at 3is >uarters. (3e soldiers used Go+ernment +e3icles to transport t3e party supplies8 and returned to rea: do2n t3e tent and ta les at t3e close of t3e party. 93ile t3e Colonel protested t3at t3e e+ent 2as a Eail and -are2ell8 t3e e+ent 2as ad+ertised to t3e community as a #loc: !arty8 attendance 2as +oluntary8 and t3e e+ent 2as not considered a place of duty. (3us8 in+esti5ators determined t3at t3e e+ent 2as unofficial8 and resulted in t3e misuse of 5o+ernment resources.


Persona# -se of Government Property %arns Reprimand (3e Assistant -ire C3ief at a military installation in California recei+ed a letter of reprimand after in+esti5ators disco+ered t3at 3e 3ad improperly aut3oriAed a firefi53ter to ta:e 3ome a rarely'used fire station pool ta le for personal use. (3e Assistant C3ief 3ad een instructed to determine 23et3er t3e pool ta le 2as actually Go+ernment property efore 5iftin5 it to t3e firefi53ter8 ut 3ad ne5lected to do so. (a:in5 a BcueC from t3e C3ief;s admission to in+esti5ators8 t3e firefi53ter returned t3e pool ta le to t3e station and recei+ed counselin5. Admira# -nder 'nvesti!ation for -se of Staff to Support Persona# $rave# An Admiral;s case 2as referred to t3e C3ief of ,a+al Operations after in+esti5ators learned t3at 3e 3ad used 3is personal staff to oo: family tra+el and 5i+e 3im rides 3ome from 2or:. In+esti5ators disco+ered t3at t3e Admiral;s 1<ecuti+e Assistant8 Aide8 and -la5 9riter 3ad on multiple occasions acceded to t3e Admiral;s re>uests to 3elp plan and oo: family +acations. (3e Admiral;s staff 3ad also oo:ed personal tra+el for t3e Admiral;s family mem ers to =oin 3im on official usiness. In+esti5ators furt3er found t3at t3e Admiral 3ad improperly dri+en 3ome 3is Go+ernment +e3icle on se+eral occasions8 and t3at t3e staff 3ad de+eloped a custom t3at t3e last person to lea+e t3e office on a day on 23ic3 t3e Admiral lac:ed transportation 2as +irtually o li5ated to 5i+e t3e Admiral a ride 3ome in t3eir personal +e3icle. (3e Admiral;s case 2as referred to t3e C3ief of ,a+al Operations for misuse of personnel8 misuse of Go+ernment property8 and receipt of 5ifts from su ordinates. Stoppin! at the Base %atery Aot an ."fficia# 6isit1 A ,on'Appropriated -und Acti+ity $,A-I. employee 2as reprimanded after it 2as disco+ered t3at 3e dro+e 3is official Go+ernment +e3icle e+ery mornin5 to a ,A-I eatery for coffee and rea:fast. (3e employee readily admitted 3is actions8 ut indicated t3at 3e elie+ed t3em to e proper ecause t3ey 2ere Bofficial +isitsC to an acti+ity under 3is command. Ee noted t3at 3e 3ad formerly used 3is personal +e3icle for all suc3 +isits8 ut 2it3 risin5 5as prices8 t3at practice 3ad ecome too e<pensi+e. Ee furt3er


3ypot3esiAed t3at t3e person 23o 3ad tipped off in+esti5ators 2as simply =ealous as t3ey pro a ly did not 3a+e a Go+ernment +e3icle and 2ere forced to dri+e t3eir personal +e3icle to 5et food. (3e employee recei+ed a 2ritten reprimand for usin5 a Go+ernment +e3icle for non'aut3oriAed purposes. Misuse of Cu#inary Specia#ists Resu#ts in Attention of Chief of Aava# "peration An Admiral and Captain at a ,a+al -acility in Japan came under in+esti5ation 23en it 2as disco+ered t3at t3ey 2ere usin5 Culinary Specialists $CSs. to operate an unaut3oriAed -la5 6ess. (3e t2o officers ordered t3e esta lis3ment of an on's3ore -la5 6ess to ser+e t3em 2it3out follo2in5 t3e proper procedures to recei+e appro+al. 93ile t3ey pro+ided t3e funds for t3e CSs to purc3ase t3e food for t3e mess8 t3ey re>uired t3at t3e CSs prepare meals and ser+e t3em in t3eir respecti+e offices. (3e CSs 2ere also directed to prepare food for an unofficial social e+ent 5i+en y t3e Admiral in 3is >uarters. As a result of t3eir misuse of personnel8 t3e officers; cases 2ere for2arded to t3e C3ief of ,a+al Operations. &ai#ure to Choose Cost-%fficient &#i!hts Resu#ts in 'nvesti!ation An Army ,ational Guard Colonel found 3imself under in+esti5ation after t3e re+elation t3at 3e 3ad committed 2aste and a use in official tra+el. In+esti5ators disco+ered t3at o+er a t3ree'year span of time8 t3e Colonel 3ad tra+eled on t2el+e fli53ts in usiness class8 addin5 appro<imately D08%00 to t3e fli53t costI 3ad ta:en nineteen trips 2it3 non'contract carriersI 3ad on si< occasions flo2n routes terminatin5 in destinations not in 3is orders8 suc3 as San -ranciscoI and 3ad re>uested t3at 3is staff oo: 3im on a certain c3ain of carriers 23ene+er possi le in order to earn fre>uent flyer miles. In+esti5ators determined t3at t3e failure of t3e Colonel and 3is staff to follo2 t3e proper procedures concernin5 tra+el cost comparisons cost nearly D/8000 in 200/ alone. $rashin! -nused Parts Garners %mp#oyee Counse#in! A Ser5eant in t3e Air *efuelin5 9in5 of t3e AriAona ,ational Guard 3ad t3e responsi ility of properly catalo5in5 e<cess aircraft parts. (3is process in+ol+ed fillin5


out t3e re>uisite paper2or: and o<in5 loose items. (3e Ser5eant s2iftly ecame frustrated 2it3 t3e process8 and decided to simply t3ro2 t3e items a2ay. (3e Ser5eant;s s3ortcut earned 3im counselin5 and a di+ision'2ide re+ie2 of proper maintenance procedures. %mai# %ncoura!in! Attendance at Mi#itary Association Meetin! %arns Counse#in! (2o senior officials of t3e Kouisiana ,ational Guard 2ere counseled after sendin5 an email to a lar5e num er of ser5eant ma=ors in t3e command as:in5 t3em to Bfocus onC t3e upcomin5 con+ention of t3e Kouisiana Army ,ational Guard 1nlisted Association8 notin5 t3at t3ey Be<pectTedUC attendance at certain sessions8 and e<pressin5 t3eir desire for Ba 5ood turnout.C (3e email 2as in +iolation of DoD Directi+e //00.4*8 23ic3 pro3i its official endorsement of non'-ederal or5aniAations. (3e t2o officers 2ere counseled for t3eir +iolations. Don*t ,et 'nternet Surfin! Carry /ou A+ay5 The Facts+ (3e Internal *e+enue Ser+ice $I*S. issued a policy t3at allo2ed t3e use of t3e Internet y employees for personal reasons so lon5 as t3at use did not distract employees from t3eir duties. It also pro+ided a list of Internet sites t3at 2ere off'limits. Si< mont3s later8 t3e (reasury Inspector General $IG. for (a< Administration found 2idespread a use of Internet pri+ile5es. A uses included +ie2in5 porno5rap3ic sites8 do2nloadin5 music and 5ames8 and Bc3attin5C online 2it3 friends. (3e IG recommended t3at t3e I*S re>uire employees to si5n a document declarin5 t3at t3ey understood I*S Internet policy and8 as Go+1<ec.com put it8 B3umiliate Internet a users y pu lis3in5 t3eir names.C (3e I*S 3as determined t3at it 2ill ta:e stron5er measures. $SourceM 7o5E@ec6com8 June 238 2003.. The ,a-+ Different a5encies may 3a+e different policies as to 23at use employees can ma:e of t3e Internet 23ile at 2or:. As an employee8 you must follo2 t3e policies of your employer or face disciplinary action. 6oralM C3ec: t3e tide in your office efore you surf.


-sin! Government 6ehic#e to .Chi##1 %arns Do+n $ime By Suspension The Facts+ A resident of California 2as puAAled to find a Dod5e *am truc: o2ned y a ranc3 of t3e United States military often turnin5 up in a residential nei53 or3ood durin5 usiness 3ours. Concerned at t3is use of a Go+ernment'o2ned +e3icle $GO).8 t3e citiAen decided to 5i+e a Defense Department Eotline a call. An in+esti5ation ensued8 23ic3 in+ol+ed sur+eillance of t3e nei53 or3ood in >uestion8 re+ie2 of time:eepin5 records8 and inter+ie2s. Ultimately8 t3e dri+er of t3e +e3icleFa mec3anic at a military facilityFadmitted to 3a+in5 pro lems 2it3 su stance a use and depression and to usin5 t3e truc: at times to return 3ome alle5edly to retrie+e tools $23ic3 could 3a+e een o tained y ot3er means. and to Bc3ill out8C sometimes for t2o 3ours. Ee admitted t3at 3e :ne2 t3at 23at 3e 2as doin5 2it3 t3e GO) 2as 2ron58 ut 3e as:ed for a second c3ance since 3e 3ad ne+er een in trou le efore. (3e mec3anic 2as 5i+en t3e mandatory minimum penaltyM a 30'day suspension. The ,a-+ 31 U.S.C. N 13"7$ . re>uires t3at an officer or employee 23o B2illfullyC uses a +e3icle o2ned or leased y t3e United States Go+ernment for ot3er t3an official purposes e suspended for at least one mont3 or8 B23en circumstances 2arrant8 for a lon5er period or summarily remo+ed from office.C In t3is case8 t3e misuse of t3e +e3icle 2as deemed to e 2illful8 since t3e -ederal employee :ne2 t3at 3is personal use of t3e GO) 2as 2ron5. )o#iday Greetin!s5 Mi#itary "fficer Sent Best 9ishes on the Cheap ? /ou Paid5 The Facts+ Accordin5 to s2orn testimony and documents unco+ered y a military ser+ice Inspector General in>uiry8 a senior military officer and 3is 2ife 3ad a su ordinate ser+ice mem er print out on a Go+ernment office computer official cards containin5 t3eir 3oliday 5reetin5s8 23ic3 t3ey t3en si5ned8 enclosed in official en+elopes 2it3 printed la els8 and sent to a out 100 addresses. Some of t3eir 5reetin5s 2ere sent o+erseas to forei5n officials usin5 Go+ernment posta5e and mar:ed BOfficial #usiness.C (3is conduct occurred as one of a series of alle5ed offenses t3at resulted in t3e officer ein5 relie+ed of command8 issued a puniti+e letter of reprimand8 and ordered to forfeit D18000.


The ,a-+ / C.-.*. N 203/.101 $2003.8 23ic3 lays out asic o li5ations for and restrictions upon pu lic ser+ice8 for ids t3e use of -ederal property Bfor ot3er t3an aut3oriAed acti+itiesC $N 203/.101$ .$7... It t3us arred t3e use of all of t3e -ederal property employed to produce and to send t3e 5reetin5 cards. 6oreo+er8 1% U.S.C. N 1417 $2003. mandates fines for anyone usin5 an official en+elope or la el to a+oid 3a+in5 to pay t3eir o2n posta5e for pri+ate mail. In t3is case8 t3e official en+elopes addressed to indi+iduals o+erseas 2ere improperly used to 5ain Go+ernment posta5e. Admittedly8 section C1.".7 of t3e Department of Defense $DoD. Official 6ail 6anual $DoD "/2/.%'68 Dec. 208 2001. aut3oriAes t3e use of Bappropriated fund posta5eC y DoD Bacti+ities . . . 23en international diplomacy dictates.C In t3is case8 3o2e+er8 t3e officer;s 5reetin5s 2ere not re>uired for international diplomacy and 2ere not sent on e3alf of an Bacti+ityC ut 2ere from t2o indi+idualsFt3e officer and 3is 2ife. (3ey t3us did not fall 2it3in t3e DoD e<ception. 129hat do you mean3 ' can0t se## rea# estate at +or @52 A -ederal employee8 23o 3ad a second career as a realtor6 printed 3er -ederal A5ency p3one num er on 3er realtor usiness card. 93en s3e ans2ered 3er p3one at 3er Go+ernment 2or:place8 s3e announced 3er office as HJR# *eal 1state.H 93en ad+ised t3at s3e could not use 3er Go+ernment office for 3er commercial usiness8 s3e left -ederal ser+ice. (3e record is silent re5ardin5 3o2 muc3 of 3er duty day 2as actually spent on Go+ernment 2or:. Sections / C.-.*. 203/.40" and 40/ of t3e Standards of 1t3ical Conduct for 1mployees of t3e 1<ecuti+e #ranc3 ar t3e use of Go+ernment property and resources8 as 2ell as official time8 for unaut3oriAed acti+ities $suc3 as conductin5 a pri+ate usiness +enture.. 29hat do you mean3 this isn0t my property@52 One entrepreneurial -ederal employee ac:ed 3is panel +an up to t3e office door one ni53t and stole all t3e computer e>uipment. Ee 2asnGt too 3ard to catc3M 3e tried to sell e+eryt3in5 at a yard sale t3e ne<t day F 2it3 arcodes and H!roperty of US Go+ernmentH stic:ers still prominently displayed.


Misuse of Government Resources Alle5ations 2ere made t3at t3e principal of a Department of Defense sc3ool 2as usin5 t3e sc3ool to 3old personal8 for'profit craft parties after 3ours. After an in+esti5ation8 it 2as determined t3at t3e principal did improperly use Go+ernment property. It 2as disco+ered t3at t3e parties; ori5inal location8 23ic3 3ad een on pri+ate property8 2as no lon5er a+aila le8 so t3e principal mo+ed t3e parties to t3e sc3ool. Section 203/.40" of t3e Standards of 1t3ical Conduct for 1mployees of t3e 1<ecuti+e #ranc3 restricts t3e use of Go+ernment property8 includin5 DoD sc3ool uildin5s8 for aut3oriAed purposes only. 'mproper -se of Government Resources Alle5ations 2ere raised t3at a ,a+y ci+ilian official 2as usin5 3is ,a+y office as a 3ead>uarters for 3is pri+ate company. It 2as alle5ed t3at 3e used and pu lis3ed 3is ,a+y office p3one num er as t3e usiness;s num er and used ,a+y employees to ans2er t3e p3one and ta:e messa5es re5ardin5 t3e usiness for 3im. It 2as also alle5ed t3at 3e used Go+ernment copiers8 fa< mac3ines8 and ot3er e>uipment for t3e usiness. After an in+esti5ation8 all of t3e alle5ations 2ere su stantiated. (3e official 2as reduced in 5rade and remo+ed from 3is super+isory post. Section 203/.40" of t3e Standards of 1t3ical Conduct for 1mployees of t3e 1<ecuti+e #ranc3 restricts t3e use of Go+ernment property8 includin5 office e>uipment and supplies8 for aut3oriAed purposes only. Misuse of %mai# A Department of Defense $DoD. employee inad+ertently recei+ed an email messa5e from anot3er employee8 23om s3e didn;t :no2. (3e messa5e 2ent into 5reat detail re5ardin5 a pri+ate usiness +enture t3at t3e employee 2as conductin5 2it3 a t3ird employee. (3e recipient promptly for2arded t3e email to Inspector General8 23o in+esti5ated and determined t3at t3e 2riter of t3e messa5e 2as usin5 t3e Go+ernment email system for 3is o2n pri+ate usiness use. (3e employee 2as 2arned8 ut continued 3is acti+ities e+en after counselin58 and 2as su se>uently remo+ed from 3is position.


!ara5rap3 2'301 of DoD //00.4'*8 Joint 1t3ics *e5ulation8 restricts use of Department of Defense communications systems to official and aut3oriAed purposes only. Super+isors may allo2 limited personal use of DoD email systems under certain circumstances and 23en suc3 use does not o+er urden t3e communications system8 create si5nificant additional costs8 and is of reasona le duration and fre>uency. Misuse of Government $e#ephone A Department of Defense ci+ilian employee earned t3e ire of 3er co'2or:ers y usin5 3er office telep3one for personal calls. An in+esti5ation determined t3at t3e employee 3ad indeed een a usin5 3er telep3one pri+ile5esFfor nearly 70 3ours in one calendar year alone. S3e 2as ordered to pay for t3e improper calls ut 2as not prosecuted for t3e o+er t2o 2or:2ee:s 2ort3 of time s3e spent on t3e p3one durin5 2or: 3ours. S3e 2as issued a letter of caution y 3er super+isor. 12And they even pay me for doin! this(2 (3e 6erit Systems !rotection #oard affirmed t3e decision y t3e Dru5 1nforcement A5ency $D1A. to remo+e a criminal in+esti5ator for 2illful misuse of a Go+ernment +e3icle. (3e former official 2as en5a5ed in a social and se<ual relations3ip 2it3 a confidential source of information8 23o 2as also t3e 2ife of a con+icted dru5 traffic:er. (3e former official recei+ed daily 5ifts from t3e confidential source. Ee used 3is official Go+ernment +e3icle to tra+el to t3e residence of t3e confidential source8 and to transport 3er from 3er residence to t3e 6iami airport and to t3e CafX I5uana for purely social reasons. Ee e+en 5a+e 3er some D1A'o2ned ammunition for use in 3er o2n 5un. 2Sorry3 S ipper3 but those rea##y aren0t per s(2 Immediately upon arri+in5 at 3is ne2 duty station in Italy8 t3e ne2 commandin5 officer of t3e ,a+y facility8 in an effort to sa+e money8 used an official +e3icle rat3er t3an o tainin5 a rental car8 23ic3 3e 2as aut3oriAed to do 23ile a2aitin5 deli+ery of 3is personal +e3icle. Eis use of t3e official +e3icle 2as disco+ered 23en t3e car 2as stolen 23en 3e 2as at a restaurant. (3e su se>uent in+esti5ation also re+ealed t3at 3e 3ad used an official oat $called a ar5e. to ferry 3imself and 3is social 5roup to t3e island of


Isc3ia for a social e+enin5 $a commercial ferry 2ould 3a+e cost t3e total party less t3an D20.. (3e in+esti5ation also re+ealed t3at 3e 3ad tried to persuade t3e commandin5 officer of a su ordinate or5aniAation to create a GS'1" position for 3is spouse. (3e officer 2as relie+ed of 3is command and returned stateside. 'mproper Phone Ca##s and Attempted Cover-up A General Ser+ices Administration $GSA. employee 2as remo+ed from 3is position for ma:in5 1/3 non' usiness calls on a Go+ernment telep3one to t3e (e<as Kottery Commission. (3e calls cost t3e GSA D%00. (3e employee also as:ed t3e recipient of t3e calls to pro+ide false information a out t3e calls y statin5 t3at t3ey concerned official Go+ernment usiness. (3e employee 2as remo+ed from -ederal Ser+ice. Misuse of Government 6ehic#e A Department of (ransportation canine enforcement team leader 2as remo+ed from 3is position for misuse of a Go+ernment +e3icle as 2ell as for a serious lac: of =ud5ment re5ardin5 t3e safe5uardin5 of o+er D2 million 2ort3 of cocaine. (3e cocaine 2as used in trainin5 sessions for canine enforcement teams. (3e former employee improperly too: 3is Go+ernment +e3icle to lunc3 and left t3e cocaine unattended F all in a order to2n 23ere narcotics traffic:in5 2as a pro lem. (3e c3ar5es and t3e remo+al decision 2ere all appealed to t3e 6erit Systems !rotection #oard. (3e remo+al 2as up3eld. )o+ NOT to Get Rich Stea#in! "ffice Supp#ies A Department of )eterans Affairs $)A. re+ie2 found t3at a )A employee 2as unla2fully remo+in5 Go+ernment office supplies and e>uipment from t3e )A 2are3ouse and pro+idin5 t3em to 3is rot3er'in'la28 23o 2or:ed for a local retail esta lis3ment. 6ana5ement too: administrati+e action a5ainst t3e employee.


