On Monday, the Office of the Inspector General posted the following:
Investigative Summary: Findings of Misconduct by a Senior DEA Official for Violating Ethics Regulations, DEA Standards of Conduct, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and for Lack of Candor; by a Member of the DEA Senior Executive Service for Aiding and Abetting the Senior DEA Official’s Misconduct; and by a JMD Senior IT Manager for Violating DOJ Contractor Security Policy.
At this time, no Department of Drug Enforcement’s (DEA) senior official’s name has been released. According to the DEA.gov website, ‘leadership’ is listed as Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon and Principal Deputy Administration Preston L. Grubbs.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this investigation upon the receipt of information alleging that a senior DOJ Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) official hired several former DEA employees as contractors. The complaint also alleged that the senior DEA official 1) hired his son as a contractor within his chain of command at DEA; 2) hired the spouse of a retired DEA senior official as a contractor; and 3) came to work under the influence of alcohol and that the senior DEA official’s supervisor, a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES), knew about this misconduct and failed to take action or intervene.
The OIG thus concluded that the DEA SES member engaged in misconduct when he allowed the senior DEA official, who was his subordinate, to take these actions, which aided and abetted a conflict of interest and violated federal ethics regulations, the DEA Standards of Conduct, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
The OIG also found that the senior DEA official asked a senior IT manager with the Justice Management Division (JMD) to allow his son to report to a nearby, unaffiliated JMD building under escort, in order to submit contractor invoices while waiting for contractor clearance with DEA. The OIG concluded that the senior DEA official’s actions constituted misconduct in violation of DEA security policy, the DEA Standards of Conduct, and federal ethics regulations. The OIG concluded that the senior IT manager’s actions also constituted misconduct in violation of DOJ contractor security policy.
Finally, the OIG concluded that the senior DEA official lacked candor by making false entries about alcohol counseling on a Questionnaire for National Security Position, in violation of the DEA Standards of Conduct and potentially in violation of criminal statutes.
The OIG did not substantiate the allegation that the senior DEA official was under the influence of intoxicants while on duty.
Criminal prosecution of the senior DEA official and the DEA SES member was declined.
The senior DEA official retired from his position.
The OIG completed its investigation and provided its report to DEA and JMD for appropriate action.
In view of indications from this investigation that the senior DEA official was seeking postretirement employment with various government contract companies, the OIG is also referring this matter to the DOJ Suspension and Debarment Official for action against the senior DEA official.
*** Unless otherwise noted, the OIG applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel have committed misconduct.
oig.justice.gov; June 10, 2019; pdf
Other recently posted reports at the OIG of the DOJ:
June 6, 2019
Investigative Summary: Findings of Misconduct by an FBI Unit Chief for Misusing her Position by Attempting to Ensure her Daughter Received an FBI Offer of Employment
June 6, 2019
Investigative Summary: Findings of Misconduct by a DOJ Trial Attorney for Misuse of DOJ Issued Computer and Cellular Telephone
June 5, 2019
Investigative Summary: Findings of Misconduct by a United States Marshal for Making an Inappropriate Comment about Shooting a Judge and for Lack of Candor
June 4, 2019
Audit of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys’ Victim Notification System Pursuant to the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 Fiscal Year 2018, Audit Report 19-31