Misuse of Government ,etterhead and Posta!e-paid %nve#ope (3e Department of )eterans Affairs $)A. determined t3at a )A medical center employee used official )A letter3ead as 2ell as a posta5e'paid en+elope to send personal correspondence to a county =ud5e re>uestin5 issuance of a protecti+e order a5ainst a t3en' fello2 )A employee. (3e employee 2as issued a 2ritten letter of counselin5 and ad+ised t3at future incidents may result in disciplinary action. Don*t Misuse Government 6ehic#es ? %ven to )e#p /our &ami#y5 The Facts+ (3e son and nep3e2 of a 3i53'le+el -ederal employee 2ere 3a+in5 car pro lems and needed lunc3. 9it3 23at may 3a+e een 5ood intentions8 t3is 3i53' le+el employee decided to use a Go+ernment +e3icle to 3elp. Ee dama5ed t3e +e3icle8 and 3is act 2as disco+ered. Eis re2ard for 3elpin5 3is family 2it3 a Go+ernment +e3icleM suspension 2it3out pay for "/ days and reassi5nment to a ne2 position. (Source: 0onald Auc/nor 56 &6S6 Postal Ser5ice, *.8 4-28 $8 248'82, <an6 2?, 2 36% The ,a-+ 31 U.S.C. N 13"7 $2003. re>uires t3at any -ederal officer or employee 23o B2illfully uses or aut3oriAes t3e use of a passen5er motor +e3icle or aircraft o2ned or leased y t3e United States Go+ernment8C e<cept for official purposes8 e suspended 2it3out pay for a minimum of one mont3 and8 B23en circumstances 2arrant8 for a lon5er periodC or e Bsummarily remo+ed from office.C 6oreo+er8 in Aro+n 56 &nited States Postal Ser5ice8 0" 6.S.!.*. "2/8 "33 $177".8 t3e 6erit Systems !rotection #oard affirmed t3at super+isors could e 3eld to 3i53er standards of conduct t3an non' super+isors8 ecause super+isors occupy positions of 5reater trust and responsi ility. Misuse of Property Causes Admira# to ,ose Promotion A lin:s'lo+in5 )ice Admiral let 3is lo+e of t3e 5ame 5o too far. Accordin5 to t3e Inspector General8 t3e )ice Admiral misused Go+ernment property8 su ordinates8 and official time to sponsor a pri+ate 5olf tournamentFa 5olf tournament t3at 3e ad+ertised as an official e+ent. (ournament participants 2ere re2arded 2it3 5ifts improperly solicited and accepted y t3e )ice Admiral from contractors. (3is led t3e Secretary of t3e ,a+y to 2it3dra2 t3e )ice Admiral;s nomination for a fourt3 star and issue 3im a letter of instruction and caution.


(3e Standards of 1t3ical Conduct for 1mployees of t3e 1<ecuti+e #ranc3 limit t3e use of Go+ernment property to aut3oriAed purposes only8 and official time is limited to t3e performance of official duties. (3ese re5ulations also pro3i it t3e solicitation or acceptance of 5ifts from pro3i ited sources. (3e lessonM don;t let your acti+ities as a BforeC star :eep you from ecomin5 a four'star. Misuse of "fficia# Mai# ,eads to Remova# A GS'11 administrati+e ser+ices specialist 2as remo+ed for falsifyin5 documents and misusin5 Go+ernment property and official mail. (3e specialist;s super+isor 3ad prepared a letter in 3is personal capacity e<pressin5 3is disa5reement 2it3 =udicial actions to free t3e indi+idual c3ar5ed 2it3 s3ootin5 and :illin5 3is sonI t3is letter 2as mailed to indi+iduals in t3e la2 enforcement community in non5o+ernment en+elopes 2it3 pri+ately'paid posta5e. (3e specialist too: t3e letter prepared y 3er super+isor8 placed it on Department of Justice stationary8 copied t3e super+isor;s si5nature onto t3e letter8 and sent it out in fran:ed a5ency en+elopes directed to mem ers of t3e =udicial community8 t3e -ederal !u lic Defender;s Office8 and a la2 sc3ool dean8 all 2it3out t3e super+isor;s :no2led5e or consent. (3e remo+ed employee initially denied 3a+in5 ta:en suc3 actions under oat38 ut later admitted t3at t3e alle5ations 2ere true. As a conse>uence of t3e specialist;s falsification of documents8 misuse of Go+ernment property8 and a use of official mail8 s3e 2as remo+ed from 3er position and recommended for possi le criminal c3ar5es. -se of Government Property for Private Business ,eads to Remova# After repeated 2arnin5s8 a Department of t3e (reasury computer specialist 2as remo+ed from 3is position for unaut3oriAed use of Go+ernment property in support of 3is pri+ate usiness. (3e employee 3ad used 3is Go+ernment computer to copy 3is commercial usiness computer files from one floppy dis: to anot3er floppy dis:8 and computer records s3o2ed e<tensi+e acti+ity related to t3e employee;s comic oo: usiness. A su se>uent in+esti5ation s3o2ed t3at t3e employee 3ad falsified 3is times3eet so t3at it did not reflect time 3e 3ad spent runnin5 3is pri+ate usiness durin5


2or: 3ours8 leadin5 to an e<tra D038000 in payment for 2or: t3e employee did not actually perform. 6any a5encies allo2 limited personal use of Go+ernment property 23en t3e use in+ol+es minimal additional e<pense to t3e Go+ernment and does not o+er urden any of t3e a5ency;s information resources. ,e+ert3eless8 employees are specifically pro3i ited from t3e pursuit of pri+ate commercial usiness acti+ities or profit'ma:in5 +entures usin5 t3e Go+ernment;s office e>uipment. Misuse of Government Property Resu#ts in Remova# A GS'/ employee of t3e Department of t3e Interior 2as remo+ed for misuse of Go+ernment property8 failure to follo2 a super+isor;s instructions8 and misrepresentation of facts on official documents. In+esti5ations re+ealed t3at t3e employee made 18007 unofficial calls on 3is Go+ernment'issued cell p3one at a cost of D4/2.0%8 and used 3is assi5ned laptop computer to access unaut3oriAed sites. (3e employee furt3er failed to follo2 a super+isor;s instructions 23en 3e c3ar5ed meals on 3is Go+ernment credit card and used a Go+ernment +e3icle after recei+in5 instruction to t3e contrary. Kastly8 t3e employee misrepresented facts on official documents 23en 3e su mitted a tra+el document re>uestin5 reim ursement for a day 23en 3e 3ad not actually een on official tra+el8 and falsely claimin5 to 3a+e 3eld t3e desi5nation of A5ency *epresentati+e on t3ree occasions. (3e Administrati+e Jud5e concluded t3at t3e employee;s conduct 2as intentional and t3at 3e s3o2ed minimal8 if any8 potential for re3a ilitation. Conse>uently8 t3e employee 2as remo+ed and anned from see:in5 -ederal employment in t3e future. Misuse of "fficia# 6ehic#e %arns %mp#oyee I=-Day Suspension A U.S. !ostal Ser+ice employee 23o used a Go+ernment'o2ned la2 enforcement +e3icle to s3op for a personal computer found 3imself defendin5 3is actions efore an appellate court =ud5e. (3e employee ar5ued t3at t3e use 2as Bofficial useC ecause 3e sometimes used 3is personal computer for usiness purposesI 3o2e+er8 t3e employee admitted to o2nin5 a ac:up computer in addition to t3e ro:en one 3e 2as s3oppin5 to


replace8 and failed to e<plain 23y 3e could not s3op for a computer 23ile off'duty. (3e =ud5e 2as li:e2ise uncon+inced y t3e employee;s claim t3at t3e use 2as BofficialC ecause 3e could respond to emer5encies 23ile s3oppin5. (3e =ud5e affirmed t3e !ostal Ser+ice;s suspension of t3e employee for t3irty days 2it3out pay. Misuse of "fficia# 6ehic#e3 A!ain A Ei53 )olta5e 1lectrician at t3e ,a+al #ase in !oint 6a5u 2as penaliAed for 2illful misuse of a 5o+ernment +e3icle 23en 3e reported to 2or:8 c3ec:ed out a +e3icle8 and dro+e to t3e 5alley for rea:fast. (3e employee ar5ued t3at 3e 3ad ne+er recei+ed notification of t3e restriction a5ainst dri+in5 5o+ernment +e3icles to meals8 a claim some23at undercut y t3e fact t3at 3e 3ad si5ned a document t3e pre+ious mont3 indicatin5 3is receipt of t3e rules re5ardin5 misuse of 5o+ernment +e3icles. (3e employee also ar5ued t3at 3e 2as on call for emer5encies 23ile eatin5 rea:fast8 and t3us 3is use 2as Bofficial.C An appellate court =ud5e re=ected t3is claim8 findin5 no e+idence t3at 3is position as a Ei53 )olta5e 1lectrician re>uired 3im to e Bon call constantlyC as descri ed. (3e =ud5e affirmed t3e electrician;s t3irty'day suspension 2it3out pay. Misuse of a Government 6ehic#e and 9eapon ,eads to Remova# A series of e5re5ious =ud5ment calls y a criminal in+esti5ator for t3e #ureau of Alco3ol8 (o acco8 -irearms8 and 1<plosi+es $A(-. made for ei53t 3ours t3at ended 3is federal career. (3e in+esti5ator;s ad day e5an 23en 3e decided to lea+e 23ile on duty in order to s3o2 a rental 3ouse 3e o2ned to a prospecti+e tenant8 a ad idea made e+en 2orse y 3is decision to dri+e 3is official +e3icle. Upon arri+in5 at t3e 3ouse8 t3e in+esti5ator found an intruder8 at 23ic3 point 3e decided to dra2 3is ser+ice 2eapon and c3ase t3e intruder out8 firin5 a s3ot in t3e process. (3e in+esti5ator called t3e police to report t3e rea:'in8 and upon searc3in5 t3e premises8 t3e police turned up a second intruder 3idin5 in a closet $presuma ly petrified in terror.. Eo2e+er8 some3o2 a sent in t3e in+esti5ator;s recitation of t3e ori5inal incident 2as t3e s3ot fired at t3e fleein5 intruder8 and t3e police >uic:ly departed to ta:e t3e second intruder to =ail. Apparently


nonplussed at t3e afternoon;s e+ents8 t3e in+esti5ator ne<t decided to dri+e across to2n $still in 3is official +e3icle. to meet yet anot3er prospecti+e tenant. At t3is point t3e police officers learned a out t3e 5uns3ot from t3e second intruder8 and re>uested t3e in+esti5ator;s presence at t3e police station. (3e in+esti5ator 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 $1. mis3andlin5 of a ser+ice 2eapon8 $2. failure to report disc3ar5e of a ser+ice 2eapon8 $3. misuse of a 5o+ernment +e3icle8 and $". lac: of candor. ,eedless to say8 t3at fateful day 2as t3e in+esti5ator;s last in federal ser+ice. Misuse of Government Credentia#s Resu#ts in Demotion A Super+isory Special A5ent8 GS'1"8 found 3erself demoted to Special A5ent8 GS'138 after misusin5 3er 5o+ernment credentials in a traffic stop. (3e a5ent 2as ridin5 as a passen5er 2it3 a friend 23en t3e car 2as pulled o+er y t3e police. Alt3ou53 t3e police officer did not re>uest t3at t3e a5ent identify 3erself8 s3e immediately displayed 3er federal credentials 23en t3e officer approac3ed. Alt3ou53 t3e a5ent ne+er re>uested special treatment from t3e officer8 t3e Administrati+e Jud5e noted t3at Bmere self' identification y a la2 officer can result in fa+ora le treatment y anot3er la2 enforcement officer8C and for t3is reason a5ents are trained to e careful not to use t3eir credentials for personal 5ain. (3e a5ent 2as also separately cited for improperly securin5 3er 5o+ernment'issued 2eapon8 23ic3 s3e stored at 3ome B e3ind t3e coffee mu5s on t3e refri5eratorC ecause s3e 3ad Bfor5otTtenU t3e com inationC to 3er 5un safe. In addition to 3er demotion8 t3e a5ent 2as also suspended for 1" days. (Source: 2 - (SPA 9E:'S $=$2%

%mp#oyee Removed for Misuse of Government Computer (3e Installation Strate5ic !lannin5 Officer at -ort Ste2ard 2as relie+ed of 3is duties after it 2as disco+ered t3at 3e 3ad een usin5 3is 5o+ernment laptop to ot3 +ie2 se<ually'e<plicit materials and type up notes for 3is c3urc3. (3e officer 2ill 3a+e plenty of time to ponder 3is actions8 as t3e 6erit Systems !rotection #oard affirmed 3is remo+al from federal ser+ice.


,avish A!ency Party %arns &edera# Probe On t3e e+e of its t2o'year anni+ersary8 t3e (ransportation Security Administration $(SA. spent nearly a 3alf'million dollars on an a2ards ceremony at a lu<urious 9as3in5ton8 D.C. 3otel. (3e la+is3 cele ration 3ad o+er a t3ousand attendees and 2as 3eld at t3e Grand Eyatt8 23ic3 ills itself as Bone of t3e most ma5nificentC 3otels in 9as3in5ton8 D.C. (3e ceremony included fin5er food a+era5in5 D33 per person8 se+en ca:es totalin5 D18%/08 and t3ree c3eese displays 2ort3 D18/00. (SA planners paid an e+ent plannin5 company D%18404 for pla>ues8 23ic3 t3ey presented to /"3 employees and 30 or5aniAations. !lanners also spent D18"%0 on t3ree alloon arc3es8 D18/07 for si5ns8 and D/8170 for official p3oto5rap3s. In 3onor of t3is o+er't3e'top cele ration8 (SA 2as a2arded an in+esti5ation y t3e Eomeland Security Department;s Inspector General. (Source: #ssociated Press, $ ,$?,2 ?%

Certifyin! "fficer Persona##y ,iab#e for -nauthoriJed Staff .Sunset Cruise1 93en re+ie2in5 t3e e<pense report for a 2ee:'lon5 staff retreat8 t3e )eterans Administration $)A. Inspector General noted an interestin5 c3ar5e. Included in t3e D218000 ill for t3e 20'person -lorida retreat 2as an D%23 c3ar5e for a Bsunset dinner cruise.C Determinin5 t3at t3is item 2as an Bentertainment e<pense8C and notin5 t3at t3e )A;s appropriation does not aut3oriAe funds for entertainment e<penses8 t3e Inspector General recommended t3at t3e office director e 3eld personally lia le for t3e improper payment. Upon re+ie28 t3e Go+ernment Accounta ility Office $GAO. found t3at t3e Bcertifyin5 officerC is indeed personally financially lia le for improperly certified paymentsI 3o2e+er8 t3e GAO ruled t3at t3e office director 2as merely an appro+in5 official. (3e GAO ruled t3at t3e funds s3ould e collected eit3er from t3e payee8 if possi le8 or from t3e certifyin5 officer 23o actually certified t3e payment. A!ency Director Suspended for Persona# -se of Government Property A Director of a Defense a5ency :ne2 of a spare room in an a5ency 2are3ouse and t3ou53t it 2ould e t3e perfect place to install a o2lin5 lane for a little recreation. Eo2e+er8 t3e employee 3e recruited to install t3e o2lin5 alley declined8 since 3e 2as


a2are t3at employees are pro3i ited from usin5 Go+ernment property for unofficial purposes. $/ C.-.*. 203/.40" . Undeterred8 t3e Director 2ent to t3e employee;s super+isor and instructed 3im to issue t3e order. *eluctantly8 t3e employee o eyed 3is super+isor and constructed t3e o2lin5 lane durin5 3is official 2or: 3ours. !er3aps encoura5ed y 3is success8 t3e Director secretly constructed anot3er lane. (3e Director +iolated / C.-.*. 203/.40/$ . y appropriatin5 Go+ernment property and space for 3is o2n personal use8 as 2ell as 2ron5fully depri+in5 t3e Go+ernment of resources durin5 t3e time t3e employee uilt and remo+ed t3e lane. (3is re5ulation pro3i its personnel from Bencoura5in58 directin58 coercin58 or re>uestin5 a su ordinate to use official time to perform acti+ities ot3er t3an t3ose re>uired in t3e performance of official duties or aut3oriAed in accordance 2it3 la2 or re5ulation.C -or t3is +iolation8 t3e Director recei+ed a suspension. On a side note8 t3e employee;s super+isor as 2ell as t3e Deputy DirectorSAccountin5 Director ot3 recei+ed letters of admonis3ment for failin5 to report fraud8 despite t3e fact t3at eac3 3ad 2arned t3e Director and e+en attempted to stop 3im. As suc38 it is important to remem er t3at personnel are accounta le not =ust for t3e actions t3ey ta:e8 ut also for t3ose actions t3ey fail to ta:e. (Source: 0epartment of 0efense, 'nspector 7eneral, 2 4%

Senior "fficer Misused Staff .for the Government*s Benefit1 (3e Department of Defense Inspector General found t3at a former 3i53 ran:in5 military officer 3ad e<3i ited a Bdisre5ard for t3e proper use of 3is staff and for conser+in5 Go+ernment resourcesC 23en 3e 3ad 3is su ordinates perform personal ser+ices for 3im durin5 official 2or: 3ours on many occasions. )iolatin5 / C.-.*. 203/.402 and 203/.40/$ .8 t3ese offenses include 3a+in5 3is su ordinates to2 3is personal oat after usiness 3ours and deli+er indi+idual family mem ers; income ta< returns to a ta< assistance office. (3e officer as:ed 3is secretary to researc3 nursin5 3omes for 3is mot3er'in'la28 arran5e personal tra+el for 3is 2ife8 and coordinate 3is 2ee:end 5olf outin5s. (3e officer also often re>uested mem ers of 3is staff 3andle ot3er +arious tas:s8 suc3 as pic:in5 up medical prescriptions8 laundry8 and 3is lunc3. -urt3er8 3e tra+eled to a


conference a day early in order to play 5olf 2it3 ot3er conference participants as part of 3is official duties. Section 203/.40/ states8 BAn employee s3all use official time in an 3onest effort to perform official duties.C 93en as:ed to e<plain 3is actions8 t3e officer declared Bune>ui+ocally t3at at no time did I :no2in5ly +iolateC any of t3e standards of conduct. (3e officer ar5ued t3at dispensin5 2it3 t3ese tas:s freed 3im to de+ote more time to 3is official duties8 and t3erefore8 Bt3e true eneficiary 2as t3e U.S. Go+ernment.C Eo2e+er8 t3e officer;s superior disa5reed t3at t3e 5olf outin5 2as official duty and ordered t3e officer to under5o counselin5. (3e officer also 3ad to reim urse t3e a5ency for t3e lod5in5 and per diem costs incurred for t3e 5olf outin5. (Source: 0epartment of 0efense, 'nspector 7eneral, 2 4%

4orale6 7elfare6 and .ecreation 47.* Issues
Servin! at 6o##eyba## $ournament 9as Aot Permitted A 6arine Corps Commandin5 Officer8 directed or re>uested t3at 3is su ordinates use t3eir official duty time to perform manual la or and ot3er acti+ities in support of a pri+ate or5aniAation ' in an attempt to fundraise for t3e upcomin5 6arine Corps #all. (3ey performed t3e 2or: in e<c3an5e for money and command endorsement from t3e or5aniAation. (3ey ultimately recei+ed D"%8000 in compensation from t3e outside or5aniAation for performance of t3eir official duties8 in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. N207 and !ara5rap3 3'20/ of DoD //00.4'*8 t3e Joint 1t3ics *e5ulation8 23ic3 pro3i its an employee from recei+in5 supplemental salary from a non'-ederal source for t3e performance of DoD duties. (3e Commandin5 Officer 2as disciplined and directed to transfer all t3e money to t3e U.S. (reasury. Re-sa#e of M9R Products Alle5ations 2ere rou53t a5ainst a ,a+al ase;s 6orale8 9elfare8 and *ecreation $69*. Department re5ardin5 t3e printin5 and sellin5 of ('s3irts. (3e 69* printed (' s3irts and t3en sold t3em to military mem ers8 23o t3en resold t3em at pu lic e+ents off' ase. A ci+ilian usinessman 23o o2ned a ('s3irt usiness near y complained t3at 110

69* s3ould not e ma:in5 and sellin5 t3e ('s3irts t3at 2ere 5oin5 to e re'sold off' ase. After an in+esti5ation8 it 2as determined t3at 69* 2as not informin5 t3e military mem ers a out t3e pro3i ition re5ardin5 t3e re'sale of 69* 5oods and 2as also not informin5 t3e military mem ers t3at t3ey could not re'sell t3e ('s3irts8 ot3 parts of 69* 2ritten policy. 69* e5an enforcin5 t3e policies and conducted trainin5 for all of t3eir staff.

Political Acti/ity )iolations
.'*m -nc#e Sam3 and ' Approved this Messa!e1 An O'/ reser+ist runnin5 for state office decided t3at t3e usual suit8 tie8 and American fla5 pin didn;t cut it. Ee too: a num er of p3otos of 3imself in 3is uniform8 includin5 3is unit desi5nators8 23ic3 3e t3en uploaded to 3is campai5n 9e site. Ee also prominently displayed 3is ran:8 position8 and pictures of 3imself on a tour of duty in Af53anistan. 93ile 3e placed a disclaimer on 3is 9e site statin5 t3at t3e DoD did not endorse 3is candidacy8 t3e disclaimer 2as not easily +isi le and 2as in a +ery small font. Ee recei+ed a letter of reprimand after ein5 forced to remo+e t3e p3otos. Comin! to a Mai#bo> Aear /ou --- A )atch Act 6io#ation5 An O'/ runnin5 for state office issued campai5n mailers of 3erself in full dress uniform8 and listed 3er ran: in t3e mailers. S3e also used 3er military title in campai5n 1'mails. In none of t3ese circumstances did s3e list a disclaimer. 93en t3e command cau53t on8 s3e admitted to t3e uniform +iolation and recei+ed a 2ritten reprimand. Po#itics -- at 9or G More than 4ust an 'mpo#ite Dinner $opic (2o =unior Ser+ice officers stationed at an o+erseas ase +iolated t3e Eatc3 Act and UC6J articles 23en t3ey sent out unsolicited political emails from t3eir 5o+ernment email accounts. (3e emails supported t3e !resident and lam asted ot3er Con5ressmen 23ose politics t3ey didn;t a5ree 2it3. (3e emails cau53t t3e attention of a retired military officer8 23o recei+ed t3e messa5es stateside. 93en t3e retiree complained a out t3e officers usin5 5o+ernment email accounts for political purposes8 t3e t2o officers 114

en5a5ed in a scat3in5 email ac:'and'fort38 tellin5 t3e retiree at one point8 B(3e sooner you and people li:e you die off8 t3e etter.C (3e officers recei+ed correcti+e action 2it3in t3e Ser+ice includin5 +er al counselin5. $he Mi#itary Says 6ote for Me5 A Ser+ice reser+e officer 2as counseled for usin5 pictures of 3imself in full uniform on campai5n posters8 23ile runnin5 for a con5ressional seat in )ir5inia. (3e officer 2as educated on t3e impropriety of usin5 3is military ser+ice affiliation to imply endorsement y a ranc3 of t3e ser+ice. (3e posters 2ere remo+ed. More than Po#itica##y 'ncorrect A ci+ilian employee in a military ser+ice sent a mass email to fello2 ser+ice employees durin5 t3e presidential election promotin5 t3e candidacy of Jo3n 6cCain and opposin5 t3e candidacy of #arac: O ama. (3e email summariAed a story Senator 6cCain told a out t3e importance of t3e !led5e of Alle5iance to 3imself and fello2 !O9s durin5 3is capti+ity and 2ent on to refer to O ama as a Bclo2n8 23o refuses to place 3is 3and on 3is 3eart and say t3e pled5e.C Included in t3e email 2as a picture of Senator O ama 2it3 ot3er politicians in 23ic3 only O ama did not 3a+e 3is 3and on 3is 3eart. (3e email concluded y sayin58 BKet;s all remem er t3is picture on election day.C Apparently concerned not to lea+e any ody out8 t3e employee compiled a Bto lineC of addressees totalin5 17 pa5es. (3e employee;s actions +iolated / U.S.C. 432"8 23ic3 pro3i its political acti+ity 23ile an employee is on duty. -or 3is actions8 t3e employee recei+ed a letter of reprimand. Se>ua##y %>p#icit %mai#s Are Aot the "n#y %mai#s $hat Can Get /ou &ired5 (2o federal employees8 one at t3e 1n+ironmental !rotection A5ency8 t3e ot3er at t3e Social Security Administration8 2ere disciplined for +iolations of t3e Eatc3 Act. Alt3ou53 federal employees are entitled to support t3e political candidates of t3eir c3oice8 t3e Eatc3 Act pro3i its federal employees from en5a5in5 in political acti+ity 23ile on duty. Durin5 t3e 200" !residential 1lection8 t3e 1!A employee fa+ored Jo3n Jerry8 and 23ile on duty8 sent 31 of 3is co'2or:ers an email ur5in5 t3em to support 6r.


Jerry;s campai5n. On t3e ot3er 3and8 t3e SSA employee fa+ored Geor5e 9. #us38 and 23ile on duty8 sent a similar email to 24 of 3is co'2or:ers and ot3er indi+iduals. It 2as irrele+ant 23ic3 candidate eac3 employee supported8 ot3 2ere found to 3a+e +iolated t3e Eatc3 Act ecause sendin5 emails in support of any candidate 23ile on duty constitutes pro3i ited political acti+ity. Disciplinary action for +iolations of t3e Eatc3 Act ran5e from 30'day suspension 2it3out pay to termination from federal employment. Passin! "ut Campai!n Stic ers at a 6A C#inic %nds &edera# Career In 3is fer+or to 3elp elect a candidate for !resident8 a )eterans Affairs employee i5nored federal la2s pro3i itin5 federal employees from en5a5in5 in political acti+ity on federal propertyFin t3is case8 a )A clinic in O3io. (3ere t3e employee passed out campai5n stic:ers promotin5 3is candidate. (3e employee later ac:no2led5ed t3at t3is seemin5ly innocuous act 2as in fact a +iolation of federal la2 $t3e Eatc3 Act.. As a result8 t3e employee 3as a5reed to retire from t3e )A. (3e penalty could 3a+e een termination. 9arnin!G &edera# %mp#oyees and Some Aon-&edera# %mp#oyees May Aot %n!a!e in Po#itics at 9or (3e 1<ecuti+e Director of Dela2are;s ,e2 Castle County Eead Start !ro5ram recei+ed a 30'day suspension 2it3out pay for promotin5 a candidate for t3e U.S. Eouse of *epresentati+es in 3is official capacity. )iolations of t3e Eatc3 Act don;t 5et muc3 more latant t3an t3is. (3e Director in+ited a candidate to spea: to 3is capti+e su ordinate audience at a mandatory office meetin5. (3e Eatc3 Act pro3i its federal e<ecuti+e ranc3 employees from en5a5in5 in political acti+ity 23ile on duty and from usin5 t3eir official positions8 aut3ority8 or influence to interfere 2it3 t3e results of an election. Durin5 t3e meetin58 t3e Director introduced t3e candidate8 passed out campai5n materials8 and offered employees t3e opportunity to re5ister to +ote. Ee later admitted t3at 3e 3ad +iolated t3e Eatc3 Act. #ut 23y is t3e Director of t3e ,e2 Castle County Eead Start pro5ram co+ered y t3e Eatc3 ActP (3e ans2er is t3isM t3e Eatc3 Act also co+ers state8 county8 or municipal e<ecuti+e a5ency employees 23ose duties are


connected 2it3 pro5rams financed in 23ole or in part y federal loans or 5rants. Eead Start is one suc3 pro5ram. A!ricu#ture Department Mana!er Suspended for )atch Act 6io#ation A Department of A5riculture mana5er recei+ed a four'mont3 suspension after solicitin5 political contri utions from su ordinates. (3e Eatc3 Act pro3i its -ederal employees from certain acti+ities in partisan political campai5ns. (3e employee as:ed su ordinates at 2or: to contri ute to t3e 1772 Democratic presidential campai5n. Alt3ou53 t3e Eatc3 Act 2as amended in 177" to allo2 -ederal employees to participate more in partisan political acti+ities8 it still pro3i its employees from en5a5in5 in political acti+ities 23ile on duty or in any Go+ernment office. Government %mp#oyees Sentenced for Po#itica# &undraisin! in a -SDA Bui#din! -our employees of t3e Department of A5riculture $USDA. 2ere con+icted for political fundraisin5 on -ederal property. (3e USDA employees or5aniAed a !olitical Action Committee to raise money for t3e 1772 campai5n. (3ey collected a total of D382/0 in c3ec:s from +arious indi+iduals in a USDA uildin5. (o encoura5e donations8 t3e four employees su55ested t3at contri utions to t3e fund mi53t result in special consideration from t3e USDA officials affiliated 2it3 t3e Administration. -ollo2in5 t3e election8 t3e four created a list of USDA employees 23o s3ould not8 in t3eir opinion8 recei+e special consideration from t3e Administration. (3e four defendants eac3 recei+ed four years pro ation. (2o of t3e defendants 2ere fined D18000 and ordered to perform community ser+ice. (3e ot3er t2o defendants 2ere fined D28/00 and ordered to ser+e 30 days detention in a 3alf2ay 3ouse. Po#itica# ActivitiesKMisuse of Government %mai# System Alle5ations 2ere made a5ainst a Department of Defense ci+ilian employee re5ardin5 t3e distri ution of political material o+er t3e Go+ernment email system. (3e alle5ation 2as made after t3e employee sent a political attac: messa5e re5ardin5 a certain


presidential candidate to e+eryone in t3e unitFincludin5 t3e commandin5 officer8 23o promptly notified t3e Inspector General. An in+esti5ation determined t3at t3e material 2as inappropriate for distri ution t3rou53 t3e Go+ernment email system. A 2ritten memo of counselin5 2as placed in t3e employee;s personnel file. Alt3ou53 t3e Eatc3 Act 2as amended in 177" to allo2 -ederal employees to participate more in partisan political acti+ities8 it still pro3i its employees from en5a5in5 in political acti+ities 23ile on duty or in any Go+ernment office. Po#itica# ActivitiesG $+o )umorous But $rue Stories An election 2as comin5 up and one enterprisin5 youn5 -ederal employee called 3is et3ics officer to in>uire 23et3er it 2as permitted8 under t3e Eatc3 Act Amendments8 to stuff allot o<esO An employee 23o 2as told not to 2ear a #us3 campai5n utton responded8 B#ut I;m not. (3is is a utton from 3is dad;s campai5nOC Posta# %mp#oyee )atch Act 6io#ation (3e U.S. Office of Special Counsel $OSC. announced t3at t3e 6erit Systems !rotection #oard $6S!#. 3ad concurred 2it3 OSC;s petition t3at a mail processor for t3e U.S. !ostal Ser+ice;s $US!S. 6id'6issouri !rocessin5 and Distri ution -acility +iolated t3e Eatc3 Act;s pro3i ition on ein5 a candidate for electi+e office in a partisan election. OSC;s petition c3ar5ed t3e postal employee 2it3 2illfully +iolatin5 t3e Eatc3 Act. (3e employee did not respond to OSC;s petition and instead resi5ned from t3e !ostal Ser+ice on 6arc3 /8 2001. (3e 6S!# decision stated t3at BTname 2it33eld;sU resi5nation does not moot t3e Special Counsel;s complaint. *at3er8 3is total failure to ans2er t3e complaint 2arrants t3e T3isU remo+al from US!S.C In +ie2 of t3e postal employee;s resi5nation8 6S!# re>uired t3e !ostal Ser+ice to place a copy of its decision in t3e employee;s official personnel file. 93en t3e postal employee e5an 3is =o as a mail processor in Colum ia8 6issouri in 17748 3e 2as 5i+en trainin5 material t3at e<plained t3at !ostal Ser+ice


employees 2ere co+ered y t3e Eatc3 Act and could not e candidates in partisan elections. (3e Eatc3 Act pro3i its most -ederal and postal employees from runnin5 for partisan office. Eatc3 Act penalties for -ederal and postal employees ran5e from a minimum of a 30'day suspension 2it3out pay to remo+al. &edera# %mp#oyee Removed from Position for )atch Act 6io#ation (3e U.S. Office of Special Counsel $OSC. announced t3at t3e 6erit Systems !rotection #oard $6S!#. 3ad 5ranted its petitions to remo+e t2o U.S. !ostal Ser+ice employees from t3eir positions as Ketter CarriersM t3e first in Jeff Da+is County8 Geor5ia8 and t3e second in ,e+ada County8 Ar:ansas. OSC;s petitions8 filed 2it3 t3e 6S!# in Octo er 20008 c3ar5ed ot3 men 2it3 +iolatin5 t3e Eatc3 Act;s pro3i ition on ein5 a candidate for electi+e office in a partisan election. #ot3 men 3ad filed papers to run as independent candidates in partisan local s3eriff races. #ot3 2ere 2arned y t3e OSC and y t3eir !ostal Ser+ice super+isors t3at t3eir candidacies +iolated t3e Eatc3 Act. ,e+ert3eless8 23en OSC filed its petitions in Octo er8 ot3 men remained acti+e candidates and ot3 continued t3eir candidacies until t3e ,o+em er 4t3 5eneral election. #ot3 2ere e+entually remo+ed from t3eir positions in t3e !ostal Ser+ice. (3e Eatc3 Act strictly pro3i its most -ederal and !ostal Ser+ice employees from runnin5 for partisan electi+e office. It also strictly pro3i its state and local employees 23o 3a+e =o duties in connection 2it3 federally funded pro5rams from runnin5 for partisan office. %PA "fficia# Discip#ined for )atch Act 6io#ation A *e5ional Administrator at t3e 1n+ironmental !rotection A5ency $1!A. in Den+er8 Colorado8 a5reed to a 100'day suspension to settle a petition y t3e U.S. Office of Special Counsel $OSC. alle5in5 t3at 3e 3ad +iolated t3e Eatc3 Act. (3e administrator 3ad resi5ned from 1!A in order to run for a 6ontana Con5ressional seat8 ut lost 3is id for election. Ee 2as accordin5ly appointed ac: to 3is former position as *e5ional Administrator. OSC;s petition for disciplinary action alle5ed t3at t3e administrator su se>uently met 2it3 one of t3e remainin5 Con5ressional candidates as 2ell as se+eral of t3e candidate;s campai5n officials. Durin5 t3at meetin58 t3e participants discussed t3e


administrator;s endorsement of t3e candidate and t3e solicitation of campai5n contri utions. S3ortly after t3e meetin58 an endorsementSfundraisin5 letter 2as drafted for t3e administrator;s re+ie2 and appro+al. Amon5 ot3er t3in5s8 t3e letter statedM BContri utin5 no2 to Tt3e remainin5 candidate;sU campai5n is a solutely critical.C It ur5ed recipients to B . . . ma:e a contri ution today.C OSC;s petition alle5ed t3at t3e administrator re+ie2ed t3e draft letter and aut3oriAed t3e candidate;s campai5n staff to si5n 3is name to it8 in +iolation of t3e Eatc3 Act. (3at Act pro3i its -ederal employees from solicitin5 political contri utions. Su se>uently8 t3e candidate;s campai5n distri uted t3e si5ned letter to numerous potential supporters. (3e Special Counsel also emp3asiAed t3at 23ile OSC stands ready to prosecute +iolations of t3e Eatc3 Act8 it prefers to 3elp -ederal employees a+oid suc3 +iolations. B93en in dou t a out 23at is permissi le or impermissi le under Eatc3 Act8C t3e Special Counsel ad+ised8 BI 2ould encoura5e employees to consult our office. (3ere;s a 2ealt3 of information at our 2e site8 222.oscc.5o+8 and employees can actually e'mail >uestions to us.C &ive )atch Act 6io#ations Made by A!ricu#ture %mp#oyee (3e U.S. Office of Special Counsel $OSC. announced a consent =ud5ment 3ad een entered in its !etition for Disciplinary Action filed a5ainst an attorney for t3e ,ational Ka or *elations #oard $,K*#. in ,K*#;s Kittle *oc:8 Ar:ansas office. OSC;s petition8 filed 2it3 t3e 6erit Systems !rotection #oard $6S!#.8 3ad c3ar5ed t3e attorney 2it3 fi+e Eatc3 Act +iolationsM $1. participatin5 in partisan political acti+ity 23ile on dutyI $2. participatin5 in political acti+ity or in -ederal office spaceI $3. usin5 3is official aut3ority for t3e purpose of interferin5 2it3 t3e result of an electionI $". :no2in5ly solicitin5 t3e political participation of indi+iduals 2it3 usiness interests pendin5 efore t3e ,K*#I and $/. :no2in5ly solicitin58 acceptin58 or recei+in5 political contri utions. !ursuant to a stipulation8 t3e attorney admitted t3at 3e 3ad +iolated t3e Eatc3 Act and a5reed to e remo+ed from -ederal employment. (3e Eatc3 Act pro3i its most -ederal employees from en5a5in5 in partisan political acti+ities in -ederal office space or 23ile on duty. (3e Eatc3 Act also pro3i its -ederal employees from usin5 t3eir official


aut3ority for t3e purpose of affectin5 t3e results of an electionI t3is 2ould include usin5 an official Go+ernment title and solicitin5 B+olunteerC ser+ices from a su ordinate employee. (3e Eatc3 Act also pro3i its :no2in5ly solicitin5 t3e political participation of certain indi+iduals8 includin5 t3ose 2it3 usiness pendin5 efore an employee;s -ederal A5ency. %mp#oyee*s Mayora# Run 6io#ates )atch Act 93en a -ederal A+iation Administration employee decided to run for mayor of Al u>uer>ue8 3e 2isely consulted 3is 1t3ics Counselor. Ee 2as ad+ised t3at t3e Eatc3 Act did not pro3i it 3im from enterin5 t3e mayoral race. A pro lem soon emer5ed8 3o2e+er8 23en ad+ertisements8 press releases8 and ne2spaper editorials started to identify t3e employee as a *epu lican8 and t3e employee e5an to accept financial assistance from t3e *epu lican !arty. (3e employee 2as s2iftly contacted y t3e Office of Special Counsel8 23ic3 ad+ised 3im t3at 3e 2as in +iolation of t3e Eatc3 Act and needed to >uit 3is campai5n or lea+e 3is federal position. (3e employee8 3o2e+er8 too: t3e position t3at 3e 2as not in fact in +iolation of any la2s8 and continued 3is campai5n. Un3appily for t3e employee8 t3e +oters did not afford 3im muc3 interest8 and 3is campai5n ne+er truly 5ot off t3e 5round. Ee did mana5e8 3o2e+er8 to catc3 t3e attention of t3e 6erit Systems !rotection #oard. (3e employee;s +iolation of t3e Eatc3 Act earned 3im a 120'day suspension. 2 -% (Source: +++6fedsmith6com, #pril $=,

DC Mayor*s Chief of Staff Removed for )atch Act 6io#ations (3e former C3ief of Staff to t3e 6ayor of t3e District of Colum ia 2as forced to +oluntarily resi5n after t3e U.S. Office of Special Counsel $OSC. c3ar5ed 3im 2it3 t2o instances of +iolations of t3e Eatc3 Act. Specifically8 t3e OSC c3ar5ed t3at t3e C3ief of Staff F a D.C. employee F improperly as:ed ot3er D.C. employees to +olunteer to 2or: on t3e 6ayor;s reelection campai5nI t3e C3ief of Staff 2as also c3ar5ed 2it3 solicitin5 employees to purc3ase tic:ets to a Democratic fundraiser. In return for t3e C3ief of Staff;s +oluntary resi5nation and 3is a5reement not to see: or accept employment 2it3 t3e District of Colum ia for a period of t2o years8 t3e OSC a5reed to drop its c3ar5es.


(3e Eatc3 Act pro3i its most District of Colum ia and federal employees from see:in5 nomination or election to a partisan political officeI solicitin58 acceptin5 or recei+in5 political contri utionsI and en5a5in5 in political acti+ity 23ile on duty8 amon5 ot3er t3in5s. Co-)ostin! a Po#itica# &undraiser %arns Suspension An attorney in t3e Ci+il Di+ision of t3e Department of Justice e<perienced t3e ot3er side of t3e =udicial process after ein5 c3ar5ed y t3e U.S. Office of Special Counsel $OSC. 2it3 a +iolation of t3e Eatc3 Act. (3e attorney 3ad self'reported t3at 3e 3ad co'3osted a political fundraiser for se+en in+itees8 presuma ly una2are t3at t3is 2as a +iolation of t3e Eatc3 Act. (3e attorney reac3ed a +oluntary settlement 2it3 t3e OSC in 23ic3 3e ser+ed a 30'day suspension. (3e attorney +iolated / U.S.C. 4323$a.$2.8 23ic3 pro3i its federal employees from :no2in5ly solicitin58 acceptin5 or recei+in5 political contri utions. (3e Eatc3 Act pro3i its most District of Colum ia and federal employees from see:in5 nomination or election to a partisan political officeI solicitin58 acceptin5 or recei+in5 political contri utionsI usin5 t3eir official aut3ority to interfere 2it3 t3e results of an electionI and en5a5in5 in political acti+ity 23ile on duty8 amon5 ot3er t3in5s. Po#itica# %mai#s at 9or ,ead to %mp#oyee Remova# An attorney for t3e Small #usiness Administration 2as remo+ed from 3is position after it 2as disco+ered t3at o+er a period of t3ree years8 3e 3ad recei+ed8 read8 drafted or sent o+er 100 emails from 3is 5o+ernment computer related to partisan acti+ity. (3e attorney8 an elected official of t3e California Green !arty8 used t3e computer for emails in+ol+in5 issues suc3 as drafts of party platforms8 t3e plannin5 of party con+entions8 party fundraisin58 and party recruitment. Alt3ou53 t3e attorney 3ad pre+iously assured 3is super+isor F 23o 2as a2are of 3is political acti+itiesFt3at 3e 2ould not +iolate t3e Eatc3 Act8 t3is assurance pro+ed to e decepti+e. (3e Eatc3 Act pro3i its most District of Colum ia and federal employees from see:in5 nomination or election to a partisan political office8 solicitin58 acceptin5 or (Source: >S;, 3,2$, -%


recei+in5 political contri utions8 usin5 t3eir official aut3ority to interfere 2it3 t3e results of an election8 and en5a5in5 in political acti+ity 23ile on duty8 amon5 ot3er t3in5s. (Source: >S;, $$,2=, -% )umorous Partisan %mai#s &ound to 6io#ate the )atch Act Durin5 t3e 200" election8 t3e Office of Special Counsel $OSC. filed t2o complaints alle5in5 t3at -ederal employees 3ad +iolated t3e Eatc3 Act y sendin5 politically partisan e'mail messa5es to co2or:ers. In t3e first complaint8 t3e OSC alle5ed t3at an employee at t3e 1n+ironmental !rotection A5ency sent an e'mail to fifteen co2or:ers t3at contained a 2idely'circulated p3oto5rap3 and se+eral ne5ati+e statements a out one candidate. In t3e second complaint8 t3e OSC alle5ed t3at an Air -orce ci+ilian employee sent an e'mail 23ile on official duty to 40 recipients t3at contained a moc: resume of one of t3e candidates. (3e Eatc3 Act pro3i its -ederal employees from en5a5in5 in political acti+ity 23ile on duty8 23ile in any room or uildin5 occupied in t3e disc3ar5e of official duties y an indi+idual employed y t3e Go+ernment8 23ile 2earin5 a uniform8 or 23ile in a Go+ernment +e3icle. (3e Eatc3 Act does not pro3i it B2ater coolerC'type discussions amon5 co'2or:ers a out current e+ents8 and conse>uently does not pro3i it B2ater coolerC discussion o+er e'mail. 1'mail can e used as an alternati+e mode for casual con+ersation8 ut a line is crossed 23en -ederal employees disseminate t3eir messa5e to a mass audience8 ena lin5 t3em to en5a5e in an electronic form of leafletin5 at t3e 2or:site. OSC 3as ad+ised t3at in order to determine 23et3er an e'mail +iolates t3e Eatc3 Act pro3i ition a5ainst en5a5in5 in political acti+ity8 it 2ill consider t3e follo2in5M t3e audience t3at recei+ed t3e e'mail8 t3e num er of people to 23om t3e e'mail 2as sent8 t3e sender;s relations3ip to t3e recipient8 23et3er t3e purpose of t3e messa5e is to encoura5e t3e recipient to support a particular political party or candidate8 23et3er t3e messa5e 2as sent in a -ederal uildin58 and 23et3er t3e -ederal employee 2as on duty. Ao Po#itics 9hen 'n -niform A military Department c3astised t2o political ri+als 23en t3eir camps ran campai5n ads displayin5 uniformed 6arines. (3e Democratic and *epu lican opponents


in one Con5ressional District attempted to use t3e appearance of military support to ensure +ictory on 1lection Day8 ut a friendly +isit from a military representati+e >uic:ly forced t3em to pull t3eir ads. One of t3e uniformed men pictured8 a +eteran8 said 3e elie+ed t3at ecause 3e 2as on inacti+e reser+e8 3e could Bspea: 3is mind.C 6ilitary spo:esperson pointed out8 3o2e+er8 BIt doesn;t matter if 3e or s3e is on inacti+e reser+e8C re5ulations strictly pro3i it ser+ice mem ers from 2earin5 uniforms in any circumstances t3at mi53t imply military endorsement of a certain candidate. Alt3ou53 in suc3 situations t3e indi+idual ser+ices could ta:e disciplinary andSor administrati+e action8 military in+esti5ators deemed t3e ser+ice mem ers; in+ol+ement 3onest mista:es. $Department of Defense8 Inspector General. $+o Service Members Posed for Pictures at Po#itica# %vent (2o ser+ice mem ers made a fau< pas 23en local political leaders in+ited t3em to attend a BKincoln #irt3day dinner.C Under t3e 5uise t3at t3eir in+itations to t3e fundraiser 2ere in 3onor of t3eir ser+ice in Ira>8 ot3 ser+ice mem ers attended t3e seemin5ly 3armless e+ent. (3ey soon found t3emsel+es in t3e spotli53t8 3o2e+er8 23en called on sta5e and presented 2it3 a U.S. fla5. Alt3ou53 neit3er spo:e at t3e function8 t3eir presence 2as a cle+er tactic for special Bp3oto opportunitiesC used to s3o2 military support of t3e campai5n. !osted on t3e local party;s 2e site8 t3e presentation p3otos +iolated re5ulations t3at pro3i it acti+e duty ser+ice mem ers from attendin5 political e+ents as official representati+es of t3e Armed -orces. *e5ulations stipulate t3at ser+ice mem ers s3ould a+oid any acti+ity t3at people may +ie2 as associatin5 t3e Department of Defense $DoD. directly or indirectly 2it3 a partisan political e+ent. DoD does permit unofficial attendance at suc3 e+ents ut only so lon5 as t3e attendee is a spectator8 not in uniform. Upon disco+erin5 t3e p3otos8 one of t3e ser+ice mem ers immediately too: action to remo+e t3e p3otos and alert 3is c3ain of command. #ecause of t3ese actions8 and in li53t of t3e fact t3at t3e party apparently lured t3em to t3e e+ent under false pretences8 t3e t2o ser+ice mem ers recei+ed only counselin5. $Department of Defense8 Inspector General.


Post(Employment )iolations !" #$S$C$ % &'8(Type )iolations*
Post %mp#oyment .,ifetime Ban1 A Go+ernment employee t3at 2as in+ol+ed in appro+in5 a contract for audioS+isual e>uipment left t3e Go+ernment to 2or: for t3at contractor. At t3e completion of 2or:8 t3e Go+ernment 3ad paid appro<imately D0 million for D%"18000 2ort3 of e>uipment. Se+eral indi+iduals 2ere c3ar5ed 2it3 fraud8 and t3e employee t3at left t3e Go+ernment for t3e outside position 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 +iolatin5 t3e post' employment restriction in 1% U.S.C. N 204$a.$1.. Ee recei+ed one year pro ation and a D2/8000 fine. &riends in ,o+ P#aces (3e former deputy associate director of 6inerals *e+enue 6ana5ement at t3e 6ineral 6ana5ement Ser+ice of t3e U.S. Department of Interior $DOI. pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 post 5o+ernment employment restrictions. 6ilton J. Dial admitted acceptin5 a position as a su contractor 2or:in5 for and representin5 a company in a contract 2it3 DOI appro<imately si< mont3s after retirin5 from t3e a5ency. #efore 3is retirement from DOI Dial created t3e e+aluation criteria for t3e ids for t3is same contract8 ser+ed on t3e e+aluation committee t3at a2arded t3e contract to t3e company8 and ser+ed as t3e contractin5 officer;s tec3nical representati+e at DOI for t3e company;s contract until t3e time of 3is retirement. (3e company 2as o2ned y a friend of Dial;s8 Jimmy 9. 6ay erry8 23o 3ad li:e2ise een a DOI employee. 6ay erry pled 5uilty to a felony +iolation of t3e conflict of interest la28 admittin5 in plea documents t3at 3e created t3e re>uirements for t3e same contract immediately efore 3is retirement from DOI 2it3 t3e intent of iddin5 on t3e contract immediately after 3is retirement. 93en iddin5 too: place8 6ay erry8 not surprisin5ly8 2as a2arded t3e contract after 3e 2as t3e only applicant to recei+e a 5rade


of Be<cellentC on e+ery >ualification cate5ory. 6ay erry 2as sentenced to t2o years of pro ation and a D28/00 fine. Dial;s sentencin5 is still pendin58 ut 3e faces a ma<imum sentence of fi+e years in prison8 a fine of D2/080008 and a term of super+ised release. Po+er Point A 6ilitary Ser+ice Captain 3ad8 under 3is official responsi ility a pro5ram 2it3 a 5o+ernment contractor durin5 3is last year of ser+ice. (3e Captain prepared a !o2erpoint presentation recommendin5 t3e ser+ice contract 2it3 t3is company. After lea+in5 t3e ser+ice8 t3e Captain 2ent to 2or: for t3e same 5o+ernment contractor. Ee 2as treated to an et3ics counselin5 session after 3e approac3ed t3e Go+ernment on e3alf of 3is ne2 company and deli+ered ' as t3e company;s representati+e ' t3e same !o2erpoint presentation recommendin5 t3e ser+ice contract 2it3 3is company. (3e Captain;s actions +iolated 1% U.S.C. 2048 23ic3 pro3i its former officers or employees of t3e e<ecuti+e ranc3 from ma:in58 2it3 t3e intent to influence8 communications or appearances efore a -ederal Go+ernment officer or employee in connection 2it3 a particular matter in 23ic3 t3e former officer or employee participated personally and su stantially 23ile an officer or employee. &edera# %mp#oyee*s Post-%mp#oyment 6io#ations Cost Boein! <;1E Mi##ion3 &edera# %mp#oyee %nds -p Behind Bars (3e former c3ief procurement officer for t3e Air -orce8 23o 2as responsi le for a2ardin5 illions of dollars in contracts8 re>uested #oein5 e<ecuti+es to 5i+e 3er dau53ter and son'in'la2 =o s at #oein5. (3ey did8 and after t3e c3ief procurement officer retired from t3e Air -orce8 t3ey 5a+e 3er a =o 8 too. After a criminal in+esti5ation8 #oein5 admitted to corruption c3ar5es in+ol+in5 conflicts of interest and ot3er unrelated +iolations. #oein5 settled 2it3 t3e Justice Department for D01/ million. (3e former Air -orce c3ief procurement officer met 2it3 #oein5;s C3ief -inancial Officer and discussed a potential =o 2it3 #oein5 23ile #oein5 2as see:in5 a D20 illion contract to lease tan:er aircraft to t3e Air -orce. -ederal et3ics rules re>uire federal employees to dis>ualify t3emsel+es from participatin5 in matters re5ardin5 companies 2it3 23ic3 t3ey


are see:in5 employment8 and federal la2 imposes criminal lia ility 23en federal employees participate in matters in 23ic3 t3ey 3a+e a personal financial interest. (3e procurement officer did not dis>ualify 3erself from participatin5 in matters in+ol+in5 #oein5 as s3e s3ould 3a+e. *at3er8 s3e used 3er position to 5et 3er dau53ter8 son'in'la28 and 3erself =o s. S3e ended up ser+in5 a prison sentence for conflicts of interest +iolations. #oein5;s C3ief -inancial Officer 2as also c3ar5ed in t3e in+esti5ation and pled 5uilty to aidin5 and a ettin5 acts affectin5 a personal financial interest. Ee 2as sentenced to four mont3s in prison8 a D2/08000 fine8 and 200 3ours of community ser+ice. In addition to settlin5 2it3 t3e 5o+ernment for D01/ million8 #oein5;s D20 illion tan:er lease contract 2as canceled. Conf#ict of 'nterest %arns "fficia# "ne /ear Probation (3e C3ief of t3e Eead>uarters Support #ranc3 found 3erself BfiredC after a conflict of interest re5ardin5 3and5un procurement. (3e official e5an employment tal:s 2it3 a company t3at ran a Bre+erse auctionin5 ser+iceC for -ederal a5enciesI t3rou53 t3is ser+ice8 t3e company facilitated online auctions for -ederal contracts in e<c3an5e for a commission from successful recipients. (3e official 2isely consulted 3er et3ics counselor re5ardin5 3er =o 3unt8 and assured t3e counselor t3at s3e 2ould dis>ualify 3erself from in+ol+ement 2it3 any contracts in+ol+in5 t3e company. Unfortunately8 t3e official su se>uently participated personally and su stantially in a 3and5un procurement in 23ic3 s3e :ne2 t3at t3e company 3ad a financial interest. In addition to attendin5 meetin5s and ma:in5 p3one calls related to t3e procurement8 t3e official directed 3er su ordinate to re>uire all prospecti+e idders to re5ister 2it3 and utiliAe t3e company;s ser+ices. (3e official pled 5uilty to a +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 20% for participatin5 personally and su stantially in a particular matter in 23ic3 an or5aniAation 2it3 23om s3e 2as ne5otiatin5 for employment 3ad a financial interest. S3e 2as sentenced to one year of pro ation8 "0 3ours of community ser+ice8 and a D18000 fine. 9atch Representin! a Business to the A!ency 9here %mp#oyed the Previous /ear5


The Facts+ A Senior 1<ecuti+e Ser+ice $S1S. employee of t3e State Department8 23o 3ad een tas:ed 2it3 assistin5 t3e #osnian Go+ernment in purc3asin5 military e>uipment and trainin58 retired and 2it3in se+eral days too: employment 2it3 a pri+ate contractor of military 3ard2are. Si< mont3s later8 3e recommended to t3e United States 1m assy in Sara=e+o t3at it support 3is id for a contract et2een 3is ne2 employer and t3e #osnian Go+ernment. Eis id for t3e contract 2as successful8 ut 3e also succeeded in securin5 le5al action from t3e United States Go+ernment. (3e employee a5reed to a D108000 settlement in e<c3an5e for ein5 released from le5al proceedin5s. $SourceM Office of Go+ernment 1t3ics memorandum8 Oct. 2002.. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 204$c. $2003. ars e+ery S1S employee for one year after endin5 employment 2it3 t3e United States from :no2in5ly communicatin5 2it3 t3e -ederal a5ency or office 2it3 23ic3 3e or s3e 3as 2or:ed8 2it3 t3e intent of influencin5 t3at a5ency or office on e3alf of anyone $ot3er t3an t3e Go+ernment. 23o see:s an official action. DoD "fficia# Pays <123=== to Department of 4ustice to Sett#e %thics Comp#aint A former DoD Deputy Inspector General $IG. paid D128000 to t3e Go+ernment to settle alle5ations t3at 3e +iolated 1% U.S.C. 204$a.$2.8 a criminal statute t3at pro3i its former Go+ernment employees from representin5 ot3ers to t3e Go+ernment on matters t3at 2ere under t3e former employeeGs official responsi ility durin5 3is last year in office. (3e pro3i ition lasts for t2o years after t3e former employee lea+es office. In t3is case8 durin5 t3e former Deputy IGGs last year in office8 3is audit staff commenced an audit of a particular DoD pro5ram. (3e audit report8 23ic3 2as not released until after t3e Deputy IG 3ad left t3e Go+ernment8 recommended eliminatin5 part of t3e pro5ram t3at 2as operated y a pri+ate contractor. (3e same contractor 3ired t3e former Deputy IG8 23o 3ad y t3en een 5one o+er one year8 as an independent auditor to re+ie2 t3e audit report. On se+eral occasions8 23ile actin5 on e3alf of t3e contractor8 and 2it3in t2o years after lea+in5 DoD8 t3e former Deputy IG contacted DoD employees and criticiAed t3e report 2it3 t3e intent to influence t3e =ud5ment of t3e DoD employees. 1% U.S.C. 204$a.$2. pro3i its suc3 representations. (3is statute is often o+erloo:ed y Go+ernment employees. It includes all particular matters in+ol+in5


specific parties in 23ic3 t3e United States is a party or 3as a direct and su stantial interest t3at 2ere actually pendin5 under t3e former employeeGs official responsi ility durin5 3is or 3er last year of employment. (3is includes matters t3at t3e former employee may not 3a+e :no2n a out8 or matters in 23ic3 t3e employee may not 3a+e played in role in determinin58 ut8 ecause of t3e employeeGs position8 2ere pendin5 under 3is or 3er official responsi ility. As noted a o+e8 t3e statute pro3i its t3e former employee from representin5 anyone to t3e Go+ernment re5ardin5 suc3 matters for a period of t2o years after t3e employee lea+es Go+ernment ser+ice. S%C Attorney Sentenced for S+itchin! Sides After ,eavin! Government A former attorney 2it3 t3e Den+er re5ional office of t3e Securities and 1<c3an5e Commission $S1C. 2as con+icted for +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 204$a.8 23ic3 pro3i its former Go+ernment employees from communicatin5 2it3 t3e Go+ernment 2it3 re5ard to matters t3ey 2or:ed on as Go+ernment employees. (3e S1C attorney 2as responsi le for in+esti5atin5 certain stoc: promoters re5ardin5 t3eir promotion of stoc: in a certain company t3at t3e promoters o2ned. Upon departure from t3e S1C8 t3e attorney 2as 3ired y t3e same stoc: promoters to perform le5al 2or: for t3eir su sidiary companies8 includin5 t3e company t3e attorney 3ad een in+esti5atin5 23ile at S1C. (3e attorney8 in 3is ne2 capacity as director and counsel for t3e company8 responded to a su poena and communicated 2it3 S1C officials on e3alf of t3e company in >uestion. (3e attorney 2as sentenced to one year of imprisonment for t3is +iolation of a criminal post'employment statute. Deputy Assistant Attorney Genera# Sett#es Post-Government %mp#oyment 6io#ation (3e Deputy Assistant Attorney General $DAAG. of t3e Information *esources 6ana5ement $I*6. office 2it3in t3e Department of Justice left Go+ernment ser+ice in January 1777. In 3is former position8 3e 3ad mana5ed t3e +arious functions of t3e I*6 office8 23ic3 is responsi le for maintainin58 assessin58 desi5nin58 and procurin5 t3e information systems and telecommunications for t3e Department of Justice. At all pertinent times8 3e 2as paid at t3e rate of le+el / of t3e 1<ecuti+e Ser+ice pay scale.


After t3e former DAAG left Go+ernment ser+ice8 3e =oined Science Applications International Corporation $SAIC.. On April 48 17778 no2 2or:in5 for SAIC8 t3e former DAAG telep3oned t3e Actin5 DAAG of I*6. Ee told t3e Actin5 DAAG t3at 3e :ne2 t3at t3e Department of Justice 2as considerin5 not usin5 SAIC on a ne2 contract8 and stated t3at suc3 action mi53t re>uire a payment to SAIC8 23ic3 could8 in turn8 tri55er t3e Anti'Deficiency Act ecause ud5eted funds 2ould 3a+e een e<ceeded. (3e Go+ernment maintained t3at t3e former DAAG;s conduct +iolated 1% U.S.C. 204$c.8 a criminal statute t3at pro3i its a former senior employee from communicatin5 to or appearin5 efore employees of 3is former department or A5ency for one year after lea+in5 t3e Go+ernment8 on e3alf of anot3er8 2it3 t3e intent to influence official action. !ursuant to a ci+il settlement a5reement si5ned y t3e parties in Au5ust 20008 t3e former DAAG paid t3e Go+ernment D3080008 and t3e Go+ernment released 3im from its claims. Civi# Comp#aint &i#ed A!ainst &DA Chemist for Post-%mp#oyment Activities Accordin5 to t3e Go+ernmentGs ci+il complaint8 t3e accused c3emist 2as employed y t3e United States -ood and Dru5 Administration $-DA. in t3e Office of Generic Dru5s $OGD. for a period of appro<imately t2o years. In t3at capacity8 t3e c3emist performed re+ie2s of A re+iated ,e2 Dru5 Applications $A,DAs. su mitted y p3armaceutical companies see:in5 to 5ain appro+al to manufacture and mar:et 5eneric +ersions of inno+ator dru5s. S3ortly efore lea+in5 employment 2it3 t3e -DA8 t3e c3emist completed t3e first'le+el c3emistry re+ie2 of a p3armaceutical company;s A,DA for 6iconaAole ,itrate )a5inal Creme 2V8 an alle5ed 5eneric e>ui+alent to t3e prescription dru5 6onistat'4. Eis re+ie2 consisted of an e<tensi+e analysis of t3e c3emical components8 manufacturin5 process8 testin5 met3ods8 and la elin5 re>uirements of t3e product. Appro<imately t2o years later8 t3e c3emist commenced employment as )ice !resident of *e5ulatory Affairs and United States A5ent for t3e same p3armaceutical company. Ee su se>uently contacted OGD officials on numerous occasions in an effort to o tain appro+al of t3e company;s A,DA8 23ic3 2as still pendin5 efore OGD. Eis contacts consisted of status calls in 23ic3 3e ur5ed OGD representati+es to speed up t3e process of appro+al of t3e application and su stanti+e discussions concernin5 pro lems 2it3 t3e application.


A su se>uent in+esti5ation found t3at t3rou53out t3e c3emist;s contacts 2it3 OGD officials8 3e 2as a55ressi+e in see:in5 t3e appro+al of t3e A,DA. -urt3er8 t3e c3emist used 3is ac>uaintance 2it3 super+isory'le+el OGD officials from 3is tenure as an OGD employee in an attempt to 5et special treatment for t3e A,DA. (3e A,DA 2as appro+ed se+eral mont3s later. In t3e complaint8 t3e Go+ernment alle5ed t3at t3e former employee;s actions +iolated 1% U.S.C. 204$a.$1.8 23ic3 permanently pro3i its a former Go+ernment employee from communicatin5 to or appearin5 efore t3e Go+ernment8 on e3alf of anot3er8 in connection 2it3 a particular matter8 in+ol+in5 specific parties8 in 23ic3 3e participated personally and su stantially as a Go+ernment employee. !ursuant to a settlement a5reement8 t3e former employee a5reed to pay t3e Go+ernment D1/80008 and t3e Go+ernment released 3im from its claims. 'mproper Post-%mp#oyment Activities by &ormer Contract Administrator As contract administrator for t3e United States Air -orce8 t3e employee 2as responsi le for assurin5 compliance 2it3 t3e terms of t2o separate construction contracts et2een t3e Go+ernment and a pri+ate contractor. After lea+in5 t3e Go+ernment8 t3e contract administrator 2as 3ired y t3e same contractor8 and 3e ecame t3e company;s contract administrator on t3e same t2o contracts in >uestion. 93ile representin5 t3e contractor8 3e su mitted contract pro5ress reports to t3e Go+ernment in order to insure t3at t3e Go+ernment 2ould compensate t3e company. 1+entually8 t3e former -ederal employee su mitted to t3e Go+ernment an e>uita le ad=ustment claim for appro<imately D/4"8013 on one of t3e contracts. (3e contract 3ad a asic +alue of D1.3 million. (3e former -ederal employee 2as con+icted on t2o counts of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 204$a.$1.8 a post'employment restriction t3at pro3i its former Go+ernment employees intendin5 to influence official action from communicatin5 to or appearin5 efore t3e Go+ernment8 on e3alf of anot3er8 in connection 2it3 particular matters in+ol+in5 specific parties in 23ic3 t3ey participated personally and su stantially as Go+ernment employees. !ursuant to 1% U.S.C. 210$a.$2.8 3e 2as sentenced to si< mont3s of imprisonment8 si< mont3s of 3ome confinement8 a fine of D20008 and a special assessment of D200.


Air &orce "fficer P#eads Gui#ty to 1H -(S(C( 2=Q 6io#ation An Air -orce Colonel at 1ielson Air -orce #ase 2or:ed on t3e %01 Eousin5 !ro=ect8 an appro<imately D40 million contract to uild military family 3ousin5 at t3e ase. (3e 3ousin5 2ould e o2ned y a ci+ilian de+eloper and leased to t3e United States. (3e Colonel 2as assi5ned to o+ersee t3e pro=ect and 2as t3e 9in5 CommanderGs direct representati+e. Ee 2as also t3e c3airman of t3e H%01 Eousin5 9or:in5 Group8H 23ic3 met 2ee:ly to discuss any pro lems arisin5 from t3e %01 Eousin5 !ro=ect. (3rou53 3is position as c3airman of t3e %01 Eousin5 9or:in5 Group8 t3e Colonel 2or:ed 2it3 representati+es of t3e corporation 23ic3 too: o+er as construction contractor for t3e pro=ect in 6ay 177". In Octo er of 177/8 t3e corporation ac>uired o2ners3ip of a second corporation. In January 17708 t3e Colonel e5an to e<press an interest in ecomin5 an employee of t3e first corporation. Ee retired from acti+e duty 2it3 t3e United States Air -orce durin5 July 1770 and e5an to 2or: for t3e company as General 6ana5er8 Go+ernment Ser+ices Di+ision8 in Au5ust 1770. (3e United States continued to en5a5e in contractual matters 2it3 t3e corporation 2it3 respect to t3e %01 Eousin5 !ro=ect. In Septem er 17708 t3e United States and t3e second8 ac>uired corporation entered into a lease 23erein t3e United States leased from t3e corporation t3e military 3ousin5 units of t3e %01 Eousin5 !ro=ect. Under t3e lease a5reement8 t3e United States 2as to pay t3e second corporation D%80%%81/0.00 on or a out Octo er 1/8 17708 ut did not ma:e t3e payment until Octo er 218 1770. On or a out t3e 14t3 and 1%t3 of Octo er 17708 t3e no2'retired Colonel8 as a representati+e of ot3 corporations8 contacted an employee of t3e Air -orce to attempt to e<pedite t3e late payment on t3e %01 Eousin5 !ro=ect. In addition8 on or a out t3e 17t3 or 20t3 of 6ay 17748 t3e retired Colonel8 a5ain on e3alf of t3e corporations8 contacted an employee of t3e Air -orce to e<press displeasure re5ardin5 t3e Air -orceGs 2arranty claims on t3e %01 Eousin5 !ro=ect. (3e United States c3ar5ed t3e retired Colonel 2it3 +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 204$a.$1. y contactin5 Air -orce employees re5ardin5 t3e late payment and t3e 2arranty claims. 1% U.S.C. 204$a.$1. ars former -ederal personnel $ci+ilians and military. from representin5 anot3er to -ederal a5encies 2it3 t3e intent to influence re5ardin5 particular


matters t3at in+ol+e specific parties in 23ic3 t3e former employee participated personally and su stantially 23ile in -ederal employment. (3e retired Colonel pleaded 5uilty to one misdemeanor +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 204$a.$1. and a5reed to pay a fine of D/8000. Bureau of 'ndian Affairs BB'AC Superintendent Commits 1H -(S(C( 2=Q 6io#ation (3e Indian #usiness De+elopment Grant $I#DG. pro5ram 2as created to pro+ide -ederal 5rant funds to eli5i le Indian persons and Indian tri al or5aniAations. -unds to e released t3rou53 t3e I#DG pro5ram must e appro+ed y t3e #IA. (3e #IA A5ency Superintendent for t3e Cro2 *eser+ation 2as found to 3a+e misapplied D10384/0 of I#DG funds and D311824/ of Cro2 (ri e funds for t3e purc3ase of land y t3e Cro2 (ri e from a pri+ate party. (3e land purc3ase 2as ne+er completed. (3e superintendent su se>uently retired from t3e #IA in 177" and ecame employed y t3e Cro2 (ri e as mana5er of t3e tri al casino. #e5innin5 in 17708 t3e former superintendent represented t3e Cro2 (ri e in appearances efore t3e #IA in connection 2it3 t3e reconciliation and =ustification for t3e release of t3e D10384/0 of I#DG funds t3at t3e superintendent 3ad appro+ed for t3e failed land purc3ase in 1772. (3e former superintendent 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 2048 representin5 t3e Cro2 (ri e efore t3e United States in connection 2it3 t3e reconciliation and =ustification for t3e release of I#DG funds8 a matter in 23ic3 3e 3ad participated personally and su stantially as a superintendent of t3e #IA. Ee 2as also c3ar5ed 2it3 +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 341 $conspiracy to con+ert -ederal funds.8 1% U.S.C. 0"1 $2illfully con+ertin5 -ederal funds.8 and 1% U.S.C. 1103 $misapplication of tri al monies. and found 5uilty on all ut t3e 1% U.S.C. 1103 c3ar5e. Ee 2as sentenced to fi+e yearsG pro ation8 si< mont3sG detention8 a D1/0 Special Assessment to t3e Crime )ictims -und8 and a D08000 fine. 'nterna# Revenue Service B'RSC "fficer P#eads Gui#ty to 1H -(S(C( 2=Q 6io#ation 93ile a collection officer for t3e I*S8 t3e accused 2as assi5ned to t3e collection cases of t2o I*S ta<payers. After t3e accused left t3e I*S8 3e represented ot3 ta<payers


efore t3e I*S in connection 2it3 t3e collection cases to 23ic3 3e 3ad een assi5ned as an I*S employee. Ee 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 t2o +iolations of 1% U.S.C. 204$a.$1.8 ma:in5 a communication to and an appearance efore an officer and employee of t3e I*S8 on e3alf of t3e t2o ta<payers in connection 2it3 a matter in 23ic3 t3e United States 2as a party or 3ad an interest and in 23ic3 3e 3ad participated 23ile an I*S employee. (3e accused pled 5uilty to t3e c3ar5es and 2as sentenced to one year of pro ation and 100 3ours of community ser+ice. -nited States Army "fficer and Procurement "fficia# &ined <E=3=== for 1H -(S(C( 2=Q and Procurement 'nte!rity Act 6io#ations (3e Army Officer coordinated acti+ities for all medical facilities 2it3in 3is re5ion8 includin5 Army8 ,a+y8 and Air -orce facilities. In 177"8 t3e officer retired from t3e Army and e5an employment 2it3 a defense contractor. (3is contractor 3ad pre+iously een a2arded a contract to pro+ide inpatient and outpatient psyc3iatric ser+ices in support of 9illiam #eaumont Army 6edical CenterI 23ile t3e officer 2as employed y t3e Army8 3is official duties 3ad included a2ardin5 and super+isin5 t3is contract. (3e Army Audit A5ency su se>uently e5an an audit of t3e contractor;s contract to determine 23et3er an option to rene2 t3e contract s3ould e e<ercised. (3e audit 2as completed on January 108 177"8 and for2arded to t3e officer. On July 128 177/8 a re>uest for proposals 2as issued y t3e Audit A5ency for a follo2'on contract to pro+ide essentially t3e same ser+ices t3at 2ere ein5 pro+ided y t3e contractor. On Octo er 138 177/8 t3e contractor su mitted a proposal8 23ic3 2as si5ned y t3e retired officer as t3e companyGs Senior )ice !resident. (3e retired officer 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 ci+il +iolations of t3e !rocurement Inte5rity Act8 "1 U.S.C. "23$f.$1.8 and of 1% U.S.C. 204$a.$2.8 and 204$c.$1.. !ursuant to a settlement a5reement dated July 238 177%8 t3e accused a5reed to pay t3e United States D/08000 in e<c3an5e for t3e United StatesG dismissal of t3e complaint. Attorney for Securities and %>chan!e Commission BS%CC3 Division of %nforcement 6io#ates 1H -(S(C( 2=Q


In 17738 t3e S1C attorney 2as assi5ned to in+esti5ate a 5roup of persons for securities fraud in+ol+in5 t3e payment of ri es to manipulate t3e mar:et for t3e s3ares of certain companies. (3ese ri es consisted of :ic: ac:s promoters 2ere payin5 ro:ers to tout t3e stoc:s of t3eir companies. As part of t3is in+esti5ation8 t3e attorney in+esti5ated t2o stoc: promoters8 23o cooperated in t3e attorney;s in+esti5ation and 5a+e 3im s2orn testimony in 23ic3 t3ey admitted to en5a5in5 in t3e payment of ri es intended to manipulate t3e s3are price of t3e company;s stoc:. (3e attorney left t3e S1C on -e ruary 208 177/ under t3reat of suspension for unrelated misconduct. Ee 2as immediately 3ired y t3e t2o stoc: promoters to ser+e as t3eir corporation;s le5al counsel. In January 17708 t3e S1CGs ,e2 Qor: office8 2or:in5 in con=unction 2it3 t3e U.S. AttorneyGs office in t3e 1astern District of ,e2 Qor:8 e5an an in+esti5ation of t3e entire matter. In -e ruary 17708 t3e S1C issued a su poena for documents from t3e promoters; corporation. (3e attorney8 23o 2as t3en t3e corporation;s counsel and also on t3e corporationGs oard of directors8 participated in respondin5 to t3at su poena. In+esti5ators c3ar5ed t3at t3e attorney;s participation included communications 2it3 S1C officials t3at +iolated 1% U.S.C. 204$a.8 23ic3 pro3i its former Go+ernment employees from communicatin5 2it3 t3e Go+ernment 2it3 intent to influence in connection 2it3 particular matters in+ol+in5 specific parties in 23ic3 t3ey participated personally and su stantially as Go+ernment employees. (3e attorney and fi+e ot3er defendants $includin5 t3e t2o stoc: promoters. 2ere indicted in Octo er 1770 for securities fraud. After t3e fi+e co'defendants pleaded 5uilty8 t3e attorney 2as indicted on a 3ost of ne2 c3ar5es8 includin5 securities fraud8 money launderin58 and a +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 204$a.. Ee pled 5uilty to t3ree counts8 includin5 t3e 204$a. c3ar5e. &edera# Aviation Administration B&AAC Mana!er Resi!ns and $hen )as 'mproper Contact +ith the A!ency 93ile super+isin5 t3e Air2ay -acilities #ranc3 of t3e -AA8 t3e mana5er 3ad official in+ol+ement in t3e procurement of HAir2ay -acilities (rainin5 Ser+ices.H (3is -AA contract 2as +alued at D"3800484//. On 6arc3 248 17728 t3e mana5er accepted a position 2it3 a idder for t3e a o+e'descri ed contract as H6ana5er8 (rainin5 Ser+ices on t3e -ederal A+iation AdministrationGs Air2ay -acilities Contract.H On Au5ust 108 17728 t3e idder included t3e former mana5er;s name as H!ro5ram 6ana5erH in t3e id 13%

proposal. 6em ers of t3e Source 1+aluation #oard8 reco5niAin5 t3e name8 ecame concerned as to t3e possi le +iolations of procurement inte5rity la2s and sou53t ad+ice from -AA le5al counsel. (3e -AA le5al counsel re>uested an official in+esti5ation on June %8 1773. 1+idence produced durin5 t3e in+esti5ation indicated t3at t3e mana5er in 3is former capacity 3ad personally re+ie2ed8 amended8 and corrected t3e Statement of 9or: for t3e id8 and 3ad also een responsi le for t3e nominations of t2o selection oard mem ers for t3e contract. After resi5nin58 t3e former mana5er appeared efore t3e -AA on e3alf of t3e idder8 3is t3en'employer8 at meetin5s pertainin5 to t3e procurement. (3e former mana5er pled 5uilty to a sin5le count of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 204$a.$2.8 and 2as sentenced to one year of pro ation and 2as fined D/000. (3is statute ars former -ederal personnel from representin5 a party to -ederal a5encies8 for a period of t2o years after lea+in5 Go+ernment8 re5ardin5 particular matters in+ol+in5 specific parties 23ic3 2ere pendin5 under t3e employee;s official responsi ility durin5 t3e employee;s last year of -ederal ser+ice. Senior Member of the Board of Governors of the &edera# Reserve System 6io#ates 1H -(S(C( 2=Q -ollo2in5 3er resi5nation8 t3e former #oard of Go+ernors mem er 2as elected to t3e oards of directors of a num er of companies. One of t3ese companies 2as affected y a 5uideline issued y t3e -ederal *eser+e called t3e 3i53ly le+era5ed transaction $EK(. 5uideline. (3e -ed re>uested pu lic comment on t3e EK( 5uideline. (3e company in >uestion su mitted a 2ritten comment to t3e -ed8 and company officials met 2it3 a mem er of t3e -edGs #oard of Go+ernors. (3e former #oard of Go+ernors mem er ot3 arran5ed and attended t3e meetin5. S3e introduced t3e company officials to t3e mem er of t3e -edGs #oard of Go+ernors8 ut said not3in5 durin5 t3e su stanti+e part of t3e meetin5. (3e company paid t3e former employee D18/00 for 3er participation in t3e meetin5. (3e former employee a5reed to pay a D/8000 ci+il fine in connection 2it3 a criminal in+esti5ation into 23et3er s3e +iolated t3e one'year ar of 1% U.S.C. 204$c.8 t3e post'employment acti+ities statute. (3is statute pro3i its former senior Go+ernment officials for one year after lea+in5 t3eir senior positions from representin5 or appearin5 137

efore employees of t3eir former a5encies on e3alf of anot3er 2it3 t3e intent to influence t3em re5ardin5 official action. &ormer "fficia# at the Department of A!ricu#ture*s &edera# Crop 'nsurance Corporation B&C'CC 'mproper#y Represents Ae+ %mp#oyer to -(S( Government A ma=or crop insurance corporation e5an t3e -CIC appeal process 2it3 respect to ad+erse -CIC decisions on certain claims $includin5 t3e case of a certain 6aine potato farmer. y sendin5 to t3e official in >uestion a notice of intent to appeal. Kater t3at year8 t3e official left t3e -CIC and =oined t3e crop insurance corporation as a consultant. After t3e -CIC re=ected t3e appeals t3at t3e company 3ad initiated8 t3e official repeatedly tried to persuade A5ency officials to reconsider t3e denial of t3e appeal in+ol+in5 t3e 6aine potato farmer. (3e former official pled 5uilty to t2o counts of +iolatin5 t3e t2o'year restriction on post'employment contacts codified at 1% U.S.C. 204$a.$2. and 2as sentenced to pro ation. (3is statute ars former employees for a period t2o years from representin5 ot3ers to -ederal a5encies re5ardin5 particular matters in+ol+in5 specific parties 23ic3 2ere pendin5 under t3e former employee;s official responsi ility durin5 3is or 3er last year of -ederal ser+ice. %mp#oyee Gets $+o /ears Probation for 'mproper Post-Government Representations A contract specialist for t3e General Ser+ices Administration $GSA. pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 conflict'of'interest la2s after 3er retirement from federal ser+ice. Durin5 t3e specialist;s fi+e years at t3e GSA8 s3e o+ersa2 a num er of soft2are'related contracts. S3e 2as in+ol+ed personally and su stantially in one lar5e contract in particular8 t3e ne5otiation of 23ic3 encompassed t3e span of se+eral years. Upon retirement from 3er position at t3e GSA8 t3e contract specialist sou53t employment 2it3 t3e company t3at 3ad recei+ed t3e lar5e contract. O+er t3e ne<t se+eral mont3s8 t3e specialist contacted GSA multiple times 2it3 t3e intent to influence GSA to e<tend t3e company;s contract as 2ell as a2ard t3e company ne2 contracts.


(3e specialist pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% USC 204$a.$1.8 23ic3 pro3i its an e<ecuti+e ranc3 employee from :no2in5ly ma:in58 2it3 t3e intent to influence8 any communication to any a5ency on e3alf of any ot3er person in connection 2it3 a particular matter in 23ic3 t3e person participated personally and su stantially as suc3 officer or employee. S3e 2as sentenced to t2o years super+ised pro ation and su stance a use treatment.

Ae!otiatin! +ith %mp#oyer 9hi#e %n!a!ed in "fficia# Matters %arns <E=== &ine (3e C3ief of Staff for t3e !resident;s Critical Infrastructure !rotection #oard $!CI!#. in t3e Office of Eomeland Security participated in ne5otiations 2it3 a company for a contract to pro+ide support functions for t3e #oard. Eo2e+er8 at t3e same time8 3e 2as spea:in5 2it3 t3e company re5ardin5 prospecti+e employment. (3e C3ief of Staff inter+ie2ed 2it3 t3e company on July 1%8 and didn;t su mit a letter of recusal until July 2". 6ean23ile8 3e recei+ed a =o offer on July 238 23ic3 3e accepted on Au5ust 1. 93en in+esti5ators e5an to loo: into t3e timeline of t3e employment offer8 t3e former C3ief of Staff 2as forced to step do2n from t3e company and pay a D/8000 fine to settle t3e matter. &ormer Admira# Convicted for 6io#atin! "ne-year Coo#in!-"ff Period A retired Admiral and current top official 2it3 a San Die5o sc3ool district pled 5uilty to a misdemeanor c3ar5e of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 2048 a conflict'of'interest la2. As a result8 a U.S. 6a5istrate sentenced 3im to ser+e one year of pro ation and fined 3im D1/8000. Despite pre+iously 3oldin5 a presti5ious Go+ernment post and recei+in5 praise from fello2 collea5ues8 t3e officer;s error in =ud5ment cost 3im dearly. In addition to t3e pro ation8 fine8 and le5al fees8 3e 3as resi5ned from t3e company t3at 3ired 3im8 and may lose 3is =o as c3ief administrati+e officer of t3e city sc3ool district8 Jno2n as t3e one'year Bcoolin5 off period8C 1% U.S.C. 204 for ids former senior officers of t3e 1<ecuti+e ranc3 from representin5 ot3er persons efore t3eir former


a5ency 2it3in one year of lea+in5 Go+ernment. In 3is plea8 t3e former officer admitted to si5nin5 a ma=or contract proposal and co+er letter on e3alf of t3e company and sent to 3is former employer8 specifically 2it3 t3e intent to influence t3e decision. On a side note8 in+esti5ators detected t3e conflict of interest =ust in time for t3e Go+ernment to eliminate t3e company;s id from consideration. (Source: 2he San 0iego &nion82ribune, <uly $2, 2 4%

Salary for 1o/ernment 7ork from Non(1o/ernment Source !" #$S$C$ % &'9(Type )iolations*
6isa Scam Aets <I3=== &ine (3e C3ief Consular Officer at a U.S. 1m assy earned 3erself a one'2ay trip to -ederal court after in+esti5ators disco+ered s3e 3ad traded tourist +isas for pricey =aunts to !aris and Kas )e5as. In+esti5ators learned t3at after ecomin5 ac>uainted 2it3 a 5roup of usiness2omen8 t3e officer 3ad accepted se+eral all'e<penses paid trips. (2o of t3ese trips 2ere to Kas )e5as8 23ere t3e officer and family mem ers stayed in e<pensi+e suites at t3e 6G6 Grand and Caesar;s !alace. Airfare alone for t3e t2o trips 2as +alued at D/8000. (3e officer also accepted an all'e<penses paid trip to !aris to attend a c3arita le e+ent8 includin5 first'class airfare +alued at D28"00. Su se>uently8 t2o of t3e usiness2omen su mitted tourist +isas to t3e officer on e3alf of +arious forei5n indi+iduals. (3e officer appro+ed 23 +isas8 all for indi+iduals 23o 2ere ineli5i le under standard 1m assy policy. (3e officer pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 207$a.8 supplementation of salary. S3e 2as sentenced to one year of pro ation and a D38000 fine. ,o terrorist lin:s 2ere associated 2it3 t3e indi+iduals 23o o tained tourist +isas in t3is manner. Char!in! Customers for &edera##y &unded 9or ? Crimina#5 The Facts+ An Actin5 Assistant Director for t3e San -rancisco Immi5ration and ,aturaliAation Ser+ice $I,S. office c3ar5ed one alien D7/0 for a file re+ie2 $for 23ic3


t3e I,S does not c3ar5e.8 as:ed anot3er alien for D300 for an unneeded I,S pardon8 and c3ar5ed a t3ird D2/0 to 5et a citiAen application 2ai+er t3at 3ad already een appro+ed. (3e Director 2as sentenced to ser+e si< mont3s in a 3alf2ay 3ouse8 to e follo2ed y si< mont3s of 3ome detention and four years of pro ation8 durin5 23ic3 time 3e 2ould e pro3i ited from actin5 in any capacity on immi5ration matters 2it3out permission of 3is pro ation officer. $SourceM Federal Ethics Report8 -e . 2003.. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 207 $2003. ma:es it criminal for an employee of t3e -ederal e<ecuti+e ranc3 or of an independent a5ency of t3e United States from recei+in5 any compensation for official ser+ices. -or +iolations of t3is la28 1% U.S.C. N 210 $2003. aut3oriAes fines and prison terms for up to one yearFunless t3e conduct is 2illful8 in 23ic3 case imprisonment could e for as muc3 as / years. Aavy %mp#oyee Commits Section 2=L 6io#ation A U.S. District Court recently sentenced a GS'1" ,a+y employee to one year of pro ation and fined 3im D/000 for recei+in5 an ille5al contri ution to 3is salary in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 207. In addition to criminal penalties8 t3e employee 2as suspended 2it3out pay for t2enty days. (3e employee 2as t3e director of a unit t3at mar:eted contracts to ot3er acti+ities and t3en issued deli+ery orders to t3e contractors. 93ile performin5 t3ese duties8 t3e employee as:ed a contractor for8 and su se>uently recei+ed8 a Coac3 leat3er 2ritin5 portfolio and riefcase and a laptop computer. (3e in+esti5ation started 23en a contractor employee8 23o sa2 t3e fa< t3at t3e employee 3ad sent to t3e contractor re>uestin5 t3e items8 notified t3e ,a+al Criminal In+esti5ati+e Ser+ice. 1mployees may not solicit or accept compensation8 includin5 5oods or ser+ices8 from any non'Go+ernment source for performin5 t3eir Go+ernment duties. 1+en t3ou53 t3e 5oods or ser+ices may not 3a+e affected 3o2 t3e employees perform t3eir 2or: or ma:e decisions8 suc3 as 23et3er to a2ard a contract8 it is a +iolation to solicit or accept suc3 compensation. Senior "fficia# Pays <2:3L== Sett#ement to Department of 4ustice (o settle c3ar5es t3at 3e +iolated 1% U.S.C. 207 y acceptin5 fees for speec3es made as part of 3is official duties8 a senior official of t3e ,ational Science -oundation


a5reed to pay D2"8700 to t3e Department of Justice in return for droppin5 criminal c3ar5es. (3e senior official 3ad deli+ered four speec3es to uni+ersities as part of 3is official duties8 yet accepted 3onoraria amountin5 to D/8/00 for t3ose speec3es. Since t3ose speec3es 2ere part of t3e official;s duties8 acceptance of compensation constituted supplementation of 3is salary from non'-ederal sources8 23ic3 is pro3i ited y 1% U.S.C. 207. -ederal employees may accept 3onoraria for acti+ities conducted in t3eir personal capacities8 ut not as part of t3eir official duties. -urt3ermore8 alt3ou53 3onoraria are permitted 23en spea:in5 in t3e employeeGs personal capacity8 employees may not accept compensation for spea:in58 teac3in58 or 2ritin5 on matters t3at are directly related to t3eir official duties. District of Co#umbia %mp#oyee P#eads Gui#ty to Section 2=L 6io#ation Se+eral inspectors employed y t3e District of Colum ia Department of Consumer and *e5ulatory Affairs 2ere acceptin5 ri es and 5ratuities in e<c3an5e for t3e issuance of construction8 plum in58 and electrical permits. In one instance8 a pri+ate arc3itect paid HtipsH to one of t3ese inspectors in e<c3an5e for speedy and fa+ora le inspections on 3is reno+ation pro=ects. (3e arc3itect 2as allo2ed to plead 5uilty to a misdemeanor count of section 2078 and 2as sentenced to one year of pro ation and a D18000 fine. (3e inspectors 2ere con+icted on c3ar5es of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 201 $ ri ery.. 1% U.S.C. 207 ars t3e unla2ful supplementation of salary and applies to officers and employees of t3e District of Colum ia and non'Go+ernment sources 23o compensate any suc3 officers and employees for t3eir Go+ernment ser+ices. District of Co#umbia DM6 %mp#oyee P#eads Gui#ty to Section 2=L Char!e An employee of t3e District of Colum ia Department of 6otor )e3icles $D6). 2as cau53t acceptin5 ri es in e<c3an5e for alterin5 D6) computer records in order to Hclean upH t3e dri+in5 records of indi+iduals 23o 3ad outstandin5 traffic tic:ets or past +iolations t3at mi53t pre+ent t3em from o tainin5 a dri+erGs license. (3ese ri e transactions 2ere arran5ed t3rou53 a middleman. (3e D6) employee and t3e middleman 2ere con+icted of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 207I t3e D6) employee 2as


sentenced to t2o years pro ation and a D200 fine8 and t3e middleman 2as sentenced to one'year pro ation and a D2/0 fine. (2o citiAens 23o paid t3e parties to 5et t3eir records Bcleaned upC 2ere con+icted of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 201 $ ri ery.. 1% U.S.C. 207 ars t3e unla2ful supplementation of salary and applies to -ederal officers and employees as 2ell as t3ose of t3e District of Colum ia and non'Go+ernment sources 23o compensate any suc3 officers and employees for t3eir Go+ernment ser+ices.

Private CitiJen Attempts to Bribe 'nterna# Revenue Service B'RSC %mp#oyee (3e citiAen tried to ri e t3e I*S employee y payin5 3im D2/0 for fa+ora le treatment re5ardin5 an I*S matter. (3e citiAen pled 5uilty to a misdemeanor +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 2078 23ic3 pro3i its t3e payment of supplementation to a Go+ernment employeeGs salary. Civi#ian %mp#oyee at ,an!#ey Air &orce Base in 6ir!inia 6io#ates 1H -(S(C( 2=L An Air -orce employee 2as desi5nated y 3is A5ency as t3e super+isory construction representati+e for t3e Simplified Ac>uisition of #ase 1n5ineerin5 *e>uirements $SA#1*. contract. Under t3is contract8 a pri+ate company a5reed to pro+ide ase en5ineerin5 and construction ser+ices at Kan5ley Air -orce #ase. (3e prime contractor su contracted its electrical 2or: to anot3er company. A super+isor 2it3 t3e su contractor su se>uently pro+ided t3e Air -orce employee 2it3 an air conditionin5 system8 a Jet S:i and trailer8 a 3ome computer system8 and a laptop computer8 2it3 a total +alue of appro<imately D108/00. (3e Air -orce employee pled 5uilty to a misdemeanor +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 2078 for recei+in5 a supplementation to 3is salary as compensation for 3is ser+ices as a Go+ernment employee. Ee 2as sentenced to t3ree years pro ation and a D2/00 fine. Centra# 'nte##i!ence A!ency BC'AC %mp#oyee Drives "verseas Auto Scheme As a U.S. -ederal employee residin5 in 15ypt8 t3e employee disco+ered t3at 3e could purc3ase an imported +e3icle in 15ypt 2it3out 3a+in5 to pay t3e normal 1/0V e<cise ta<. (3is fact 3ad created a lac: mar:et in 23ic3 15yptian car ro:ers 2ould pay


U.S. employees to re5ister lu<ury cars in t3eir names in order to allo2 t3e dealers to e+ade import ta<es. In+esti5ators found t3at 23ile in Cairo8 15ypt8 t3e employee 3ad a5reed to accept D2/8000 in e<c3an5e for c3an5in5 t3e status of 3is personally'o2ned +e3icle 2it3 t3e 15yptian 6inistry of -orei5n Affairs8 23ic3 2ould allo2 3im to participate in t3e sc3eme. (3e CIA employee 2as con+icted of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 207 and 2as sentenced to si< mont3sG super+ised release8 si< mont3sG 3ome detention8 and 200 3ours of community ser+ice. $Source: >7E $11= ;onflict of 'nterest Prosecution Sur5ey% &ami#y Business 6enture %nds in 6io#ation of 1H -(S(C( 2=L A contractin5 officer at t3e ,a+al Surface 9arfare Center started a computer e>uipment usiness 2it3 3is fat3er'in'la2 to pro+ide e<tra income. (3e duo concocted a sc3eme 23ere y t3e contractin5 officer steered Go+ernment contracts for t3e purc3ase of computer e>uipment to t3e fat3er'in'la28 23o 2ould uy t3e e>uipment from a t3ird party +endor t3rou53 a computer supply ma5aAine. (3e t2o 2ould t3en o+erc3ar5e t3e Go+ernment and split t3e profit. (3is netted a payment of D278000 for D118000 2ort3 of computer e>uipment. #ot3 parties split t3e D1%8000 o+erc3ar5e. (3e fat3er'in'la2 pled 5uilty to a misdemeanor +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 2078 23ic3 pro3i its t3e supplementation of a Go+ernment employeeGs salary8 and t3e contractin5 officer pled 5uilty to 2ire fraud and mail fraud. In t3eir pre'indictment plea a5reements8 t3e fat3er'in'la2 a5reed to pay D1%8000 restitution8 and t3e contractin5 officer a5reed to pay an amount of restitution to e determined at t3e sentencin5 3earin5. Cab Company "+ner and D(C( "fficia# Conspire to 6io#ate 1H -(S(C( 2=L Suspicious in+esti5ators disco+ered t3at for t3ree years8 a ca company o2ner 3ad conspired 2it3 t3e C3ief of t3e D.C. Office of (a<ica s to pro+ide ille5al ta<ica dri+er;s licenses to un>ualified dri+ers. (3e dri+ers paid money to t3e company o2ner8 23o too: t3e money and t3e dri+ersG names to t3e D.C. officialI t3e D.C. official t3en prepared t3e ille5al licenses. (3e company o2ner also paid t3e D.C. official money for ot3er ille5al fa+ors8 suc3 as re5isterin5 +e3icles t3at s3ould not 3a+e een re5istered. (3e D.C. official pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 2078 23ic3 pro3i its t3e supplementation of a Go+ernment employee;s salary8 and a5reed to testify a5ainst t3e ca


company o2ner. (3e D.C. official 2as also con+icted of nine felony counts8 includin5 acceptin5 ri es and 5ratuities in +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 201. Air &orce Contractin! "fficer Pays <;=== for 1H -(S(C( 2=L 6io#ation In return for fa+ora le treatment in contractin58 employees of a pri+ate company a5reed to pro+ide an Air -orce contractin5 officer 2it3 money in t3e form of condominium rental payments. (3at money 2as paid t3rou53 different intermediaries in order to dis5uise t3e purpose and t3e source of t3e funds. In addition8 an in+esti5ation disclosed t3at t3e company purc3ased certain +alua le 5oods and items for t3e condominium. -inally8 t3e in+esti5ation disclosed t3at t3e company purc3ased smaller +alue items8 suc3 as dinners and as:et all tic:ets8 for t3e Air -orce contractin5 officer. Due to statute of limitations pro lems8 t3e in+esti5ation focused on t3e payment of t3e smaller +alue items. (3e contractin5 officer pled 5uilty to a sin5le misdemeanor count of 1% U.S.C. 2078 unla2fully au5mentin5 3is salary 23ile employed y t3e Air -orce. Ee 2as ordered to pay a fine of D080008 23ic3 t3e Court calculated to e t3ree times t3e +alue of t3ose accepted items. Payoff for Specia# Access at Government Auction %nds in <1=== &ine In an attempt to 5ain preferential treatment at a Go+ernment auction8 t2o rot3ers paid off an auction 5uard. Instead8 t3ey 2ound up purc3asin5 misdemeanor +iolations of 1% U.S.C. 207 $supplementation of a Go+ernment employeeGs salary.. Sentences of pro ation and a D18000 fine 2ere imposed on eac3. Assistant -nited States Attorney BA-SAC in $ucson '##e!a##y Possesses Sheep S u## and )orns (3e Assistant U.S. Attorney $AUSA. prosecuted an indi+idual for ille5ally :illin5 a i53orn s3eep on an Indian *eser+ation. As a result of t3e prosecution8 t3e 3unter forfeited t3e i53orn s3eep and trop3y $s:ull and 3orns.8 +alued at appro<imately D/80008 to t3e AriAona Game and -is3 Department. !ursuant to a re>uest from t3e AUSA8 t3e AriAona Game and -is3 Department entered into an a5reement 2it3 t3e AUSA allo2in5


3im to pu licly display t3e s:ull and 3orns in 3is office8 ut re>uirin5 t3eir return upon re>uest. Eo2e+er8 after lea+in5 employment 2it3 t3e U.S. Attorney;s office8 t3e AUSA too: t3e s:ull and 3orns 2it3 3im and treated t3em as 3is personal property. 93en t3e former AUSA 2as >uestioned a year later a out 3is possession of t3e s:ull and 3orns8 3e claimed t3at an unspecified Indian 3ad sent t3e s:ull and 3orns to 3im in appreciation for 3is 2or: on t3e prosecution of t3e 3unter. In+esti5ation s3o2ed t3at suc3 a 5ift 2ould 3a+e een contrary to tri al practices and no mem er of t3e tri e could e found 23o :ne2 anyt3in5 a out t3e alle5ed 5ift. (3e Go+ernment t3en re5ained possession of t3e s:ull and 3orns from t3e former AUSA and returned t3em to t3e tri e. (3e AUSA a5reed to plead 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 207 for 3is possession of t3e trop3y. Secretary at &edera# Prison P#eads Gui#ty to 1H -(S(C( 2=L 6io#ation In+esti5ators disco+ered t3at t3e secretary at a -ederal prison 3ad accepted money from an inmate in e<c3an5e for allo2in5 3im certain pri+ile5es8 includin5 allo2in5 3im to place unaut3oriAed calls on 3er office p3one. (3e defendant pled 5uilty to t3e c3ar5e of recei+in5 compensation from a non'Go+ernment source for doin5 3er Go+ernment =o $1% U.S.C. 207$a.. and 2as sentenced to t2o years pro ation. Posta# Service %mp#oyee Convicted of 1H -(S(C( 2=L 6io#ation In+esti5ators disco+ered t3at an assistance counselor 2it3 t3e !ostal Ser+ice 2as ta:in5 :ic: ac:s from a near y 3ospital. (3e counselor pro+ided assessment8 referral8 and follo2'up counselin5 ser+ices to !ostal Ser+ice employees and t3eir families relatin5 to c3emical dependency or e3a+ioral pro lems. 93ile performin5 t3ese duties8 t3e counselor recei+ed cas38 a telep3one credit card8 limousine ser+ices8 food8 3otel accommodations8 and tra+el reim ursement for 3imself8 3is 2ife and 3is rot3er from a (ope:a8 Jansas 3ospital. (3ese enefits 3ad an a55re5ate +alue of in e<cess of D"/8000. (3e 3ospital 2as a psyc3iatric care and dru5'alco3ol dependency treatment facility. (3e counselor 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 fifteen counts of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 2078 for acceptin5 dual compensation8 and pled 5uilty.


GSA %mp#oyee Convicted of 6io#atin! 1H -(S(C( 2=L As t3e Comptroller of t3e General Ser+ices Administration $GSA.8 t3e employee in >uestion 2as responsi le for implementin5 and o+erseein5 GSAGs contract 2it3 Diners Clu for Go+ernment c3ar5e cards. Durin5 t3e life of t3e contract8 t3e employee accepted numerous e<pensi+e meals from Diners Clu employees in 9as3in5ton8 D.C.8 as 2ell as accommodations8 meals8 and entertainment in Kas )e5as and !3oeni<. (3e employee pled 5uilty to one count of conspiracy $1% U.S.C. 341. and one count of recei+in5 dual compensation $1% U.S.C. 207.8 ot3 misdemeanors. Ee 2as sentenced to one year of super+ised pro ation and a D2/0 fine. CitiJen P#eads Gui#ty to 6io#atin! 1H -(S(C( 2=L A pri+ate electrical contractor 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 supplementin5 t3e salary of a !u lic Affairs Officer 23o 2as a representati+e for small and disad+anta5ed usinesses for t3e Army Corps of 1n5ineers. (3e contractor 2as in+ol+ed in t3e payment of money to t3e officer in return for t3e officer;s assistance in facilitatin5 t3e sale and de+elopment of land for off'post 3ousin5 around -ort Drum8 ,e2 Qor:. (3e contractor pled 5uilty to +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. 2078 supplementin5 t3e salary of a -ederal employee8 and 2as sentenced to one year of pro ation. Pub#ic 9or s %mp#oyee .Gets the Boot1 for Acceptin! Payments An employee of t3e )e3icle Immo iliAation #ranc3 at t3e D.C. Department of !u lic 9or:s 23o decided to supplement 3is salary 2it3 pri+ate funds >uic:ly found 3imself 2it3 no salary at all. (3e employee solicited and accepted D"00 in cas3 for remo+in5 a la2fully'attac3ed oot on a D.C. +e3icle. In return8 t3e employee recei+ed t3ree years pro ation8 si< mont3s 3ome detention8 100 3ours community ser+ice8 and D300 in fines for 3is +iolation of 1% U.S.C. 2078 ille5al supplementation of salary. %asy Come3 %asy Go In+esti5ators disco+ered t3at an Immi5ration and ,aturaliAation Ser+ice Ad=udication Officer 3ad ta:en ri es from an immi5ration consultant to facilitate t3e consultant;s cases. (3e officer pled 5uilty to t3ree misdemeanor counts of +iolatin5 1%


U.S.C. N 207$a.8 recei+in5 compensation from a pri+ate party for ser+ices rendered to t3e United States. Acceptin! Bribes for Priority Service %arns <1=3=== &ine A )eterans Affairs ratin5 assistant tec3nician responsi le for preppin5 claims files for ad=udication 2as found to 3a+e ta:en ri es from filers to 5reen'li53t false and inflated disa ility claims for re+ie2. Ee pled 5uilty to one felony count of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. N 207 $a.8 unla2fully acceptin5 supplementation of 5o+ernment salary8 and 2as slapped 2it3 four years pro ation8 D108000 in fines8 and 120 3ours of community ser+ice. Gifts from 6endor Resu#t in $+o /ears Probation An employee of t3e Department of t3e Interior;s Office of t3e Geolo5ical Sur+ey too: ad+anta5e of 3er 5o+ernment c3ar5e card responsi ilities and started acceptin5 5ift cards from a certain +endor in return for steerin5 3er purc3ases 3is 2ay. Eer D/00 in 5ift cards cost 3er t2o years of pro ation and 100 3ours of community ser+ice 23en s3e pled 5uilty to one count of +iolatin5 1% U.S.C. N 2078 unla2fully acceptin5 supplementation of 3er 5o+ernment salary.

Time and Attendance )iolations
A &e+ -ne>cused Absences An employee of a military ser+ice 2as not particularly careful a out 3is time reportin5. (3e employee arri+ed late8 left early8 and left t3e uildin5 for e<tended periods of undocumented time. Of 2%7 2or:days re+ie2ed durin5 an in+esti5ation8 t3e employee 2as found to 3a+e 2or:ed less t3an t3e re>uired %./ 3ours on 13/ occasions $"4V of t3e time.I all told8 t3e employee misstated 3is 2or: 3ours y o+er 100 3ours. -or 3is unscrupulous time:eepin58 t3e employee recei+ed a letter of reprimand and 2as c3ar5ed lea+e to accurately reflect 3is attendance. In a similar case8 an employee of a DoD facility 2as issued a letter of 2arnin5 and instruction after s3e arri+ed late on se+eral days ut left at t3e sc3eduled s3ift completion time 2it3out claimin5 lea+e or reportin5 3er tardiness to mana5ement. 1/0

(3e letter instructed t3e employee to si5n'in and si5n'out. ,ot2it3standin5 t3e letter8 it 2as later determined t3at t3e employee continued to fail to fulfill 3er time commitments8 lea+in5 o+er an 3our early on multiple occasions. (3e employee 2as issued a letter of reprimand for lea+in5 t3e 2or:site 2it3out permission. D6D Boot#e!!ers M'A Durin! Government 9or )ours A -ederal employee used 3is Go+ernment computer to ma:e ille5al copies of commercial D)Ds in +iolation of copyri53t la2s. Ee and anot3er employee also used t3eir Go+ernment computers and duty time to 2atc3 t3e mo+ies. (3e ot3er employee too: lunc3es lastin5 up to t3ree 3ours in order to 2atc3 t3e D)Ds and ta:e naps. Initially t3e employees; super+isors si5ned off on t3is e3a+ior8 e+en assi5nin5 e<tra 2or: to ot3ers to ma:e up for t3e employees; time 2asted nappin5 and mo+ie 2atc3in5. (3e employee 23o copied t3e D)Ds recei+ed a 2ritten reprimand. (3e super+isor recei+ed an oral admonis3ment for failin5 to address t3e misconduct8 and anot3er employee recei+ed a Ketter of Counselin5 for :no2in5ly acceptin5 a pirated D)D. In a similar case8 a ci+ilian employee 2or:in5 for t3e U.S. Army in Germany 2as in+ol+ed in sellin5 pirated D)Ds. Ee used t3e profits from 3is ille5al operation to uy +acation 3omes and lu<ury cars and to pay for fre>uent 1uropean s:i +acations. Ee de+oted some of 3is duty time to t3e mar:etin5 and sellin5 of t3e ootle5 +ideos8 includin5 ta:in5 payments 23ile on t3e =o . 1+en t3ou53 t3e employee 3ad left -ederal ser+ice y t3e time t3e accusations a5ainst 3im 2ere su stantiated8 administrati+e action 2as ta:en to ar 3im from US Army 1urope installations. "ut-of-"ffice Rep#yG "ut Sic G Can be Reached at Bo+#in! A##ey A GS'1" Director8 2it3in an Army Command8 failed to s3o2 up to 2or: for at least t3ree mont3s. Ee complained of needin5 a dou le 3ip replacement ut ne+er su mitted sic: lea+e. (3ou53 3e claimed to 2or: from 3ome8 3e 2as ne+er appro+ed for a 2or:'at'3ome pro5ram. !eople reported seein5 3im around t3e community and 3e 2as spotted at t3e !L8 t3e Commissary8 and e+en t3e o2lin5 alleyO (3e man recei+ed a


+er al reprimand and 2as counseled on appropriate lea+e re>uest and appro+al procedures. &a#sification of $ime Cards Resu#ts in Remova# An employee at t3e 9alter *eed Army 6edical Center 3ad a 3a it of s3o2in5 up for 2or: only one 2ee: a mont3. Eo2e+er8 3er super+isor soon noticed t3at t3e employee;s payc3ec: did not reflect t3is erratic sc3edule. Upon >uestionin58 t3e employee admitted to c3an5in5 t3e pay codes on 3er time card after t3ey 2ere si5ned y 3er super+isor. (3e employee 2as allo2ed to resi5n8 and is inde ted to t3e Go+ernment for D1083%3."4. (3e money 2ill e deducted from 3er retirement pay. Pre-si!nin! %mp#oyee*s $ime Card Resu#ts in Counse#in! An Air -orce Ser5eant at t3e -ield 6aintenance center pre'si5ned one of 3er su ordinate;s time cards efore s3e left for a t2o'2ee: lea+e. Unfortunately for 3er8 t3e su ordinate su se>uently c3an5ed se+eral of t3e o<es s3e 3ad ori5inally mar:ed as Blea+eC to Bre5ular fle< time8C and t3en too: lea+e 23ile still dra2in5 re5ular pay. 93en in+esti5ators disco+ered t3e discrepancy8 t3e su ordinate resi5ned. (3e trustin5 Ser5eant earned counselin5 for failin5 to comply 2it3 DoD -inancial 6ana5ement *e5ulations8 23ic3 stipulate t3at super+isors must correctly certify time cards at t3e end of t3e pay period in order to pre+ent employee fraud. ,yin! About "vertime Doesn*t Pay5 The Facts+ A former employee of t3e Department of Defense entered o+ertime 3ours 3e 3adn;t 2or:ed into a computer time':eepin5 system. Ee 2as cau53t. Ee pleaded 5uilty and 2as ordered to pay t3e Go+ernment D48/00 and 2as sentenced to t3ree years pro ation F not t3e sort of o+ertime 3e 2as loo:in5 for. $SourceM Federal Ethics Report8 Apr. 2003.. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 2%4 $2003. states t3at anyone presentin5 to any Bperson or officer in t3e ci+il8 military8 or na+al ser+ice of t3e United States8 or to any department or


a5ency t3ereofC a claim for money from t3e -ederal Go+ernment8 :no2in5 suc3 claim to e false8 s3all e fined and imprisoned for no more t3an / years. )un! By 9ire &raud The Facts+ A Defense Intelli5ence A5ency secretary in Arlin5ton8 )ir5inia8 improperly o tained access to 3er time and attendance records on 4" occasions. S3e used 3er access to credit 3erself 2it3 o+er "8000 3ours of o+ertime s3e 3adn;t 2or:ed. S3e 2as cau53t and pleaded 5uilty to 2ire fraud8 for 23ic3 s3e 2as sentenced to t2el+e mont3s and one day in prison8 to e follo2ed y t3ree years of pro ation 2it3 participation in Gam lers Anonymous. S3e also 3ad to pay t3e Go+ernment D7183%0 in restitution. Eopefully8 s3e learned from t3is ad et. $SourceM Federal Ethics Report8 Apr. 2003.. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 13"3 $2003. mandates penalties for transmittin5 B y means of 2ire8 radio8 or tele+ision communication in interstate or forei5n commerce8 any 2ritin5s8 si5ns8 si5nals8 pictures8 or soundsC in order to e<ecute a plan to defraud. (3e penaltiesM -ines8 imprisonment of not more t3an 20 years8 or ot3 F unless t3e fraud affects a financial institution8 in 23ic3 case t3e fine is to e of not more t3an D1 million and t3e imprisonment of not more t3an 30 years. &a#sifyin! "vertime Can Be a Cost#y Business The Facts+ A -ederal employee at t3e !enta5on decided to participate in a sc3eme t3at in+ol+ed lo55in5 false o+ertime 3ours in an electronic time:eepin5 system. (3e employee pled 5uilty at trial and 2as sentenced to t3ree years of pro ation alon5 2it3 si< mont3s of 3ome confinement8 and ordered to pay o+er D108000 restitution. $SourceM Federal Ethics Report8 6arc3 2003.. The ,a-+ 1% U.S.C. N 2%4 $2003. mandates fines and imprisonment for up to / years for anyone 23o presents a claim for money8 23ic3 t3e person :no2s to e fraudulent8 to t3e Bci+il8 military8 or na+al ser+ice of t3e United States.C


'mproper $ime Sheets Alle5ations 2ere made t3at a Department of Defense $DoD. employee 2as not 2or:in5 3is assi5ned 3ours and 2as fraudulently claimin5 o+ertime 3ours 3e did not 2or:. After an in+esti5ation8 it 2as determined t3at t3e employee 2as attendin5 colle5e courses at lunc3 for appro<imately t2o 3ours and 2or:ed late to ma:e up t3e time. Eis time and attendance s3eets s3o2ed 3im 2or:in5 3is normal 3ours 2it3 no indication of t3e lon5 lunc3 and late 3ours to accommodate 3is colle5e courses. (3e s3eets 2ere su mitted 2it3out s3o2in5 t3e modified sc3edule ecause a cler: incorrectly told t3e employee;s super+isor t3at Bt3e system 2ouldn;t allo2 +ariations from a normal 2or:day.C (3e employee8 t3e super+isor8 and t3e cler: 2ere all instructed on proper time:eepin5 procedures. 'AS Grants Administrative ,eave as A+ard for Contributions to C&C Officials in an Immi5ration and ,aturaliAation Ser+ice $I,S. district office re2arded employees 23o contri uted at least D/00 to t3e Com ined -ederal Campai5n $C-C. 2it3 ei53t 3ours of administrati+e lea+e. After an in+esti5ation8 it 2as found t3at t3e employees 23o 2ere 5ranted and used t3e lea+e did not 3a+e t3e lea+e properly documented on t3eir time s3eets. As t3e district director did not carry out t3e +iolations in a :no2in5 and 2illful 2ay and ecause t3e employees affected stated t3ey did not feel coerced8 no c3ar5es 2ere filed. (3e director did recei+e a letter of counselin5 re5ardin5 3er mana5ement of t3e C-C pro5ram8 3o2e+er. 6A Physician $ime and Attendance 'ssue An administrati+e in+esti5ation su stantiated t3at a part'time Department of )eterans Affairs $)A. p3ysician routinely 2or:ed at a non')A clinic durin5 3is )A core 3ours and as a result failed to meet 3is )A tour of duty o li5ation. (3e in+esti5ation also re+ealed t3at t3e p3ysician;s super+isor failed to c3ec: on 3im to ensure t3at 3e 2as 2or:in5 t3e 3ours re>uired. In response to t3e in+esti5ator;s recommendation8 administrati+e action 2as ta:en a5ainst ot3 t3e p3ysician and t3e super+isor.


(3e p3ysician 2as c3ar5ed lea+e for t3e 3ours not 2or:ed and 2as instructed to re+ise 3is 3ours at t3e non')A clinic. %mp#oyees $erminated for Abusin! Re#i!ious ,eave -or a period of se+eral years8 t2o top e<ecuti+es at t3e ,a+al Undersea 9arfare Center 3ad an astonis3in5 2or: recordFt3ey too: nearly no +acation time at all. (3e reason8 in+esti5ators soon disco+ered8 2as t3at t3e e<ecuti+es 3ad een ta:in5 Breli5ious compensatory timeC instead. Curiously8 t3e e<ecuti+es; a sences seldom fell on any traditionally'o ser+ed reli5ious 3olidays. Instead8 in+esti5ators found t3at t3e pair;s so' called reli5ious o ser+ances too: place on days 23en t3ey 3ad medical appointments8 si53tseein5 trips8 and 5olf tournaments. As:ed 23et3er 5olf tournaments could e considered reli5ious o ser+ances8 one e<ecuti+e replied8 B(3ey could e for some people.C Unamused8 t3e Inspector General found t3at t3e t2o 3ad made a Bpremeditated8 conspiratorial effort to defraud t3e Go+ernment8C and forced t3em into retirement. *eli5ious compensatory time is a+aila le for 5o+ernment employees 23o need to o ser+e reli5ious re>uirements ? ut e+en t3en8 it needs to e made up at a later time. (Source: +++67o5E@ec6com, <uly $, 2 ?%

-se of Sic ,eave for Mi#itary $ours %arns %mp#oyee Dismissa# A reser+ist;s use of sic: lea+e to account for a sences on acti+e'duty military tours resulted in t3e end of a 20'year federal career. O+er a period of se+eral years8 t3e reser+ist accounted for a sences from 3is ci+ilian position at C1,(CO6 as Bsic: lea+e8C 23en in fact 3e 2as on acti+e'duty military tours. (3is allo2ed t3e employee to an: annual lea+e8 as 2ell as collect dual salaries from ot3 t3e ci+il ser+ice and t3e military. Gi+en t3e reser+ist;s t2o decades of federal employment8 t3e =ud5e found t3e reser+ist;s pleas of i5norance as to t3e proper lea+e procedures uncon+incin5. (3e =ud5e also too: into consideration t3e testimony of t3e reser+ist;s commandin5 officer at C1,(CO68 23o testified t3at 3is trust in t3e reser+ist 3ad een 23olly eroded. As a conse>uence of t3e reser+ist;s a use of t3e lea+e system8 3is career in t3e ci+il ser+ice 2as terminated. (Source: 2 - (SRP 9E:'S ! ?$%


%mp#oyee Discip#ined for Doub#e Countin! Civi#ian and Mi#itary Reserve Duties A senior a5ency attorney did a little Bdou le duty8C and as a Bre2ard8C 3e 2as ordered to reim urse t3e a5ency for /00./ 3ours of annual lea+e and 1% 3ours of sic: lea+e. (3e a5ency report found t3e la2yer spent t3e e>ui+alent of a out %3 days performin5 3is 6ilitary *eser+e duties. 93ile 3is dual ser+ice is admira le8 y not c3ar5in5 military or annual lea+e for some a sences8 t3e officer;s ci+ilian lea+e alance e<ceeded t3at to 23ic3 3e 2as entitled. Section 203/.40/ of (itle / of t3e Code of -ederal *e5ulations states an employee s3all use official time in an 3onest effort to perform official duties. 93ile 3is ci+ilian lea+e alance 2as not reduced 23ile t3e attorney 2as performin5 3is official military duties8 3e recei+ed credit as if 3e 2as performin5 3is ci+ilian duties at t3e same time. -urt3er8 t3e a5ency found t3e attorney 3ad misused 3is su ordinates; time8 usin5 t3em to sc3edule personal acti+ities suc3 as 3aircuts8 tra+el8 and 5olf. Alt3ou53 t3e final determination found no dis3onesty8 lac: of inte5rity8 or moti+e for personal 5ain on t3e attorney;s part8 neit3er t3e a5ency nor t3e 6ilitary *eser+e found t3e attorney;s actions accepta le. (3e attorney 2as admonis3ed for failure to e<ercise reasona le care in monitorin5 3is lea+e alances8 and also counseled for misusin5 su ordinates to perform personal tas:s. In addition8 t3e 6ilitary *eser+e #ranc3 counseled 3im Bse+erelyC for 3is ne5li5ence in monitorin5 3is lea+e account and for improper staff use. 9or:in5 for t2o military ranc3es is le5al8 ut it re>uires careful accountin5 for your time8 includin5 lea+e. (Source: (ilitary Ser5ice 'nspector 7eneral% Director Abused ,eave and Personne#3 Get*s Demoted and ,oses 4ob (3e Director of a military staff office cau53t t3e eye of t3e Inspector General y a usin5 time8 attendance8 and official tra+el re5ulations8 and y displayin5 a usi+e personal e3a+ior to2ards 3er staff. (3e Director failed to use proper lea+e or to document aut3oriAed a sences in+ol+in5 se+eral trips. S3e also discoura5ed attempts y 3er su ordinates to +erify 3er


23erea outs8 often usin5 profane lan5ua5e and t3reatenin5 +er al out ursts. In addition8 t3e Inspector General disco+ered t3e Director 3ad co+ered t3e documents t3at detailed 3er use of lea+e 2it3 cross outs8 c3an5es and ot3er in: annotations8 ma:in5 t3em +irtually incompre3ensi le. As a result8 t3e ser+ice secretary too: action t3at resulted in 3er ein5 remo+ed from t3e Senior 1<ecuti+e Ser+ices and demoted in 5rade to GS'1/. As part of a ne5otiated settlement8 t3e Director a5reed to retire from -ederal ser+ice as soon as s3e 2as eli5i le. (Source: (ilitary Ser5ice 'nspector 7eneral%

Tra/el )iolations
A Private 4et@ Don*t Mind if ' Do 7 An O'7 2it3 o+er 3/ years of ser+ice in t3e U.S. military 2as sc3eduled for a command +isit to a ase. Eis ori5inal C'12 fli53t 2as delayed8 so 3is staff spontaneously arran5ed a su stitute fli53t for 3imM a C'/ t3at 3ad een pre+iously unsc3eduled to fly. Despite 3is many years of e<perience and 3is stated commitment to confrontin5 tra+el a use issues 2it3in 3is command8 3e and t3ree mem ers of 3is staff oarded a near' empty =et to ma:e t3e command +isit on time. (3e 5o+ernment incurred D3%8000 in additional costs for t3e special fli53t. (3e officer 2as counseled y 3is command a out t3e +iolation. &asten /our Seatbe#ts( 9e*re in for a Career-%ndin! Ride A Ser+ice Colonel 2as found 5uilty of larceny and su mittin5 false statements after 3e used 5o+ernment funds to purc3ase round trip airline tic:ets from Ju2ait to t3e States to attend 3is son;s 5raduation. (3e Colonel also su mitted a false tra+el aut3oriAation listin5 a fictitious reason for t3e tra+el. (3e Colonel +oluntarily repaid t3e funds and retired early.


&a#se $rave# %>penses A ser+ice mem er filed a tra+el +ouc3er for falsely claimed e<penses for dri+in5 from )ir5inia to California to relocate for a ne2 assi5nment8 and s3e recei+ed pay for 10 days of per diem. (3e in>uiry found t3at t3e ser+ice mem er recei+ed a ride to Illinois from a friend and t3en fle2 to California. S3e 2as made to repay t3e difference in reim ursements and recei+ed a letter of reprimand. German )o#iday (2o employees of a DoD A5ency o tained o+erpayment for official tra+el to Germany. (3e t2o employees ' 23om 2e 2ill call y t3e pseudonyms Jo3n and Sara3 ' claimed 3otel lod5in5 reim ursement for a ni53t in 23ic3 t3ey 2ere on a plane flyin5 to Germany. In addition8 t3e t2o too: a Brest dayC efore t3e conference on 23ic3 no mission duties 2ere performed and no lea+e 2as ta:en. $(3ey indicated t3at t3is 2as in order to o+ercome =et la5 efore t3e conference... (3eir misconduct continued after t3e conference. (3e t2o remained in Germany for a day in order to tour +arious tourist sites in Germany on t3e Go+ernment;s dime8 tra+elin5 appro<imately /00 miles in a Go+ernment rental car and re>uestin5 reim ursement for t3e fuel costs associated 2it3 t3eir personal acti+ity8 as 2ell as lod5in5 and per diem e<penses. Sara3 later outdid Jo3n y claimin5 3otel costs for t3e ni53t after s3e returned to t3e US and durin5 23ic3 s3e 2as in 3er o2n 3ome. Jo3n and Sara3 3ad o+er D0/0 and o+er D1100 respecti+ely 2it33eld from t3eir pay. (3e t2o 2ere also re>uired to recei+e refres3er trainin5 on t3e use of t3e Defense (ra+el System. Jo3n8 t3e appro+in5 official for t3e tra+el +ouc3ers for Sara3;s trip8 2as also found to 3a+e failed to e<ercise due dili5ence as a Certifyin5 Official. In t3e ac:5round of t3e case 2as a romantic relations3ip et2een Jo3n and Sara3. (3ou53 t3e t2o denied 3a+in5 a romantic relations3ip durin5 t3eir trip8 t3ey admitted to e5innin5 a relations3ip % mont3s later ? and t3at continued. As a result of t3e on5oin5 relations3ip8 Jo3n 2as re>uired to recuse 3imself from all actions in+ol+in5 Sara38 includin5 si5nin5 as t3e appro+in5 official for any actions t3at could e to t3e enefit or detriment of Sara3.


Abuse of "fficia# $rave# and ,eave Garners "ne /ear Probation (3e former Deputy Under'Secretary in t3e Department of 1ducation 2ound up in -ederal court after in+esti5ators unco+ered discrepancies re5ardin5 3is tra+el8 lea+e8 and financial disclosure. In+esti5ators disco+ered t3at t3e official8 23o 2as also employed as a tra+elin5 =ud5e in t3e State of (e<as8 3ad made at least fourteen trips on Go+ernment e<pense 23en t3e purpose of 3is tra+el 2as at least partly to accrue time to2ard a (e<as state pension. On se+eral of t3ese trips8 t3e official 3ad additionally re>uested and recei+ed -ederal sic: lea+eI furt3er8 3e 3ad collected reim ursement from t3e Go+ernment for some of 3is personal e<penses. -inally8 t3e official 3ad failed to report 3is salary from t3e State of (e<as on 3is Go+ernment financial disclosure form. (3e official pled 5uilty to t3e conflict of interest statute. Ee 2as sentenced to one year of pro ation8 100 3ours of community ser+ice8 and a D/8000 fine. Ee additionally reim ursed t3e Go+ernment D%80/7.%/ for 3is fraudulent claims. Mi#itary "fficer Dances 9hi#e the Pub#ic Pays The Facts+ Accordin5 to a military ser+ice Inspector General in>uiry8 a senior military officer planned to attend t2o alls ta:in5 place 2it3in rou53ly an 3our;s dri+e of 3is station. -or t3ese8 3e o tained official orders and8 accordin5 to 3is tra+el claims8 recei+ed payment for 3otel lod5in58 meals8 and incidental e<penses $per diem. F amountin5 all told to around D/00. (3is conduct occurred as one of a series of offenses t3at resulted in t3e officer ein5 relie+ed of command8 issued a puniti+e letter of reprimand8 and ordered to forfeit D18000. The ,a-+ (3e Department of Defense $DoD. (ra+el *e5ulations pro+ide +arious 5uidelines for tra+el of uniformed $in )olume 1. and ci+ilian $in )olume 2. DoD employees. Applica le to t3is case 2as )olume 1M BJoint -ederal (ra+el *e5ulationsC $J-(*.. J-(* section U2010 re>uires a uniformed ser+ice mem er to use t3e same care in incurrin5 e<penses 23en t3e -ederal Go+ernment is to pay Bas 2ould a prudent person tra+elin5 at personal e<pense . . . . 1<cess costs8 circuitous routes8 delays or lu<ury accommodations t3at are unnecessary or un=ustified are t3e mem er;s financial responsi ility.C 6oreo+er8 J-(* section U"102 for ids a uniformed ser+ice mem er


from o tainin5 per diem for any temporary duty $(DQ. performed 2it3in t2el+e 3ours. Since attendance at eac3 all alon5 2it3 round'trip tra+el could 3a+e een completed 2it3in t2el+e 3ours 3ad t3e officer e<ercised prudence8 t3is re5ulation made it e+en clearer t3at t3e officer s3ould not 3a+e o tained 3is per diem. Since ot3er a5encies 3a+e tra+el re5ulations8 all -ederal employees are encoura5ed to +erify t3e propriety of 3a+in5 t3e Go+ernment pay for t3eir tra+el e<penses. Bumped 9e## It 2as t3e youn5 employeeGs first official trip to 9as3in5ton8 DC. It 2as =ust a one'day8 round trip. Eer meetin5 2as sc3eduled for 1M00 !6. An<ious to ma:e a 5ood impression $and to loo: around DC.8 s3e oo:ed an early'mornin5 fli53t out of Atlanta. 93en s3e 5ot to t3e airport8 s3e disco+ered t3at t3e fli53t 2as o+er oo:ed8 and t3e airline 2as offerin5 free8 round'trip tic:ets to anyone 23o 2ould +olunteer to ta:e t3e ne<t fli53t. (3at fli53t 2as to arri+e in DC at 12M20 !68 and s3e fi5ured t3at s3e 2ould still 3a+e time to ma:e 3er meetin5. As 3er plane reac3ed *ic3mond8 t3e pilot announced t3at 2ould e a sli53t delay 23ile Air -orce One too: off. Eer plane circled and circled. (3e delay lasted for o+er an 3our8 and y t3e time t3e plane finally landed8 s3e 3ad missed t3e meetin5. &B' -ndercover Parties Accordin5 to an -#I report8 upon t3e retirement of a senior -#I official8 -#I personnel from around t3e country =ourneyed to 9as3in5ton to attend t3e official;s retirement party. 6any out'of'to2n G'men tra+eled on official orders and pu lic e<pense. Accordin5 to t3eir tra+el orders8 t3e purpose of t3e trip 2as to attend an et3ics conferenceO Accordin5 to t3e ne2s report8 only fi+e people actually attended t3e et3ics forum. &B' &a#se $rave# C#aim A former super+isory special a5ent of t3e -#I 2as sentenced in U.S. District Court for falsely claimin5 tra+el e<penses to 23ic3 3e 2as not entitled. (3e former a5ent pled 5uilty to one count of t3eft of Go+ernment property. (3e former a5ent 3ad ended a


period of tra+el fi+e days earlier t3an 3is sc3edule $and later tra+el claim. stated. Ee 2as ordered to pay D18%%4 in restitution. "fficia# $rave# to Conference $urns into &#orida 6acation A Department of Defense $DoD. official 2as to tra+el to and attend a conference in -lorida 23ile on DoD tra+el orders. Eis 2ife accompanied 3im. It 2as alle5ed t3at after c3ec:in5 in at t3e 3otel 23ere t3e conference 2as to e 3eld and t3en rentin5 a con+erti le8 t3e official promptly left for a s3ort +acation 2it3 3is 2ife for all t3ree days of t3e conference. After an in+esti5ation it 2as determined t3at t3e official did not attend t3e conference8 told a su ordinate to Bco+er for 3im8C and filed a fraudulent tra+el claim 2it3 DoD for t3e t3ree days of t3e conference 3e did not attend. A proposal 2as made to 3a+e t3e official separated from -ederal ser+ice. &a#se $rave# C#aim &i#ed ' Alle5ations 2ere made a5ainst a ,a+y enlisted man re5ardin5 filin5 a false tra+el claim. After an in+esti5ation it 2as determined t3e indi+idual 3ad claimed 3is t2o c3ildren accompanied 3im durin5 3is !CS mo+e across t3e country 23en in fact t3e c3ildren 2ere in t3e custody of 3is e<'2ife. Ee 2as reduced in ran: one 5rade and ordered to forfeit D21"0.00 in pay. &a#se $rave# C#aim &i#ed '' It 2as determined after an in+esti5ation t3at a Department of Defense $DoD. official filed a false claim for tra+el e<penses. (3e official claimed 3e 2as stayin5 at a 3otel8 and as a result8 2as paid t3e appropriate per diem rate y t3e ,a+y. It 2as determined durin5 t3e course of t3e in+esti5ation t3at t3e official 3ad actually een on oard a ,a+y s3ip $a situation 23ere a muc3 reduced per diem is paid. durin5 t3e time 3e claimed 3e 2as stayin5 at t3e 3otel. (3e official reim ursed t3e ,a+y8 2as issued a letter of caution8 and 2as counseled y 3is super+isor. &a#se $rave# C#aim &i#ed '''


A former Department of Defense $DoD. employee 2as sentenced in U.S. District Court for ma:in5 false relocation claims to t3e Go+ernment. (3e former employee made o+er D1/8000 in false relocation claims in connection 2it3 a permanent c3an5e of station $!CS. mo+e. (3e =ud5e sentenced t3e former employee to t2o years pro ation and ordered 3er to pay more t3an D1/8000 in restitution. &a#se $rave# C#aim &i#ed '6 An Army employee 2as sentenced in U.S. District Court for falsifyin5 lod5in5 e<penses. S3e pled 5uilty to one count of t3eft of Go+ernment property. (3e employee 3ad tra+eled to a near y facility and incurred no lod5in5 e<penses. Eo2e+er8 s3e 3ad filed a claim for D10/ 23en s3e returned ac: to 3er duty station. (3e employee 2as sentenced to one year of pro ation and 2as ordered to pay a D38000 fine. Ironically8 t3e employee 2as t3e director of t3e Eonesty8 1t3ics8 Accounta ility8 *espect8 (rust8 and Support $E1A*(S. !ro5ram for 3er duty station at t3e time s3e committed t3e +iolation. Senior "fficer3 9ho Abused $rave# and Misused Staff3 Discip#ined A senior military officer and 3is 2ife accrued improper airfare e<penses y flyin5 in premium class on official usiness trips. On one trip8 for e<ample8 t3e officer =ustified usiness'class seats y indicatin5 3e 2as re>uired to perform official usiness immediately after 3is arri+al at 3is tra+el destination8 23en in fact 3e spent almost 3is first full day attendin5 a )I! 2elcome8 ma:in5 U.S. em assy calls8 en=oyin5 lunc3 and dinner8 and tourin5 a local +ineyard. (3e officer e<plained t3at 3e c3ose to fly usiness' class on anot3er trip ecause flyin5 coac3 2ould 3a+e loo:ed Bstran5eC to 3is 3osts. On ot3er trips8 t3e officer made unofficial8 unsc3eduled stops for family reasons8 suc3 as attendin5 3is c3ildren;s sportin5 e+ents8 2it3out ta:in5 lea+e. -ederal tra+el re5ulations limit official tra+el to coac3'class unless special circumstances8 suc3 as special security re>uirements8 medical re>uirements8 or una+aila ility of coac3'class seats8 e<ist. (3e ran: of t3e tra+eler does not =ustify premium class tra+el. (3e officer also +iolated / C.-.*. 203/.40/$ .8 23ic3 mandates a Go+ernment employee Bs3all not encoura5e8 direct8 coerce8 or re>uest a su ordinate to use official


time to perform acti+ities ot3er t3an t3ose re>uired in t3e performance of official duties or aut3oriAed in accordance 2it3 la2 or re5ulation.C Alt3ou53 ne+er issuin5 any direct orders8 t3e officer re>uested 3is su ordinates to perform many personal ser+ices suc3 as carin5 for 3is do58 s3oppin5 for at3letic 5ear8 and repairin5 3is icycle. Su ordinates reported t3ey 3ad 5i+en tours around t3e local area to t3e officer;s friends and relati+es and rescued t3e officer;s 2ife on t3e roadside one Sunday. (3e officer;s ot3er +iolations included as:in5 3is su ordinates to ma:e t3ousands of dollars in payments out of t3eir personal funds for +arious purc3ases for 3im. 1+en t3ou53 3e reim ursed t3em later8 it is improper to solicit loans from su ordinates. (3e officer recei+ed a !uniti+e Ketter of *eprimand at non'=udicial punis3ment proceedin5s. Ee +oluntarily reim ursed t3e Go+ernment D1"8"01.03 for tra+el enefits 3e and 3is 2ife recei+ed and c3ar5ed 1/ days to lea+e to account for days of (AD tra+el t3at 2ere for personal usiness. -urt3er audit of 3is tra+el claims resulted in collectin5 anot3er D18314. In addition8 3e 2as reduced in 5rade upon retirement from acti+e duty. (Source: (ilitary Ser5ice 'nspector 7eneral% &a#se $rave# C#aim &i#ed 6 A former Department of Defense $DoD. employee 2as sentenced in U.S. District Court for su mittin5 false tra+el claims in relation to a permanent c3an5e of station $!CS. mo+e. (3e former employee 2as c3ar5ed 2it3 claimin5 o+er D228000 in false tra+el e<penses. S3e 2as also c3ar5ed 2it3 alterin5 documents to su stantiate t3e e<penses. (3e =ud5e sentenced 3er to fi+e years pro ation and ordered 3er to pay D108"/0 in restitution. Government %mp#oyee ,iab#e for Accident 'ncurred on Persona# Business A ,ASA employee on official usiness arran5ed to 3a+e 3is return date e<tended so t3at 3e could remain in t3e area for personal reasons. Durin5 3is e<tended stay8 3e retained 3is Go+ernment'leased rental +e3icle. 93ile on 3is 2ay to t3e airport to return 3ome8 t3e employee 2as in+ol+ed in a car accident 23en an el: ran into 3is +e3icle. (3e employee reim ursed t3e rental car company for more t3an D2/00 in repair costs8 and


t3en su mitted a reim ursement re>uest to ,ASA. ,ASA refused payment as t3e employee 2as not on official usiness at t3e time of t3e accident. (3e -ederal (ra+el *e5ulation mandates t3at an a5ency may pay only t3ose e<penses essential to t3e transaction of official usiness. Specifically8 employees may e reim ursed for deducti les paid to rental car companies only if t3e dama5e occurs 23ile t3e employee is performin5 official usiness. After t3e ,ASA employee;s temporary duty ended8 t3e rental car ecame ot3 3is e<pense and 3is responsi ility.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful